New NSW Planning Reforms – Part 3 – Development Assessment
13 October 2025
In this article we delve deeper into the proposed amendments to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Planning Systems Reforms) Bill 2025 (Bill), with a particular focus on the changes related to development assessment and what they could mean for our clients.
Regionally Significant Development and Regional Planning Panels
The Bill proposes to remove the regionally significant development pathway and implement a staged removal of Sydney district and regional planning panels.
Regional Planning Panels
The proposed amendments to Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the EPA Act and the proposed savings provisions in the EPA Regulations, indicate that an initial amendment will abolish the current Sydney district planning panels, with retention of:
- the Hunter Regional Planning Panel, which will exclude Central Coast
- the Northern Regional Planning Panel
- the Southern Regional Planning Panel, which will exclude Wingecarribee and Wollongong City, and
- the Western Regional Planning Panel.
The Bill provides for all provisions relating to regional planning panels to be ultimately omitted (currently s 4.7) and all regional planning panels to be abolished on the repeal of those provisions.
Regional planning panels will no longer be a designated ‘consent authority’ for ‘regionally significant development’ under s 4.5 of the EPA Act. Interim provision (s 4.8A) has been made for regional panels to exercise the consent authority functions of council. Those functions will not be exercisable by councillors and the Minister may give directions to councils about the development applications that must be determined on behalf of the council by a regional planning panel. These functions will be similar to those exercised by local planning panels under s 4.8 of the EPA Act.
It is anticipated that local planning panels will be established in regional areas, with the Minister stating that ‘in regional areas with small volumes of applications, we will utilise joint local planning panels with local representation from each council area’. The Bill proposes to insert a new Part 3A in Schedule 2 to allow for local planning panels to be established for two or more local government areas. Under proposed s 2.17(1C) of the EPA Act, the Planning Secretary will be able to constitute a local planning panel for two or more specified areas, abolish a local planning panel or change the name of a local planning panel or change the specified areas for which a local planning panel is constituted.
In Sydney metropolitan areas, decisions will continue to be made by local planning panels, but matters will no longer be referred to Sydney district planning panels, which will have the desired effect of ‘returning’ decision making to councils and local planning panels.
Associated amendments to the EPA Regulations will be made to address the staged removal of Sydney district and regional planning panels.
Savings Provisions
For those local government areas where a Sydney district planning panel has been constituted, if a development application for regionally significant development has been made but not finally determined before the repeal of s 4.5(b) of the EPA Act (which designates the consent authority for ‘regionally significant development’), the application must be determined by:
- the Sydney district planning panel, only if there is no local planning panel or the council has already given the Sydney district planning panel an assessment report; or
- otherwise, the local planning panel.
For local government areas where a regional planning panel was constituted, an undetermined development application or modification application for regionally significant development must be determined by:
- the local planning panel for development in the Central Coast, Wingecarribee or Wollongong City local government areas, if the council has not given the regional panel an assessment report, or if assessment report has been provided, the regional planning panel constituted immediately before the commencement of the amending legislation; or
- for all other development, the regional planning panel for the area in which the development is proposed to be carried out.
Will there be any change?
Where local planning panels are already appointed, they will continue to make decisions and will be required to determine any current applications for ‘regionally significant development’. The impact of these proposed changes on development assessment in regional areas will be dependent on the establishment of local planning panels and the referral criteria. Ultimately, applications currently referred to a regional planning panel will probably be referred to a local planning panel that operates across local government boundaries. There may therefore be no real difference in procedural requirements for those applications.
Presently, the characterisation of regionally significant development based on estimated development cost can be applied and interpreted in different ways, particularly for concept and staged development, and may not always reflect the strategic importance of proposed development. We anticipate that clearer criteria for determining which matters must be referred to a panel will be welcomed by both councils, developers and the community alike.
Targeted Assessment Pathway
A new development assessment pathway for ‘targeted assessment development’ is proposed (new Division 4.3A of the EPA Act). Targeted assessment development will be development so declared in a SEPP. The proposed provisions for the targeted assessment pathway will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with other provisions of the EPA Act (proposed s 4.20B of the EPA Act).
For targeted assessment development only the matters referred to in s 4.15(1)(a) and (d) that are of relevance are to be considered, being EPIs, proposed EPIs, DCPs, planning agreements, the EPA Regulations and public submissions. The consent authority is not take into account the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site or the public interest.
The minimum public exhibition period for targeted assessment development will be specified in a SEPP and, if not specified, will be 14 days (Schedule 1, clause 9C). A separate exhibition period will be specified for re-exhibition of an amended application for targeted assessment development.
The effect of these proposed changes will depend on what types of development are declared as targeted assessment development. We anticipate that there are likely to be concerns about the absence of environmental impact assessment for such development and how this type of development will ultimately be different to exempt or complying development.
Relevant Considerations
The Bill proposes to amend s 4.15 of the EPA Act, which sets out the relevant matters to be considered by a consent authority when determining a development application. The proposed amendments include the following:
- Amendment of the requirement to consider the likely impacts of development under s 4.15(1)(b) so that the requirement is to consider ‘significant’ impacts. This amendment does not apply to applications lodged but not finally determined before the commencement of the amending legislation. The savings provision ceases to have effect 12 months after the commencement of the amendments.
- Adding provisions so that the EPA Regulations can specify what matters are or are not of relevance to the development and restricting a consent authority from taking into consideration factors that are not relevant. The Bill proposes to insert s 65A of the EPA Regulations, which will declare that the significant likely impacts of ‘other development’ are factors that are not relevant to the development the subject of the development application. ‘Other development’ is 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’.
These amendments will confirm, contrary to several recent decisions in the Land and Environment Court[1] , that there is no obligation to assess impacts of ‘offsite’ works (for example road works or utility installations) that will be subject to other approvals (including environmental assessment under Part 5 of the EPA Act).
Modification
The Bill proposes to amend s 4.55(1) of the EPA Act (modifications involving minor, error, misdescription or miscalculation) to allow a consent authority to modify a development consent, if satisfied that the modification will have no environmental impact. The other requirements for modifying a consent, for example, the requirement for the modified development to be substantially the same as that originally approved or to notify the application and consider submissions, will not apply to such modifications.
Modifications under s 4.55(1) of the EPA Act, including modifications with no environmental impact, must be determined within a prescribed period and if determined after the prescribed period must not be refused (proposed s 4.55A). The prescribed period is 14 days after the modification application is lodged (proposed s 118A of the EPA Regulations).
Further streamlining of the modification process is to be achieved through:
- removing existing consultation requirements (currently section 4.55(2)(b) of the EPA Act) and requiring notification, consultation or concurrence for modification applications only in accordance with an EPI (proposed s 4.55(3B))
- clarification that the consent authority is only to consider matters under s 4.15 of the EPA Act that are relevant to the application (amended s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act), and
- limiting matters for consideration when determining an application to modify targeted assessment development (proposed s 4.55(3A)).
The powers of the Planning Secretary and council to revoke or modify consents (under s 4.57) having regard to proposed EPIs, will be extended so that regard can be had to existing EPIs.
[1] Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (2011) 81 NSWLR 638; [2011] NSWCA 349; Ballina Shire Council v Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 41; Bingman Catchment Landcare Group Incorporated v Bowdens Silver Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 205
