On 24 November 2025, the Governor of NSW gave her assent to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 (Bill). Parliament made modest amendments to reduce the scope of some of the more contentious changes proposed in the Bill as originally tabled. Nevertheless, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025 (Amending Act), will make significant changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, as well as other changes to supporting legislation, such as the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

The Amending Act is to commence by proclamation. The Department of Planning has indicated that the Amending Act will commence in stages, with the first proclamation scheduled for this month. We will provide a further update when more information is available.

In his Second Reading Speech in relation to the Bill, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully said that this Bill was guided by the following principles: we need more homes and jobs, we need well-located homes around transport infrastructure, we need more social and affordable housing, we need to make sure these new homes are well designed and well built, and we need to approve them and build them as quickly as possible.

The more significant changes proposed in the Amending Act are as follows:

• Creation of the Development Coordination Authority – The CDC would centralise decision-making and advice currently referred to multiple State agencies.
• Enshrine the establishment of the Housing Delivery Authority in legislation – This change is likely to only be symbolic, but it does give proponents of large projects greater confidence that their projects will be assessed within the State significant pathway.
• Amend the objects of the EP&A Act – The updated objects reflect the Government’s new focus on promoting social and economic welfare, housing supply, climate resilience, economic productivity, the environment, heritage and conservation, and good design and construction.
• Expand Complying Development – The Amending Act will allow complying development certificates to be issued when there is a non-compliance with a development standard if a ‘variation certificate’ is issued.
• Introduce a new Targeted Assessment Pathway – The new Targeted Assessment Pathway will provide a fast-tracked process, bridging the gap between complying development and a full development assessment.
• Introduce a framework for “standard” and “model” conditions of consent: The Amending Act will introduce a framework for the making of standard and model conditions of consent in relation to specified types of development.
• Clarify the meaning of “development standards”: Development controls that are “development standards” will be explicitly identified in future changes to EPIs and the regulations.
• Consideration of non-discretionary development standards: Non-discretionary development standards would still need to be considered (and any more onerous alternate standards ignored) even if the proposed development is non-compliant with those standards. 
• Consideration of “significant” likely impacts of the proposed development: The Amending Act will limit consideration of likely impacts to only those that are “significant” and directly related to the proposed development.
• Changes to proposed modifications of development consents: The scope of modification applications under s4.55(1) will be expanded to include proposed modifications that have no environmental impact. Such modification applications will also need to be determined within 14 days, after which they must not be refused.
• Establishing the Community Participation Plan across NSW: A single Community Participation Plan will be introduced to standardise community participation across the State.
• Removing regionally significant development pathway and regional and Sydney district planning panels: The Amending Act will remove regionally significant development as a category of development and to abolish Sydney district planning panels and regional planning panels.
• Extend internal review and appeal rights: The Amending Act will make limited changes to internal review and appeal rights, including to stop the running of the appeal clock on the making of an internal review request until the request is determined.
• Expand unilateral rights by Planning Secretary or council to revoke or modify development consents: The Amending Act will allow the Planning Secretary or a council to unilaterally revoke or modify a development consent by having regard to the existing provisions of a SEPP or LEP, respectively. 
• Broaden the scope of “complete works” orders: “Complete works” orders will be able to be issued by a council or the Planning Secretary at any time after the works authorised by a consent have commenced.
• Weakening of the controls for development on bush fire prone land: The original Bill proposed the deletion of the existing constraints limiting development on bushfire prone land. Parliament made amendments to instead water-down rather than remove compliance with the Bush Fire Protection Planning guide.

This paper provides some detail on the changes that are proposed, together with our commentary on their implications.

Changes proposed under the Bill	BHA Commentary
Creation of the ‘Development Coordination Authority’ (DCA)
The Amending Act will create the DCA, although the Bill provides the DCA ‘means the Planning Secretary’. The intention is that the DCA will centralise decision-making and advice currently referred to multiple State agencies. For integrated development, the DCA will decide whether or not an approval that is required will be granted and the general terms of approval, rather than the individual authorities. The DCA will also assume the consultation or concurrence role of various agencies under certain circumstances, including the consultation role of Sydney Water for development that may affect it, and the concurrence role of the Fisheries Agency Head for certain development likely to likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities.	It is unclear whether centralising the function of issuing general terms of approval will make any significant improvements to assessment time frames. A proper assessment will still need to be made as to whether the relevant approval should be granted and, if so, on what terms. Presumably the DCA will still need to rely on expertise of staff in the relevant public authorities. Care will need to be taken to ensure that the DCA does not become an additional layer between the relevant authority and the consent authority. The DCA could be particularly useful, however, where the terms of various general terms of approval need to ‘talk to each other’ – for example, where bushfire risks and vegetation on land near a river need to be managed in a consistent way.

