While I touched on this subject some years ago (Earthworks and More on Earthworks), in going back to check what I’d written then, I was a little surprised to find that it was actually seven years ago. Nonetheless, the following are some more general comments than the specific examples I have discussed previously.
Within the Standard Instrument (SI) Local Environmental Plan (LEP) dictionary, earthworks are simply defined as “excavation or filling”. Fortunately, more information is provided elsewhere, within both the PLEP (Clause 6.1—Note that there were significant changes to the clause in the draft PLEP quoted in my earlier posting) and Exempt and Complying Development Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), to clarify what is, or isn’t permitted without formal development consent.
In general, in order to be carried out as exempt development (i.e. not require any formal approval), the works should not involve cut or fill more than 600mm below or above the existing ground level. There are then two guiding principles that should be considered, although I must emphasise that these are my own simplification of a much longer list of specific requirements (refer to the current LEP and SEPP for details).
First, the works must not redirect the flow of surface water onto an adjoining property or cause nuisance to neighbours, and second, any fill that is imported to the site must be ‘clean’, the most obvious contaminant being building and other demolition waste.
In the case of the first principle, note that creating channels that would concentrate the flow of water onto a neighbouring property at a single point may constitute a nuisance even if it is not generally diverting the normal flow of surface water.
Less obvious sometimes are the factors that might contribute to the second principle (the reader should consult Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 for all the gorey details). Normal garden landscaping, even at the scale that might reasonably be undertaken on a rural residential property, will not generally require development consent and as such council would not need to be notified of the source of imported soil. My own experience, however, would lead me to suggest that one should still be very careful about the source of imported material. A reputable landscape supply company or commercial quarry will generally be the safest option.
I once sourced a load of fill, at a ‘good price’, on the recommendation of the guy doing the earthworks for me. It was certainly clean, in the sense that it had been nicely sieved. But as I soon found out, it was replete with the seeds of (at least) two prolific weeds—capeweed and another that I was never able to formally identify. Neither was noxious, but they were a real nuisance. It took me over 10 years to get rid of the capeweed. The other, fortunately, was ultimately displaced by [wanted] healthy plantings and associated mulching.
More significant earthworks will generally require some form of council approval, if only indirectly as work that is ancillary to an approved development (and that, in itself, will be the subject of a future discussion). For example, formation of a pad for a structure may involve more than 600mm cut or fill, but would be managed under the development application associated with the structure in question. Similarly, construction of an access road in a rural residential area, which may also involve more than minor earthworks, would generally require development consent, with any necessary earthworks noted and managed through the associated consent conditions.
If your plans don’t fit into any of the above, or if in doubt, you should consult council’s planning staff. The advice they offer is free and doing things right from the outset can save a lot of aggravation down the track.
Pete Harrison ~ The QPR Blog cross-reference
1 April 2019 @ 08:28
[…] Earthworks Revisited […]