The Commonwealth Question: When Subdivision Needs An EPBC Referral

COULD YOUR SUBDIVISION NEED A FEDERAL REFERRAL?Check protected environmental matters alongside state approvals.

You find a site that works on the state numbers. The zoning supports the density, the planner is comfortable, and the layout produces the lots the feasibility needs. There is a damper corner of the block with reeds, and a strip of old timber along the rear boundary.

None of that appears in the state approval pathway you have been working through. It appears in a second one, administered from Canberra, that applies in every state and every territory at the same time.

The deal question: could your action significantly affect a protected matter?

The Commonwealth EPBC Act framework asks a question that is deliberately separate from planning. The department's own page states that if you are planning a project, also called an action, that might have an impact on protected matters, you may need to refer it to the department for assessment. It also states the department's expectation directly: tell it how you will build improved environmental outcomes into your project from the start, and refer the project if it will have a significant impact.

So the feasibility question is not about zoning or yield. It is: does this action have, or is it likely to have, a significant impact on a protected matter?

How the Act defines the problem

The statutory test is short and worth reading in full. Section 67 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides that an action that a person proposes to take is a controlled action if the taking of the action by the person without approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 would be prohibited by the provision, apart from certain savings provisions that do not change the shape of the test. The provision is a controlling provision for the action.

That definition is worth understanding because it explains why the Commonwealth question cannot be answered by the council. Whether your action is prohibited by a Part 3 provision depends on the protected matter and on the significance of the impact, not on the local planning instrument.

The Part 3 provisions are grouped by protected matter. Section 16 deals with declared Ramsar wetlands: it provides that a person must not take an action that has or will have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland, or is likely to have such an impact. Section 18 deals with listed threatened species and communities and provides that a person must not take an action that has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the extinct in the wild category, or is likely to have such an impact, with the equivalent provisions applying to other listed categories.

Those two sections are the ones that most often touch small-scale development, because remnant vegetation, habitat and water features are exactly what a subdivision on the urban fringe tends to encounter.

The trap: taking the action before the question is answered

The prohibition is not a policy preference, and it is not enforced after the fact by a fine that sits comfortably inside a contingency. Section 67A provides that a person must not take a controlled action unless an approval of the taking of the action is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of the relevant provision of Part 3, or a determination under section 79E is in force and the action is taken in accordance with its conditions, or another listed exception applies.

That matters at the earliest stage of a project. Clearing, earthworks, demolishing a structure, draining a water body or changing the hydrology of a wetland can each be part of the action, and the action is assessed as a whole. A builder who mobilises while the referral is still being considered is taking the action, and so is the person who directed it.

This is why the Commonwealth question belongs in due diligence, next to the title search and the survey, rather than in the construction programme.

Why a state approval does not settle it

The single most expensive misunderstanding in this area is treating the Commonwealth question as a duplicate of the state one. They are different instruments, administered by different bodies, and they define their problems differently.

Your state or territory pathway may be about a planning permit, a development application, a clearing threshold, an offset scheme or a water approval. Those systems have their own protected matters, their own thresholds and their own assessment methods. The Commonwealth Act asks whether the action will have a significant impact on a matter protected under Commonwealth law, and the answer comes from an ecological assessment of the site combined with a current protected matters search.

Both can apply to the same block. A state biodiversity assessment, for example, might conclude that a clearing area sits below a threshold that triggers a state offset, while a Commonwealth assessment might find that the same vegetation is habitat for a listed species. One answer does not imply the other.

How the referral decision is actually made in practice

The department's published guidance is to refer if the project will have a significant impact on protected matters. The practical sequence that makes that decision defensible is:

1. Survey the site properly. An ecological consultant records the vegetation, the condition, any water features, habitat values and any evidence of listed species or communities.
2. Run a current protected matters search for the exact location, and read the result against what the survey found rather than against what the block looks like from the road.
3. Test the significance question on the actual proposal: what the action clears, drains, fills, lights or changes, and how that affects the protected matter.
4. Change the design if you can. The cheapest outcome is a layout that avoids the impact entirely, which removes the referral question rather than answering it.
5. Document the decision either way. If you decide not to refer, record the assessment and the reasons, because that file is your evidence if the question is raised later.
6. Sequence the programme so that no part of the action is taken before the Commonwealth position is resolved.

What it does to the feasibility

Price three things before you commit: the ecological assessment, the referral and assessment process if it applies, and the design changes needed to avoid or reduce the impact. On a site with genuine habitat, the third number is usually the one that decides the deal, because avoidance can cost yield in a way that no approval fee ever will.

Then run the model twice: the layout that clears everything, and a layout that retains the habitat. If the retaining layout holds most of the yield, take it. It removes a Commonwealth question, a possible state offset and a reputational risk in a single decision, and it is much cheaper to make that call on paper than after exchange.

Practical next steps

You are not expected to solve this yourself. An ecological or environmental consultant surveys the site, identifies protected matters and assesses the likelihood and significance of impact. A town planner confirms how the Commonwealth question interacts with the state or territory pathway and whether a bilateral agreement or accredited process applies. A planning or environmental lawyer advises on the referral decision and on the risk of taking any part of the action before the Minister decides. Confirm the current protected matters search result for this exact site and the current referral requirements before you lodge, and before you commit to a programme.

Learn with Jason & AmyBuild practical small-scale property development skills with experienced mentors.Enquire now