On 11 November 2025, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 (Bill) passed the Parliament of NSW. Subject to receiving assent, this all but confirms a range of sweeping changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and associated legislation, intended to streamline planning decision making in NSW, particularly in an effort to boost housing supply.

The Bill builds on the changes which were passed earlier this year.

A ‘PROPORTIONATE AND RISK-BASED APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT’

The objects of the EPA Act are being updated to ‘reflect contemporary planning priorities.’¹ This includes the promotion of a ‘proportionate and risk-based approach to environmental planning and assessment’, which is being reflected in modified impact assessments under both Part 4 and Part 5 of the EPA Act:

4.15    Evaluation

(1)    Matters for consideration—general…

…

(b)    the significant likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

…

5.5    Duty to consider environmental impact

(1)    For the purpose of attaining the objects of this Act relating to the protection and enhancement of the environment, a determining authority in its consideration of an activity shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act or the provisions of any other Act or of any instrument made under this or any other Act, examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity.

(2)    (Repealed)

(2)    For subsection (1), a determining authority may take into account the matters referred to in the subsection in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity.

It is unclear what impact, if any, these changes will have on the outcomes of impact assessment. For example, in our experience, ‘non-significant’ likely impacts are rarely, if ever, determinative of development applications. We expect that the exact meaning of ‘significant’ likely impacts will be the subject of judicial consideration at some point.

PROMOTION OF HOUSING SUPPLY

For the first time, the objects of the EPA Act will include the promotion of the supply of housing generally. Previously this was limited to the delivery of affordable housing.

One of the key reforms intended to promote housing supply is the enshrinement of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) in the EPA Act, which is currently established only by way of Ministerial Order. Since the HDA’s inception, a total of 289 housing projects have been declared as State Significant Development, which if approved and delivered would total more than 98,000 homes.² The embedding of the HDA in the EPA Act suggests that the authority is becoming a permanent feature of the planning approval process for high density housing projects in NSW.

INTRODUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AUTHORITY

The Planning Secretary will be given expanded functions with respect to integrated development, through her new role as the Development Coordination Authority (DCA).

The DCA will become the centralised advisory and decision-making authority for integrated development, meaning that all general terms of approval will now be issued by the DCA, rather than the individual approval bodies. It is understood that the DCA will liaise with the relevant approval bodies in making its decisions but will also have its own internal technical experts undertaking assessments.

What is not clear in the Bill is whether the introduction of the DCA will bring to an end the long-standing practice of allowing a proponent to choose whether or not to have its development application dealt with as integrated development.

Since the decision in Maule v Liporoni & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 25, it has been the generally accepted practice that the integrated development provisions are ‘beneficial and facultative’, and only applicable where the applicant ‘opts-in’ to using them. We note that there is currently some legal uncertainty regarding this position, following the finding of a commissioner in Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1249 that a development application was integrated development irrespective of whether the proponent sought for it to be dealt with as such, which we tend to agree with.

We will wait to see whether the introduction of the DCA will result in any changes to this practice.

NEW DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY: TARGETED ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT

A ‘targeted assessment development’ pathway is being introduced. Proposals to declare development as targeted assessment development will be subject to public exhibition, and will ultimately be declared by a SEPP.

The Government has not yet confirmed exactly what types of development it is likely to seek be declared as targeted assessment development, however amendments made to the Bill in the lower house have excluded its use for development that is designated development.

Based on the information available we expect the pathway is likely to be used for development where there has been substantial strategic planning undertaken, in a similar manner to the preparation of site-specific development control plans, and where the parameters of the proposed development have been strictly codified.

In effect, targeted assessment development will bridge the gap between complying development and a fulsome impact assessment under section 4.15 of the EPA Act.

Notably, in assessing development declared as targeted assessment development, the consent authority must only take into consideration:

1. the provisions of any proposed or existing environmental planning instruments, any development control plans, any planning agreements, and the regulations; and
2. any public submissions.

