The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 was passed with amendments by the NSW Legislative Assembly on Thursday 16 October 2025.  

It has now been introduced into the Legislative Council and debate on the Bill is expected to continue in the NSW Legislative Council next week (commencing Tuesday 21 October). 

Key amendments made in the Legislative Assembly are as follows: 

  • Restriction to targeted assessment development, to exclude fossil fuel and other projects from fast tracking.  The Government moved its own amendment to exclude designated development (coal mines, electricity generating stations, concrete works, etc.) from the proposed new streamlined assessment pathway. A list of designated development can be found in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EP&A Regulation). Designated development may also be identified in an environmental planning instrument (EPI). This was a direct change made in response to concerns raised by EDO and other stakeholders and is a key improvement to the Bill.  
  • Public consultation timeframe specified for targeted assessment development: The Opposition secured an amendment that a proposed policy to declare targeted assessment development must be subject to public consultation for a minimum of 28 days (the Bill was originally silent on the time period). 
  • Amendments made to maintain environment protection and human health in Objects: Independents Alex Greenwich MP and Jacqui Scruby MP secured amendments to retain important elements of the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) relating to protection of the environment, protection of the health and safety of the occupants of buildings, and proper management and conservation of natural resources. These changes generally address EDO’s concerns about proposed changes to the objects of the Act. 
  • Tightened wording for expedited amendment of Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs): The Opposition also secured an amendment to provisions that would allow the expedited amendment of EPIs that the Housing Delivery Authority considers ‘reasonably necessary’ to enable the carrying out of State significant development (SSD) (rather than ‘necessary and convenient’ as originally proposed). While this is an improvement to the Bill as originally drafted, we remain concerned about the environmental and community impacts, as well as the potential corruption risks arising from expedited EPI amendments – see below. 
  • Bush fire prone land protections retained in the Act: Independent Michael Regan MP secured an amendment to retain provisions relating to bush fire prone land mapping in the EP&A Act. The Government also inserted a requirement for a consent authority to consider the relevant Bush Fire Protection Planning guide before granting development consent (although this is a change to current requirements in section 4.14 of the EP&A Act that require consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service). 
  • Clarification of provisions relating to ‘zombie development applications’: The Government amended the provisions of the Bill intended to address ‘zombie’ development applications. The amendments will limit the use of modification and revocation powers pertaining to an existing EPI to the planning secretary only for development consents granted more than 25 years ago. We note a Parliamentary inquiry into historical development consents in NSW is still underway. 
  • Improvements to transparency and accountability: Several other amendments were made to the Bill that would improve transparency and accountability. These include: 
  • A requirement for the Minister to publish reasons for not accepting a recommendation from the Housing Delivery Authority. 
  • A requirement for the Planning Department’s annual report to report on the operations of the Development Coordination Authority. 
  • The Planning Secretary must arrange for the community participation plan to be published on the NSW legislation website. 
  • A new Joint Select Committee of the Parliament will be established to undertake reviews of the amendments made to the Act relating to the Housing Delivery Authority to determine whether— (a) the policy objectives of the amendments remain valid, and (b) the terms of the Act, as amended, remain appropriate for securing the objectives. 

The following proposed amendments to the Bill were not supported and did not pass: 

  • Amendments proposed by the Greens that would require, for development for the purposes of residential accommodation that will result in 10 or more dwellings, a condition that 20% of the residential floor space of the development will be used for affordable housing.  
  • Amendments proposed by the Opposition to retain Sydney district and regional planning panels.  

Outstanding concerns 

Although Legislative Assembly amendments have reduced some risks in the Bill, EDO maintains serious concerns with a number of remaining provisions.  

  1. Environmental considerations still weakened 

Changes that will affect how all development and infrastructure is assessed and considered remain in the Bill. 

