Development Application Refused Due to Unsatisfactory Flood Management Strategies

The recent decision of Gardiner v Central Coast Council [2022] NSWLEC 1007 emphasises the difficulties associated with proposed self-enforcement of flood management strategies.


The applicant sought development consent from Central Coast Council (“Council“) for a two-lot subdivision in a battle axe configuration. The site is located in close proximity to the Wyong River, and is prone to significant flooding. The site also constitutes a Flood Storage Area for the Flood Exclusionary Categories pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, and is situated in a High Hazard Area.

The land is situated within Precinct 2, requiring any proposal for subdivision to include a Performance Based Flood Risk Assessment Report establishing compatibility of the proposed development with the flooding characteristics of the site.

The applicant filed Class 1 appeal proceedings in the Land & Environment Court following a deemed refusal of the development application by Council. In its Notice of Contention, Council submitted lack of suitability of the site with the proposed development for three key reasons:

  • Risks associated with flooding;
  • Incompatibility of the site with site constraints; and
  • Contrary to public interest.

Stay in Place Strategy

Whilst Council was not opposed to subdivision of the land, it submitted that consent was contingent upon the construction of a right of footway across adjoining land to facilitate evacuation in circumstances where the proposed driveway access to the site is unsafe. The applicant proposed an alternate flood strategy, relying on a “Stay in Place” protocol during a flood event. As opposed to evacuating from the site, such protocol provides that occupants of any proposed dwelling stay in place during a flood event until flood waters recede.

Is a Stay in Place Strategy satisfactory?

The Acting Commissioner concluded that the stay in place strategy proffered by the applicant would require absolute compliance, and lacks an adequate level of certainty should a flood event ensue.

In reaching this decision, the Court had regard to expert planning and engineering evidence based on information provided by flood engineers. Evidence provided by Council emphasised the lack of access to essential services during a flood event, stressing that intensification of the site poses a significant risk to life and damage to property. Council claimed that the additional allotment will become isolated during a flood, with no low hazard safe evacuation.

The Commissioner highlighted the complex nature of the proposal, asserting that there is no guarantee any future residents of the site would be aware of the costly requirements.

Importantly, the proposal was deemed unsatisfactory on the basis that the construction of an additional allotment within a flood prone zone will place a significant strain on emergency services, and potentially establish an undesirable precedent for additional subdivisions located in a flood prone area.

Council reinforced the importance of a self-enforcing flood strategy, raising concerns that the conditions proposed by the applicant impose an unfair obligation on Council to ensure continuing compliance.

The Commissioner shared Council’s concern that the strategy relies on an excessive number of processes and procedures to minimise risk, and omits details as to who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of equipment were the property to be rented.


The Commissioner ultimately dismissed the appeal and refused the development application on the basis that a proposed flood strategy should be self-enforcing and the Commissioner was not satisfied that the Stay in Place Strategy could be.

The full decision can be read here: Gardiner v Central Coast Council [2022] NSWLEC 1007

Greg Lee


Greg leads the firm's real estate and projects team. With in-depth industry knowledge, he anticipates his client's needs and combines technical expertise with commercial nous.

This bulletin is produced as general information in summary for clients and subscribers and should not be relied upon as a substitute for detailed legal advice or as a basis for formulating business or other decisions. ClarkeKann asserts copyright over the contents of this document. This bulletin is produced by ClarkeKann. It is intended to provide general information in summary form on legal topics, current at the time of publication. The contents do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters. Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation. Privacy Policy


…and we’ll email you valuable insights into issues affecting you and your business.

More Insights

Lapsing of Staged Development Consents – An Update

Lapsing of Staged Development Consents – An Update

Key Takeaways This decision clarifies the circumstances surrounding the lapsing of development consents. The case highlights the importance of the wording in each unique development consent. Development consents may not lapse in the context of staged developments...

read more
COVID-19 Splinter Award Continuation for Councils

COVID-19 Splinter Award Continuation for Councils

Key Takeaways An award has been proposed largely in the same terms as the Local Government (COVID-19) Splinter (Interim) Award 2021 made by the Commission which will remain in force until April 2023. Paid COVID-19 special leave, a job retention allowance and leave...

read more