Embed the establishment of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) into the EP&A Act

The HDA was established in 2024 as a panel under a Ministerial Order made under the EP&A Act. The Amending Act will establish the HDA as a statutory authority under the EP&A Act itself. Parliament made amendments to the Bill to provide for a 3-yearly review of the HDA through the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee, which, among other things, will determine whether the HDA has increased housing supply and the timely delivery of housing and improved housing affordability.

This change is most likely to be symbolic, but the change in status does give proponents of large projects greater confidence that their projects will be assessed within a State significant pathway.

Amend and update the objects of the EP&A Act
The objects of the EP&A Act will be updated, including to: include the object of promoting the supply, delivery and maintenance of housing, including affordable housing; introduce the concept of ‘proportionate and risk- based’ environmental planning and assessment; andpromote resilience to climate change.	The objects of the EP&A Act are important as they are often used by consent authorities to guide their decision making. The updated objects reflect the Government’s new focus on promoting social and economic welfare, the supply of housing (including affordable housing), climate resilience, economic productivity, the environment, heritage and conservation, and good design and construction.

Expansion of Complying Development

Complying development is a combined planning and construction approval for straightforward development that can be determined through a fast-track assessment process by a council or an accredited certifier. A complying development certificate may only be issued if the proposed development has complied with all the relevant standards prescribed for that type of development. The Amending Act will allow an applicant for a complying development certificate to apply to make an application, generally to the local council, for a ‘variation certificate’, but only if an environmental planning instrument (EPI) specifies that the relevant development standard may be varied by a variation certificate.   An EPI may also specify that a development standard may only be varied in a specified way or extent of permissible variation, or to achieve a specified objective. An application for a variation certificate will be deemed to be approved if not determined within 10 days. There will be no appeal right to the Land and Environment Court from any decision by a local council to refuse an application for a variation certificate.

As a council would be required to determine an application for a variation certificate in quite a short period or time and as there is not right of appeal against a refusal of such an application, the outcome of these changes may be a large proportion of very quick refusals of applications for variation certificates.

Introduce a new ‘Targeted Assessment Pathway’

Targeted assessment development will be development identified as such in a State environmental planning policy. Mr Scully has said that the intention is for this pathway to fill the gap between complying development and a full development application assessment process. While it is still not yet known what types of development would qualify for the targeted assessment pathway, an amendment was made to the Bill in Parliament that excludes designated development, or State Significant Development that would otherwise have been designated development, from being so declared. In determining an application for targeted assessment development, a consent authority will only be permitted to take into consideration: the provisions of EPIs, including certain proposed instrumentsany development control planany planning agreementthe EP&A Regulationsany submissions made. The consent authority must not take into consideration: likely significant impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality;the suitability of the site for the development; or the public interest.

The restrictions on the matter that a consent authority may take into account are surprising. While various planning instruments, particularly DCPs contain numerous provisions in relation to various impacts that would still need to be considered, difficulties may arise where the constraints of a particular site would ordinarily need to be taken into account. The amendment made to the Bill to prohibit designated development from being declared for targeted addresses some initial concerns that the assessment of contentious and high-impact development, as well as community participation in such decision-making may be inappropriately weakened. Ultimately, the full effect and utility of this new pathway will need to await clarity on the types of development to be declared for it.

Introduce a framework for “standard” and “model” conditions of consent

The Amending Act introduces a framework for the making of “standard” and “model” conditions of consent for relevant development, with initial priority on housing projects. “Model” conditions may be specified by a SEPP. “Standard” conditions may be prescribed by the regulations and/or a SEPP. A condition of consent that is inconsistent with an applicable “standard” or “model” condition does not have effect to the extent of the inconsistency. Further, for certain kinds of development to be specified by the regulations, the Amending Act will impose a requirement on a consent authority to consult with the applicant before imposing a condition.

“Standard” and “model” conditions will replace and build on existing “prescribed” conditions, which are mandatory conditions of a general nature that apply to certain kinds of development set out in the regulations. The Department has already developed “best practice standard conditions” for, among other things, residential and mixed-use developments, which consent authorities have, to date, been encouraged to adopt but are not presently mandatory. It is likely that any “standard” and “model” conditions will borrow heavily from these existing templates.