  • In relation to Part 4 Development, the Bill: 
  • Weakens consideration requirements by requiring that only “significant” likely impacts are considered. This change may prevent the consideration of impacts material to the community, or cumulatively significant, but not rising to the definition of “significant” impact; 
  • Continues to allow regulations to set out matters that are prohibited from consideration, and makes a new regulation prohibiting consent authorities from considering “other development”, which is very ambiguously defined and could extend to indirect impacts, including cumulative impacts. 
  • In relation to Part 5 Infrastructure, the Bill still proposed changes to the duty to consider environmental impacts when determining Part 5 public infrastructure applications (e.g. roads, schools and utility networks). These changes have the potential to limit the extent to which environmental impacts need to be considered in Part 5 applications.  Specifically, the Bill will be amended to remove the words “to the fullest extent possible” from the requirement to take into account all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity;  and allow a determining authority to consider environmental impacts “in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity”.  

Together, these changes significantly weaken environmental and community protection, and disempower decision-makers from properly considering the impacts of all developments. These changes are a retrograde step, which are directly at odds with the Minister’s assertion that the Bill “modernises” the planning system.  

  1. Corruption risks remain with expedited amendment of Environmental Planning Instruments  

A significant corruption risk remains in the Bill, which drastically reduces community input and external oversight. This is the proposed provision for expedited amendment of EPIs that the Housing Delivery Authority considers “reasonably necessary” for carrying out State Significant Developments (SSD). While the amended wording from ‘necessary and convenient’ to ‘reasonably necessary’ is an improvement, ultimately the provision still allows expedited ‘spot rezoning’.  This means that no planning proposal process needs to be undertaken and there is no external accountability if the Minister declares a proposal to be SSD and the Housing Development Authority considers it reasonably necessary. Site-specific rezoning with no safeguards is a major corruption risk that ICAC has repeatedly warned against.  

  1. Powers removed from specialised agencies and Ministers and centralised in Planning Minister and Planning Secretary (Development Coordination Authority)  

The Bill proposes to remove the role of specialised agencies and Ministers to input into planning decisions, instead providing for: 

  • The Development Coordination Authority (DCA) to provide general terms of approval for integrated development. 
  • The DCA or Planning Minister to take over certain referral and concurrence roles, including in relation to threatened species and ecological communities, biodiversity impacts and marine parks and reserves. 

The changes remove the role of specialised agencies and Ministers to input into planning decisions. Those agencies and Ministers are best placed to consider the issues relevant to their portfolio (e.g. biodiversity impacts, impacts on threatened species etc.) and can provide frank advice, at arms-length from the Planning Department.   

Functions will be centralised in the DCA – who is defined in the legislation as the Planning Secretary. While the Bill provides that the DCA can draw on other Departments or experts, there is no requirement for the DCA to do this, and there is nothing to prevent the DCA simply exercising functions unilaterally (in time or under future governments).  

The DCA is intended to help streamline decision making, but there are already provisions in the EP&A Act that can help address delays, for example  

  • The EP&A Act and EP&A Regulation already allow the Planning Secretary to step in and act on behalf of an approval body for integrated development where there are delays (e.g. section 4.47(4A) of the EP&A Act)  
  • A number of referral and concurrence provisions already set time periods for other agency feedback (e.g. section 48 of the Dams Safety Act 2015; section 51 of the Hunter Water Act 1991) to prevent delays  

We recommend the role of existing agencies is retained and supported (e.g. with appropriate funding and capacity) allowing those agencies to continue to provide arms-length, specialised input into planning decisions for both integrated development and referral and concurrence. The Planning Department can continue to play an important coordination role, but the DCA/Planning Secretary should not be given direct powers to exercise functions unilaterally.  

  1. Making of EPIs – Special consultation procedures concerning threatened species 

The Bill removes the requirement to consult with the head of the Environment Department before making an EPI that would adversely affect critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats (by omitting s 3.25 of the EP&A Act). Unlike other changes to referral requirements in the Bill, this specific referral requirement is being removed entirely (not transferred to the DCA).