The NSW Government is currently seeking feedback on proposed planning changes aimed at improving coastal management and supporting blue carbon and other ecosystem restoration projects across NSW.
The proposed changes are outlined in the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Explanation of Intended Effect: Improving coastal management and supporting blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects, published in May 2026. The Planning Portal exhibition page confirms that submissions are open until 5:00pm on 1 June 2026.
The proposed reforms are intended to:
- make it clearer and easier to obtain approvals for blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects;
- continue protecting coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests while streamlining approval pathways for lower-impact proposals; and
- update approval arrangements for coastal protection works so they are clearer and more practical.
For landowners, councils, consultants, public authorities and development project teams working in coastal areas, the proposed amendments are important. They may affect early due diligence, development feasibility, subdivision strategy, environmental assessment requirements, and the approval pathway for works in or near sensitive coastal environments.
What planning instruments are affected?
The EIE refers primarily to proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 – commonly referred to as the R&H SEPP.
However, the Department notes that this reform sits alongside the proposed Climate Change and Natural Hazards SEPP. If that broader reform is finalised, some existing coastal hazard and coastal management provisions from the R&H SEPP are expected to be transferred to either the proposed Climate Change and Natural Hazards SEPP or the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021.
In practical terms, the immediate discussion is about improving the current R&H SEPP provisions, but the broader direction is also connected to climate adaptation, natural hazard planning and biodiversity conservation.
Key proposed changes
The proposed reforms focus on three main areas:
- blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects;
- coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests; and
- coastal protection works.
Each area has practical implications for project planning and development assessment.
1. A clearer pathway for blue carbon and tidal restoration projects
Blue carbon refers to carbon captured and stored by coastal and marine ecosystems, including mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass and kelp. Healthy blue carbon ecosystems can operate as significant carbon sinks and also provide broader benefits such as coastal resilience, fisheries support, biodiversity value, tourism and recreation opportunities.
The EIE proposes a new land use definition and approval pathway for tidal restoration projects.
Tidal restoration projects generally involve reintroducing tidal flows to land that has been drained or modified, often through changes to floodgates, weirs, levees or drainage infrastructure. The purpose is to allow blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves and saltmarsh, to re-establish.
The proposed framework would allow tidal restoration projects to be carried out:
- as development without consent if undertaken by or on behalf of a public authority; or
- with development consent in other cases, including private landholder projects.
Importantly, development without consent does not mean no assessment. Public authority projects would still require environmental assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Department also notes that tidal restoration projects may require other approvals in addition to planning approval.
Why this matters
This proposed change could reduce uncertainty for restoration projects that do not fit neatly within existing land use definitions.
For councils, landholders and project teams, the key issue will be identifying whether a proposed project is genuinely an ecosystem restoration project, what approval pathway applies, and what supporting environmental assessment is required.
For private landholders, development consent may still be the more practical pathway because it can coordinate other approvals through the integrated development process.
2. A new framework for ecosystem restoration projects
The proposed reform is not limited to blue carbon. The Department is also considering a broader planning framework for ecosystem restoration projects.
The EIE states that the current planning framework is generally focused on protecting the environment from harm. The Department sees an opportunity to better support restoration and enhancement of damaged or degraded ecosystems.
The proposed framework would introduce dedicated aims, land use categories and development controls within the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP. Ecosystem restoration projects would be permitted in any zone:
- without development consent if undertaken by or on behalf of a public authority; or
- with development consent in other cases.
Why this matters
This is a useful policy shift. Restoration projects can deliver positive environmental outcomes, but they often still involve works, hydrological changes, vegetation management, earthworks or changes to land condition.
A clearer planning framework may help councils and proponents distinguish between restoration activities and other forms of development. However, it will still be important to assess potential impacts properly, including hydrology, biodiversity, acid sulfate soils, flooding, neighbouring land impacts and ongoing management responsibilities.
3. Coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests – mapping and approval pathway changes
The R&H SEPP currently includes mapped Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Areas. Development within these mapped areas can trigger significant planning consequences, including designated development requirements and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
The EIE proposes a number of changes to improve how these provisions operate.
Map review process for minor inaccuracies
The Department proposes a pathway to deal with minor inaccuracies in coastal wetland and littoral rainforest mapping.
Where a Biodiversity Values Map review by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water concludes that land, or part of the land, is not coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, an exemption may apply from the need for development consent or designated development under section 2.7 of the R&H SEPP.
This would be limited to minor map inaccuracies that can be determined by desktop analysis and would not apply where there is unexplained or unauthorised clearing.
Why this matters
This could be helpful where land has been incorrectly mapped, but it should not be treated as a shortcut. Proponents are still likely to need appropriate supporting information, such as ecological advice, mapping, site photographs and other evidence.
Correcting a mapping error also does not mean a development can automatically proceed. Other planning controls, environmental constraints and consent requirements may still apply.
4. Subdivision involving coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest
The Department proposes to clarify how section 2.7 of the R&H SEPP applies to subdivision.
The EIE states that section 2.7 will be amended to specify that it captures subdivisions where any part of the land contains coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest. This includes registration of a plan of subdivision and boundary realignment, even where no physical works are proposed.
However, the Department also proposes that subdivisions which do not create new lot boundaries intersecting the mapped coastal wetland, littoral rainforest or 100 metre proximity area would not be designated development, although development consent would still be required.
Subdivisions that intersect or require works within the mapped area would continue to be assessed as designated development.
Why this matters
This is highly relevant for coastal subdivision feasibility.
A subdivision that appears straightforward under the Local Environmental Plan may become more complex if mapped coastal wetlands, littoral rainforest or proximity areas are present. The proposed reform may provide a more proportionate pathway where subdivision boundaries avoid sensitive mapped areas, but it will not remove the need for careful assessment.
Early mapping review should be completed before subdivision layouts are finalised.
5. Boundary realignments – proposed clearer exempt development criteria
The Department has identified uncertainty around when a boundary realignment is sufficiently “minor” to qualify as exempt development under the Codes SEPP.
The proposed change would clarify that, in specified conservation and rural zones, a boundary realignment may be exempt development if it does not change the area of any lot by more than 5% or 10 hectares, whichever is lesser. Boundary realignments exceeding that threshold would require development assessment.
Why this matters
This would provide a clearer numerical test for landowners, surveyors, planners and councils.
However, where land is affected by coastal wetland or littoral rainforest provisions, the R&H SEPP would prevail to the extent of any inconsistency. This means a boundary realignment still needs to be reviewed against coastal mapping and related controls.
6. Dangerous trees and beneficial vegetation management
The EIE proposes a simpler approval pathway for trimming or removing a tree in a mapped coastal wetland or littoral rainforest where the tree poses an imminent risk to human life or property.
The proposed pathway would require written permission from the relevant council and supporting evidence, including a report from a qualified arborist with a minimum AQF Level 5 in Arboriculture. Only the minimum vegetation necessary to reduce the risk should be removed, and habitat features should be retained where possible.
The Department also proposes to allow public authorities to undertake certain weed management and revegetation activities in mapped coastal wetlands or littoral rainforests without development consent, even where those works are not identified in a certified Coastal Management Program or plan of management. These works would still require Part 5 environmental assessment.
Why this matters
This proposal recognises that coastal protection should not prevent sensible risk management or beneficial restoration works. However, the proposed pathway remains controlled, particularly where mature or habitat-bearing trees are involved.
7. Future landward migration of coastal wetlands
A notable proposed change is the requirement for consent authorities to consider the impact of development on land most likely to be subject to future coastal wetland migration.
The EIE explains that land suitable for coastal wetlands is expected to change in response to climate change and sea level rise. Some areas may become permanently inundated, while higher land may become more suitable for coastal wetland ecosystems to establish.