Clarify the meaning of “development standards”

The Amending Act will introduce a two-stage update to the definition of “development standards”. The changes provide for “development standards” to be explicitly identified in EPIs and the Regulations, including by the heading or notes to the relevant provisions. Initially, the meaning of “development standards” will be updated to include an additional sub-paragraph (b) that deems as development standards any provision of an EPI or regulation as so identified. At a later date, presumably once EPIs and the regulations have been updated to explicitly identify “development standards”, the current definition will be removed entirely and the term “development standards” replaced with the term “development standard”.

There is existing uncertainty about what controls rise to the level of a development standard. This categorisation is important because the non-compliance of a development standard must be supported by way of a clause 4.6 variation request, which is a jurisdictional requirement to the approval of a relevant development application. The explicit identification of a development control as a development standard will remove ambiguity for applicants and respondents. However, in the short-term, the uncertainty will remain until EPIs and the regulations are appropriately updated and the current definition finally replaced.

Consideration of non-discretionary development standards

Where a development complies with applicable non-discretionary development standards, those standards must not be considered further or form a ground of refusal for that development application. At present, if a development does not comply with applicable non-discretionary standards, it is assessed against the controls (which are often more onerous) that would otherwise apply. The Amending Act will change this so that to the extent the non-discretionary standard is less onerous than the alternate control in an EPI, a consent authority must still consider the non-discretionary development standard and disregard the more onerous provision of a relevant EPI.

This change will provide flexibility to proponents in proposing a scheme that may not be able to be fully compliant with non-discretionary standards.

Consideration of “significant” likely impacts of the proposed development

The Amending Act will limit the kinds of impacts to be considered by a consent authority in assessing a development application. Consent authorities would be required to consider only the “significant” likely impacts of a development. Further, the significant likely impacts of “other development” will be deemed to be factors that are not of relevance to the assessment of the proposed development. “Other development” is to be defined to mean “development that is likely to be, or will be, required to be carried out as a result of the development that is the subject of the development application.”

In his second reading speech, the Minister explained that the intention of focusing consideration on significant likely impacts is “so that minor impacts are not given disproportionate attention” with “too much time and effort” being currently spent on “minor or irrelevant matters that have little impact on the final decision”. However, this change carries risk that certain relevant impacts, which may be material either by themselves or cumulatively, but arguably not “significant”, may be entirely overlooked in the assessment process. There may also be considerable uncertainty, at least initially, on the impacts that must be considered by a consent authority in validly determining a development application. The removal for consideration of the likely impacts of “other development” would assist in confining the scope of a consent authority’s assessment of the DA immediately before them. In most cases, this would help to streamline the assessment process and save applicants from onerous information requests that are not strictly relevant to their proposal.

Changes to proposed modifications of development consents

The Amending Act is to expand the scope of modification applications made under s4.55(1) and to require that such applications be determined within a 14-day timeframe, after which the consent authority must not refuse the application. Currently, modification applications under s4.55(1) are limited to correct a “minor error, misdescription or miscalculation”. The Amending Act will amend s4.55(1) to also include proposed modifications that have no environmental impact, which are currently dealt with separately under s4.55(1A).

The proposed changes to s4.55(1) would provide a quicker pathway for applicants to seek changes of no environmental impact to an existing development consent. Such changes may not be inconsequential and could have material impacts on the viability of the development (e.g. modifications to conditions of consent). The inclusion of a prescribed period would give applicants greater certainty as would the requirement on consent authorities to not refuse the application after the period expires. However, applicants would need to carefully consider whether these benefits outweigh the inability to appeal the merits of a determination of a modification application of this kind.

Establishing the Community Participation Plan across NSW
The Planning Secretary is to prepare a community participation plan (CPP), which will apply to all planning authorities in NSW. The CPP will replace existing plans made by individual councils and standardise community participation requirements across the State on planning matters, including DA exhibition periods. This document has not yet been prepared by the Planning Secretary.	Whether this change will improve or limit community participation will depend on the exhibition periods and notification requirements ultimately adopted in the CPP. However, a consistent State-wide approach will certainly provide greater clarity and reduce confusion, particularly for proponents with projects in multiple local government areas.

Removing regionally significant development pathway and regional and Sydney district planning panels

The Amending Act will remove regionally significant development as a category of development. It will also abolish Sydney district planning panels and regional planning panels. .

These changes will, on their face, reduce complexity but they may not improve efficiency or permit better decision-making in the planning process. Local planning panels will likely be tasked to fill in the workload left by the abolition of regional and Sydney district planning panels. They will need additional resourcing to ensure that they have the capacity and the expertise to promptly assess and determine these DAs.

