Avoid restrictive site-specific controls and no development drawings.
A planning proposal that amends an instrument to allow a particular development must either permit the use in the existing zone, rezone to an existing zone allowing it, or allow the use without imposing extra development standards beyond those already in the instrument. The proposal must not contain drawings showing details of the proposed development.
This direction is aimed at stopping planning proposals from creating bespoke, one-off planning rules for a single development or site. When a landowner or council wants to enable a particular development that current controls don't allow, the temptation is to write tailored provisions and even attach drawings of the exact building proposed. This direction pushes back on that, saying use the standard toolkit instead: permit the use in the zone, rezone to an existing zone, or allow the use without piling on extra site-specific standards.
In plain terms, if you are amending a planning instrument (such as an LEP) to let a specific development proceed, you must do it in one of three clean ways rather than inventing new development standards or requirements that apply only to that patch of land. The point is to keep the planning system simple and consistent, and to avoid the environmental planning instrument becoming cluttered with restrictive, hyper-specific controls tied to individual projects.
A further rule bans the planning proposal from containing or referring to drawings that show details of the proposed development. This reinforces that a planning proposal is about land-use permissibility and controls, not about approving a particular building design — the design belongs to the later development application stage. Inconsistency is only tolerated where it is genuinely minor and the Planning Secretary is satisfied of that.
All relevant planning authorities (typically councils, but also other bodies) when they prepare a planning proposal that will allow a particular development to be carried out.
It is triggered when a planning proposal amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development to be carried out — i.e. site-specific or development-specific proposals.
A planning proposal may be inconsistent only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Planning Secretary (or a nominated departmental officer) that the inconsistent provisions are of minor significance.
It replaces the previous Direction 6.3 and operates on amendments to environmental planning instruments (such as LEPs); it commenced 1 March 2022.
The proposal must either allow the land use in the existing zone, rezone the site to an existing zone that already permits the use, or allow the use without imposing standards or requirements beyond those already in the principal instrument being amended.
Options (b) and (c) both require that no development standards or requirements be imposed beyond those already contained in the relevant existing zone or principal environmental planning instrument.
A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the proposed development.
For Kiama Council this bites whenever a landowner seeks a planning proposal to enable a specific project — for example a particular tourism, seniors housing or mixed-use development on a single site in Kiama, Gerringong or Jamberoo. Rather than drafting bespoke site-specific clauses or attaching the applicant's building plans to the LEP amendment, the council must rely on standard zone permissibility or an existing zone that already allows the use, without layering on custom standards. This keeps Kiama's LEP clean and pushes design detail into the later DA process.
1.4 Site Specific Provisions Objective The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. Application This direction applies to all relevant planning authorities when preparing a planning proposal that will allow a particular development to be carried out. Direction 1.4 (1) A planning proposal that will amend another environmental planning instrument in order to allow particular development to be carried out must either: (a) allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or (b) rezone the site to an existing zone already in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or (c) allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. (2) A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the proposed development. Consistency A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Planning Secretary (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Secretary) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are of minor significance. Issued to commence 1 March 2022 (replaces previous Direction 6.3)
Reproduced from the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (planning.nsw.gov.au), © State of New South Wales, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Text extraction may introduce minor formatting artefacts — rely on the official source for anything decision-critical.
This is an unofficial reproduction provided for convenience. It is not the official version of the legislation. For the official, in-force version, see legislation.nsw.gov.au.