The proposed amendments would require this issue to be considered in the proximity area for coastal wetlands and the coastal environment area.
Why this matters
This is a clear signal that coastal planning assessment is increasingly future-focused.
For development projects near coastal wetlands, it may not be enough to assess whether the site is affected by current mapping only. Project teams may also need to consider whether the design, building location, infrastructure, earthworks or subdivision pattern could constrain future wetland migration.
This may be relevant for coastal residential, tourism, rural-residential, infrastructure and subdivision projects.
8. Coastal protection works – clearer definitions and assessment requirements
The EIE also proposes changes to coastal protection work provisions.
These include:
- a new definition of beach nourishment;
- a new definition of beach scraping;
- clarification that beach nourishment does not include dredging, sand sourcing, beach scraping, sand bypassing or backpassing;
- allowing beach scraping by or on behalf of public authorities without development consent;
- clarifying consideration of impacts on the beach fluctuation zone;
- extending the period for public authority sandbags from 90 days to up to 365 days;
- clarifying when emergency coastal protection works are exempt development; and
- expanding assessment matters for coastal protection works on private land.
For private coastal protection works, the proposed assessment matters include consideration of any certified Coastal Management Program, nature-based solutions, locating works as landward as possible, integration with adjoining structures, maintenance access, the NSW Coastal Design Guidelines 2023, Coastal Crown Land Guidelines and the Environmentally Friendly Seawalls Guideline.
Why this matters
Coastal protection works can have impacts beyond the subject property. They may affect beach access, public amenity, coastal processes, adjoining land, erosion behaviour and longer-term adaptation options.
The proposed changes appear to reinforce a more strategic and system-wide approach to coastal protection, particularly for private land.
Practical implications for landowners, councils and project teams
The proposed amendments are not yet final, but they indicate the direction of NSW coastal planning policy.
For affected sites, project teams should consider the following early.
1. Complete coastal mapping due diligence before design decisions are locked in
Relevant mapping may include coastal wetlands, littoral rainforests, proximity areas, coastal environment areas, coastal use areas, Biodiversity Values mapping, acid sulfate soils, flooding and coastal hazard layers.
2. Treat subdivision in coastal areas carefully
Subdivision and boundary realignment can trigger planning consequences even where no physical works are proposed. The proposed reforms may clarify the pathway, but they will not remove the need for detailed assessment.
3. Do not assume restoration projects are approval-free
Blue carbon and ecosystem restoration projects may benefit from clearer pathways, but they may still require development consent, Part 5 assessment and approvals under other legislation.
4. Consider future environmental conditions
The proposed focus on coastal wetland migration means project teams may need to assess future coastal processes, not just existing mapped conditions.
5. Coastal protection works need strong justification
Private coastal protection works are likely to require careful consideration of alternatives, nature-based solutions, location, maintenance, adjoining impacts and consistency with coastal management policy.
Meliora Projects’ view
The proposed amendments reflect a broader shift in NSW planning toward climate adaptation, ecosystem restoration and more practical coastal management.
For proponents, the key message is simple: coastal constraints should be identified early and integrated into the planning strategy from the outset. Waiting until lodgement to deal with coastal wetland mapping, future migration pathways, subdivision impacts or coastal protection issues can create avoidable delays and assessment risk.
For councils and public authorities, the proposed changes may assist with restoration works and low-impact coastal management activities, but clear guidance and consistent implementation will be essential.
For private landowners and development project teams, the reforms may create more certainty in some areas, but they also reinforce the need for careful environmental and planning due diligence before committing to a development pathway.
Need help reviewing a coastal site?
Meliora Projects assists with preliminary planning investigations, approval pathway advice, development due diligence, social impact assessment, engagement strategy and planning documentation for projects across NSW.
If your land or project is affected by coastal mapping, subdivision constraints, environmental sensitivity, restoration works or coastal protection issues, early planning advice can help identify risks before key design, acquisition or lodgement decisions are made.