Extend review and appeal rights

The Amending Act will make changes to internal reviews and appeal periods. For decisions made by a delegate of Council, applicants will now be able to request the local planning panel to conduct the internal review (in place of Council or another delegate). Requesting an internal review will also pause the appeal clock while a review is underway. The Amending Act will also remove the current 6 month time limit to commence a deemed refusal appeal, allowing an applicant to file an appeal any time after the prescribed assessment period, up until the application is determined.

The pausing of the appeal clock may encourage more applicants to seek an internal review before commencing appeal proceedings. It is often the case that review requests require the expenditure of significant effort and money, potentially involving the preparation of amended plans or additional supporting documentation. They can therefore take up substantial time to prepare and, for Councils, significant resources and time to comprehensively consider. By pausing the appeal clock, applicants may feel more confident in investing resources for a request knowing that their appeal rights are preserved.

Expand unilateral rights by the Planning Secretary or council to revoke or modify development consents

The original Bill proposed to expand the ability for the Planning Secretary or a council to unilaterally revoke or modify an existing development consent if it considers that the development should not be carried out having regard to: in the case of the Planning Secretary, an existing or proposed EPI (currently, the Planning Secretary may only have regard to a proposed SEPP in exercising this power);   in the case of council, an existing or proposed LEP (currently, council may only have regard to a proposed LEP). However, the scope of this amendment was materially reduced by Parliament. The Amending Act walks back the proposed change to a council’s power under this provision. The Planning Secretary will still be permitted to consider any proposed EPI but will only be able to take into account the provisions of an existing EPI in relation to development consents granted 25 years before.

The original Bill would have provided for a significant change to effectively permit the Planning Secretary or a council to unilaterally change their mind (or to circumvent a decision made by another consent authority – such as the local planning panel) without a change in law. The Amending Act addresses these concerns and leaves open an avenue for the Planning Secretary to bring an end to so-called “zombie” consents granted 25 years before. It will be interesting to see if amendments are made in the future to reduce the prescribed period to capture more consents that may be invalidated or modified in this way.

Broaden the scope of “complete works” orders

A “complete works” order is currently only able to be issued where works authorised by a consent have been commenced but not completed by the date the consent would have lapsed (usually 5 years from the date of commencement). The Amending Act will permit a “complete works order” to be issued at any time after the works have commenced.

This represents a significant expansion on the power to issue “complete works” orders, effectively at the complete discretion of council or the Planning Secretary. Failure to comply with such an order is an offence. The maximum penalty is $5M for corporations and $1M for individuals. Land owners, particularly developers of large-scale and complex projects with long development timelines, will need to carefully consider the potential that they may be given a “complete works” order before they commence construction.

Weakening controls applying to development on bush fire prone land

The original Bill proposed to delete in their entirety the existing controls applying to development on bush fire prone land. Parliament amended the Bill to weaken, instead of remove, these provisions. The existing exemption for the lawful subdivision of land or for a “special fire protection purpose” has been retained. For other development, the Amending Act requires the consent authority to only “consider the relevant Bush Fire Protection Planning guide” (Guide) in place of the existing requirements to: be satisfied that the development conforms with the relevant provisions of the Guide;    and to obtain a compliance certificate from an accredited consultant.

The amendment to the Bill as reflected in the Amending Act offers a more balanced approach to streamlining development within bush fire prone land. For development other than lawful subdivisions and for a “special fire protection purpose” (which will still be exempt), the Guide remains a relevant and mandatory consideration but there will be greater flexibility for the consent authority to consider how the relevant specifications and requirements should be applied on a case-by-case basis.

When the changes will take effect

The Amending Act has not yet commenced. It will commence by proclamation. No formal timetable or date has been published by the Department of Planning or from the Minister’s office.

Given the extensive nature and scope of the changes, it is likely that the Amending Act will be proclaimed in stages. We will provide a further update when more information becomes available.

Finishing remarks

The Amending Act represents a seismic shift in how the NSW Government will approach environmental protection and assessment, with a strengthened emphasis on housing delivery and development.

All types of development will be impacted; from small home modifications to large scale State significant developments. Certain aspects of the Amending Act remain unclear and are consequent on further amendments to be made to the Regulations and EPIs.

It is likely that the amendments will trigger an increase in legal disputes and the caseload of the Land and Environment Court as the interpretation and operation of the amended provisions of the EP&A Act are ironed out.

Beatty Hughes & Associates are experts in environment & planning law. If you would like to discuss the above changes, or another matter pertaining to planning law in Australia, Please feel free to get in touch.