It is clarified that this means that the remaining matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the EPA Act are then matters which must not be taken into consideration, including:

1. the impacts of the development,
2. the suitability of the site for the development, and
3. the public interest.

This narrow assessment appears to us to raise practical difficulties, for example where public submissions, which are required to be taken into consideration, raise non-jurisdictional matters relating to the impacts of the development, which must not be taken into consideration.

MINOR VARIATION TO COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

The complying development pathway will be expanded to allow for minor variations to standards, such as setbacks from the lot boundary, minimum landscaping requirements, or site requirements such as the width of a lot, without requiring a development application.

If the council does not make a decision on the variation within 10 days, or 20 days if the council is also assessing the complying development certificate, the variation will be deemed to be approved.

Noting the existing pressures on local council assessment timeframes, it will need to be seen whether this pathway results in quick approvals as intended, or whether it will result in the snap refusal of unsatisfactory applications which may have otherwise have been able to be workshopped into an approval through consultation with the proponent and/or the issuing of a request for information.

MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS WITH NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

A new modification pathway for modifications with no environmental impact is being introduced, which will have a 14-day assessment period. Where an application is not determined with 14 days, the consent authority will be precluded from subsequently refusing the application. For such applications, the consent authority will still be able to impose conditions of consent, however they must not serve to defeat the purpose of the application.

Similar to the ‘deemed approvals’ of complying development variations discussed above, it will also need to be seen whether the 14-day assessment period results in quick approvals as intended, or whether it will also result in snap refusals of applications which may have otherwise had good prospects of an approval.

OTHER KEY CHANGES FOR COUNCILS AND DEVELOPERS

Model conditions of consent will be able to be prescribed in a SEPP, which then must be imposed by consent authorities. For certain types of development, consent authorities will also be required to provide draft conditions to proponents for comment prior to any determination.

A model community participation plan will be prepared by the Planning Secretary, which when available will prescribe how planning authorities are required to undertake community participation.

Development standards are able to be prescribed, with council’s LEPs to ultimately be updated to specify which standards are ‘development standards’, and therefore subject to variation by way of a clause 4.6 request.

The bush fire prone land assessment requirements are being reduced. The existing requirement for a consent authority to be satisfied that development on bush fire prone land either satisfies the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire Protection or is accompanied by certification from a qualified consultant is being removed. Instead, consent authorities will now only need to consider the relevant bush fire protection planning guidelines prior to granting consent.

Regional planning panels are being phased out, as the regionally significant development pathway is being removed.

Deemed refusal appeal periods are being updated with the effect that proponents will now be able to file an appeal at any time up until the development application is determined. This will mean that proponents will not be compelled to lodge appeals against a deemed refusal merely to preserve their appeal rights.

Internal reviews will now ‘pause’ the appeal period, meaning that appeals cannot be filed until an internal review is either withdrawn or determined. This will also reduce the need for proponents to lodge appeals to preserve their appeal rights in circumstances where the consent authority is still assessing the application. Proponents will also be able to seek a review from the local planning panel instead of the council.

Zombie consents are being addressed, through expanded powers for the issuing of complete works notices, and the revocation or modification of development consents which are inconsistent with environmental planning instruments.

NEXT STEPS

The Bill is currently awaiting assent. A copy of the Bill as passed by both Houses is available on the NSW Parliament website here.

As is often the case, the devil is in the details, with many of the finer details of the reforms still to be confirmed in the forthcoming regulations. We will be watching closely throughout this period of implementation.

This article was written by Jane Hewitt, Partner and Alex Rutherford, Associate.

¹ Second reading speech, 17 September 2025, Mr Paul Scully, Minister for Planning and Public Space, https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/’HANSARD-1323879322-157345′

² ‘More than 2,200 homes declared state significant’, 7 November 2025, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, NSW Government https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/news/more-2200-homes-declared-state-significant