The NSW Government has released its Discussion Paper: Improving Development Assessment (July 2026), proposing one of the most substantive overhauls of the development application (DA) lodgement and assessment process since the introduction of the NSW Planning Portal. The reforms build upon the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025 and seek to address a source of continued frustration for applicants, councils and the broader development industry: inconsistent information requirements, poor-quality applications, lengthy pre-lodgement delays and uncertainty regarding assessment timeframes.

While the discussion paper is framed as an administrative and process-improvement exercise, its implications are likely to be more significant. If implemented, the reforms will reshape the way DAs are prepared, lodged, amended and assessed across NSW. They also raise important questions regarding the balance between efficiency, consistency and undertaking proper development assessment within the planning system.

The end of ‘different rules in different councils’?

One of the strongest themes emerging from the discussion paper is the Government’s determination to standardise DA requirements across NSW.

The Department acknowledges that applicants often encounter different expectations from different councils, even where the underlying planning controls are similar. Councils, in turn, report that incomplete or poor-quality applications are a major contributor to delays, resulting in extensive requests for additional information before an application can proceed to assessment.

Rather than relying on a patchwork of legislative provisions, council policies, practice notes and informal expectations, the Department proposes to consolidate DA requirements into a single framework or source tool which will be supported by standardised specifications for documents and plans.

For planning practitioners, this could represent a substantial improvement in certainty. A more predictable set of requirements should reduce disputes about information adequacy and minimise the resource-intensive process of negotiating lodgement requirements on a council-by-council basis.

However, standardisation inevitably raises the question of whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach can adequately accommodate the diversity of development proposals and policy objectives of councils throughout NSW. The challenge will be designing standards that improve consistency without introducing excessive rigidity or dictating to councils how their Local Government Areas are to be governed.

The interactive digital tool

Perhaps the most innovative proposal is the creation of an interactive online tool that will generate tailored DA requirements based on site-specific characteristics and proposal details.

The concept is relatively straightforward. Applicants would enter an address and answer a series of questions about the proposed development. Drawing on planning controls, mapping layers and identified constraints, the tool would produce a customised list of documents, plans and supporting reports required for that particular proposal.

From a legal and practical perspective, this initiative could be transformative.

For years, applicants have effectively reverse-engineered application requirements by reviewing legislation, DCPs, council checklists and Planning Portal forms. The proposed tool would reverse that process by bringing requirements forward and presenting them in a user-friendly manner before an application is prepared.

The reform is also consistent with broader trends towards digital government and risk-based regulation. By using spatial data and development-specific triggers, the tool could significantly improve the quality of applications while reducing council resources devoted to basic completeness checks.

For developers and consultants, however, a critical question remains unanswered: what legal status will the outputs of the tool have?

If the tool becomes the de facto source of truth for DA requirements, disputes may arise where requirements generated by the tool differ from council expectations or statutory requirements which are unclear.

New standards for Statements of Environmental Effects

The discussion paper also proposes detailed standards for Statements of Environmental Effects (SEEs), reinforcing expectations regarding both content and quality. Currently, an SEE is a mandatory document however the prescriptions for what it is required to cover are limited.

The proposed standards move beyond requiring an SEE and instead prescribe a structured framework covering:

• site and locality analysis;
• planning compliance;
• privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts;
• access and traffic considerations;
• vegetation impacts;
• stormwater and wastewater management; and
• material schedules and mitigation measures.

While these requirements largely reflect existing best practice, their formalisation is significant.

Many councils already expect this information and planning professionals are adept at drafting them. The difference however is that applicants would now have clearer guidance regarding what constitutes an acceptable SEE from the outset. This may reduce requests for additional information and provide greater consistency in assessment expectations.

A shift towards mandatory quality standards?

One of the most important policy questions raised in the discussion paper concerns the distinction between ‘requirements’ and ‘standards’.

The Department presently proposes that many of the new standards operate as best-practice guidance rather than mandatory requirements. However, it is actively seeking feedback on whether some standards should become mandatory through the EP&A Regulation.

This issue warrants close attention.

Turning current standards into mandatory requirements would undoubtedly improve consistency and provide councils with a stronger basis for rejecting incomplete applications. However, it may also create new opportunities for procedural disputes and increase the rejection of otherwise acceptable applications for relatively minor deficiencies.

Experienced practitioners will recognise the tension. A system focused exclusively on procedural completeness can become less efficient if excessive attention is directed to technical compliance rather than substantive planning merit.

The success of these reforms may ultimately depend on striking a sensible balance between minimum mandatory requirements and professional assessment discretion.

The most significant procedural reform: deemed lodgement

The proposed changes to lodgement processes may have the greatest practical impact.

Currently, a DA can remain in a procedural limbo between submission and lodgement. Councils may ‘return’ applications for additional information before formal lodgement, often resulting in significant delays and uncertainty for applicants, particularly in relation to appeal rights.

The Department proposes an online payment gateway combined with a deemed lodgement process whereby:

• applicants provide payment details upon submission;
• councils undertake a completeness check;
• payment is processed and the application lodged once requirements appear satisfied; and
• if no earlier action is taken, lodgement would automatically occur on the seventh day after submission.

Importantly, requests for further information could still occur after lodgement, but the current ‘return’ process would effectively disappear.

For applicants, it provides greater certainty regarding assessment commencement and appeal rights. For councils, it reinforces the expectation that information issues should increasingly be managed during assessment rather than through prolonged pre-lodgement exchanges.

Clarifying amendments and assessment clocks

The discussion paper also seeks to clarify long-standing uncertainty surrounding amendments to DAs.

The Department proposes confirming that amended applications should continue to be assessed under the legislative framework applying at the time of the original lodgement rather than being exposed to subsequently introduced planning controls.

This would be a welcome clarification but not without some close consideration.

The proposal would reduce uncertainty for applicants, provide greater protection against moving regulatory goalposts and reflect commercial realities in large-scale projects where assessment periods often extend over lengthy timeframes. However, it may also impact the appeal rights where assessment timeframes extend passed the deemed refusal appeal periods which cannot be reset by an amendment to a DA.

The paper also proposes clearer information requirements for amendment requests and a statutory 14-day timeframe for councils to respond to amendment applications.

What should industry be watching?

Although framed as Improving Development Assessment, these proposals collectively signal the continuation of a broader policy shift.

The Department is continuing its move towards a planning system characterised by:

• front-loaded information requirements;
• standardised application content;
• greater digital integration;
• clearer performance expectations for councils; and
• increased certainty around statutory timeframes.

For developers, the reforms are likely to increase the importance of upfront application preparation and technical due diligence. For councils, the reforms may reduce discretion at the lodgement stage while increasing accountability for progression of lodged applications.

Most importantly, these proposals suggest that the Government is targeting one of the least transparent aspects of the current planning system: the period between application submission and formal assessment.

If implemented effectively, the reforms have the potential to reduce transaction costs, improve consistency and accelerate assessment outcomes. The key challenge will be ensuring that increased standardisation does not come at the expense of flexibility and practical decision-making.

As consultation progresses, industry stakeholders should focus not only on what information is required, but also on how these requirements will be enforced. That issue may ultimately determine whether the reforms genuinely improve the efficiency of the NSW planning system or simply relocate delay from one stage of the development process to another.

Experience from the introduction of the Standard Instrument LEP and NSW Planning Portal indicates that there is much work to be done.

This article was written by John Paul Merlino, Partner.