- within Environment topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management, Property and Law Firm industries
The NSW Government has introduced a raft of proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), in an attempt to clarify planning objectives, streamline assessment processes and fast track approvals. It follows a series of announcements over the last 12 months aimed at delivering on promises to provide more housing. The Government has acknowledged the complexity of the NSW planning system and its role in holding up approvals.
The proposed changes more than tinker with the EP&A Act. They offer potentially significant changes, with a focus on the 90% of development applications in NSW valued under $1 million. As with any changes to a complex system, however, the devil will be in the detail. The supporting regulations remain to be seen.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 (NSW) (Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 17 September 2025.
We set out below five key changes you need to prepare for:
1. New authorities are set to provide efficiencies in approval processes
What is new: the Government previously announced the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) to speed up the approval of significant housing projects. The Bill enshrines the HDA in legislation. The similar previously announced Investment Delivery Authority (IDA) intended to fast-track major projects, is not addressed by the Bill. However, the Bill also seeks to establish a new Development Coordination Authority (DCA). The DCA is described by the Government as a "single front door" to improve interagency coordination and centralise decision-making where multiple State Government agencies are involved.
Integrated development is not State significant development or complying development but, due to its nature, requires other approvals (e.g. heritage approvals or environmental licensing) in addition to development consent. Where the onus was previously on the consent authority to obtain general terms of approval from the other approval authorities, that role will now fall on the DCA.
Why it matters: the DCA is NSW's version of similar agencies in other jurisdictions (such as the Queensland State Assessment and Referral Agency). The Government recognised in the Bill's Second Reading Speech (2RS) that approvals currently take 50 days longer when they need to be referred to another agency and 100 days longer for each subsequent agency. The DCA will extend the Planning Secretary's functions by bringing technical experts together "offering a single, cohesive State response".
2. A new 'Targeted Assessment Pathway' will be established
What is new: the Bill seeks to establish a new class of development, being targeted assessment development. This new assessment pathway is intended to fill a gap between the faster complying development pathway and the full development assessment process by "turning off" assessment of issues already addressed through strategic planning, development controls or codes.
Why it matters: the targeted assessment development pathway has the potential to significantly reduce assessment timeframes for eligible types of development, including modification applications. The government envisages that for eligible projects, assessment timeframes could be reduced by up to 50%.
State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) can reduce, or remove completely, the requirement for public exhibition of an application, which the Government states will depend on how much strategic work has already been front-loaded (although the Government has indicated an initial public exhibition of what is proposed will be a pre-requisite to this pathway).
3. Emphasis on ensuring assessments are proportionate to the risks proposed by development
What is new: changes are proposed to both Parts 4 and 5 of the EP&A Act to ensure assessments reflect the impacts and level of risk for a particular development.
- Section 4.15(1)(b) is proposed to be amended so that consent authorities have to consider "significant" impacts (rather than just "likely" impacts).
- Similarly, a new section 5.5(2) will be inserted, providing that determining authorities are to take into account matters "...in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity."
Why it matters: the proposed amendments seek to change how consent and determining authorities assess and determine applications, with the intention of focusing on significant impacts relative to the size and complexity of a project. It remains to be seen how authorities will apply these provisions in practice.
4. Consent conditions to be standardised (and to be provided to applicants)
What is new: the Bill seeks to standardise development consent conditions and increase consultation between consent authorities and applicants on proposed conditions. The Bill proposes to:
- Provide that in addition to conditions prescribed by the regulations, development consents are to be subject to 'standard conditions' prescribed in any SEPP: s 4.17(11).
- Introduce a new form of 'model conditions' that are to be specified in SEPPs and must be imposed by a consent authority when granting or modifying a development consent. Model conditions will contain directions relating to their form, content and the circumstances in which they must be used, which the consent authority must give effect to: ss 4.17(12)-(14).
- Mandate that any conditions of consent that are inconsistent with a standard or model condition will be of no effect to the extent of the inconsistency: s 4.17(15).
- Require consent authorities to give applicants at least 7 days to comment on draft conditions and to consider any written submissions made by an applicant: s 4.17(4C).
Why it matters: these changes seek to "bring greater certainty and set sensible limits on the types of conditions that can be imposed" while avoiding surprises and conflicting conditions, so that the circumstances in which applicants seek modifications later are minimised.
The Government has indicated it will prioritise standard and model conditions for housing projects first, and that regulations will clarify when consultation with applicants is required. The proposed conditions and procedures to be prescribed in regulations remain to be seen, so it is unclear how they will impact project approvals in practice.
5. More streamlined pathways for modifications
What is new: the Bill seeks to streamline pathways for modification applications, particularly those that have no environmental impact. The Bill proposes to:
- Amend sub-ss 4.55(1) and (1A) so that, in addition to any modification to correct a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation, a modification that has no environmental impact can be made by a consent authority without public exhibition.
- Insert new s 4.55A, which allow consent authorities only a limited prescribed period (proposed to be 14 days under new regulations) to refuse minor modification applications, after which the application must be granted as soon as practicable (and not refused).
- In respect of other modifications, remove the requirement within s 4.55(2)(b) for a consent authority to consult with the relevant Minster, public authority or approval body in respect of a condition imposed as a concurrence requirement.
Why it matters: the proposed changes are intended to reduce delays, save applicants money and speed up construction where a modification to a consent is sought. If properly executed, the changes should have tangible benefits for modifications that are of no environmental impact, which have historically been subject to public consultation and concurrence requirements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
