Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 1.4 (the Act's definitions) now includes "targeted assessment development", meaning development that has been declared to be targeted assessment development under section 4.20A. This is the dictionary entry that underpins a new assessment category introduced into the Act. The definition itself simply links the term to its source provision; the actual rules, criteria and process for this new pathway sit in section 4.20A and related provisions.

Section 4.15 lists the matters a consent authority must weigh when deciding a DA. Two new subsections (1C and 1D) carve out a special category called "targeted assessment development". For these applications, the consent authority must consider ONLY the matters in s 4.15(1)(a) (environmental planning instruments, proposed instruments, DCPs, planning agreements and the regulations) and s 4.15(1)(d) (submissions). It is expressly prohibited from considering s 4.15(1)(b) (likely environmental, social and economic impacts), (c) (suitability of the site) or (e) (the public interest). The intent is a faster, more deterministic assessment for development that has been pre-qualified into this category — if the proposal meets the applicable controls, the broader merit considerations fall away.

Section 4.20A is a new provision allowing a State Environmental Planning Policy to declare development, or a class of development, to be "targeted assessment development", and to set criteria that development must meet to qualify. Before such a SEPP is made, the Minister must publicise the intended effect, invite public submissions for at least 28 days, and consider those submissions. Development can be targeted assessment development as well as another type of development under Part 4, but designated development (and development that would be designated but for section 4.10(2)) cannot be declared targeted assessment development. The section establishes the legal hook for a new streamlined assessment category, though the actual development that falls into it depends on a SEPP being made.

This new provision establishes a priority rule for the new Division 4.3A targeted assessment pathway. Where the targeted assessment rules (in this division or made under the Act) conflict with other Part 4 development assessment provisions, the targeted assessment rules win. It removes ambiguity about which set of rules applies when a development goes through the targeted assessment stream, ensuring that pathway operates as a self-contained regime rather than being undercut by general assessment requirements.

Section 4.43 has long provided that the State significant development (SSD) provisions of this Division win out wherever they conflict with other development provisions in the Act. A new subsection (2) carves out an exception: that priority rule does not apply to other provisions of or made under the Act relating to targeted assessment development. In short, the SSD regime no longer automatically trumps the rules governing targeted assessment development.

This change reorganises the modification pathways. Previously, both "no" and "minimal" environmental impact modifications were dealt with together under subsection (1A), which requires notification and consideration of submissions. Now subsection (1) — the fast track previously reserved for correcting minor errors, misdescriptions and miscalculations — also covers modifications the consent authority is satisfied have "no environmental impact". A new subsection (1AA) confirms that the (1A), (2), (3), (6) and Part 8 requirements (including notification and same-or-substantially-the-same tests) do not apply to these subsection (1) modifications. Subsection (1A) is now confined to modifications of "minimal" environmental impact. Subsection (3) is restructured so the consent authority considers section 4.15(1) matters and the original reasons for consent only so far as relevant, and a new subsection (3A) applies the targeted-assessment consideration rule (s 4.15(1C)) to modifications of targeted assessment development.

This new provision introduces a 'no refusal' rule for minor modification applications made under section 4.55(1). The consent authority must determine these applications within a period to be set in the regulations. If it misses that deadline, it must still determine the application as soon as practicable but is prohibited from refusing it. It can still attach conditions, provided those conditions relate only to the modification and don't defeat its purpose. The one carve-out is modifications to housing and productivity contribution conditions under section 7.28, which must still be refused unless the Minister has approved the change. The aim is to stop minor modification requests from stalling and to pressure consent authorities to deal with them promptly.

Subsection (1A) has been reworded into a clearer two-part list, but the substance is the same: when deciding a modification of a consent granted by the Land and Environment Court, the consent authority considers the section 4.15(1) heads of consideration and the reasons the consent was granted, each only so far as relevant. The real new content is subsection (1AA), which applies section 4.15(1C) to modification applications. That means where the consent being modified is for 'targeted assessment development', the consent authority only has to take into account the matters in section 4.15(1)(a) and (d) that are relevant — a narrower, streamlined set of considerations than the full section 4.15(1) list.

Section 5.5 sets the duty on a determining authority (e.g. a public authority assessing its own or another body's activity under Part 5, such as a review of environmental factors). The old wording required examining and taking into account "to the fullest extent possible all matters" affecting the environment — a very high, exhaustive standard. The amendment removes "to the fullest extent possible" and "all", so the authority now examines and takes into account the matters affecting or likely to affect the environment. A new subsection (2) expressly allows the authority to do this "in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity". The practical effect is a more risk-based, scalable approach: low-impact activities can attract lighter consideration, rather than every activity requiring the same exhaustive analysis.

The definitions in Part 8 are unchanged. "Appeal" still means an appeal to the Land and Environment Court under Divisions 8.3–8.6, and "review" still means a review by a consent authority under Division 8.2. The only difference is the historical/editorial note at the foot of the section, which previously referenced the broader insertion of Divisions 8.1 and 8.2 and now simply records the insertion of section 8.1 itself. This is a consolidation tidy-up with no effect on meaning.

Section 8.10 has been rewritten to strip out the temporary COVID-era extensions (the old 'prescribed period' of 25 March 2020 to 25 March 2022 that doubled appeal windows) and replace them with clean, permanent timeframes. An applicant dissatisfied with a determination of a development consent or modification application now has 6 months from when the determination is notified or registered on the NSW planning portal to appeal. For a deemed refusal, an applicant can appeal at any time after the regulated assessment period expires and before the consent authority actually determines the application. Objectors continue to have 28 days from being notified. A new subsection also requires that any period under section 8.9A be disregarded when calculating the appeal window for determinations or decisions under section 8.2(1)(a) or (b).

The only change to section 8.2 is in subsection (1): the opening words "The following determinations or decisions of a consent authority under Part 4" become "The following determinations or decisions under Part 4". The three categories of reviewable determinations and decisions — development consent determinations, modification determinations, and council decisions to reject and not determine an application — are unchanged, as are the exclusions in subsection (2) (complying development, designated development, Crown development) and the no-further-review rule in subsection (3). Because each paragraph already names the specific decision-makers, dropping the redundant "of a consent authority" makes no substantive difference to scope.

Section 8.3 sets out who can request a review of a development consent determination or decision and who conducts that review. The amendments rewrite subsections (1) and (1A) to tie the review entitlement directly to the determinations and decisions listed in section 8.2(1), and clarify that the person or body that made the decision must review it when a request is properly made (subject to the body-specific rules in subsections (4)–(9)). The substantive new feature is subsection (4)(c): where a decision was made by a council delegate, the applicant can now request that the review be conducted by the local planning panel instead of by the council or another delegate (this option does not apply to reviews under section 8.2(1)(c)). The time-bar in subsection (2) is also recast to exclude section 8.2(1)(c) reviews.

The review power in Division 8.2 lets a consent authority reconsider and confirm or change a determination or decision. The amendment keeps that power but adds a clear cut-off: once the Land and Environment Court has disposed of an appeal against the determination or decision, the consent authority can no longer review it, nor confirm or change it under this division. This stops applicants from running a Section 8.2 review in parallel with, or after, a court appeal on the same matter, removing a potential second bite once the Court has ruled.

This amendment broadens what the regulations can cover for reviews under Division 8.2. In addition to who lodges reviews and the time to finalise them, the regulations can now prescribe the process for making review applications, the conduct and procedure of reviews, the fees payable, and the deadline for requesting a review under section 8.2(1)(c). Subsection (7) was also updated so that where a consent authority modifies a development consent on review (not just grants or varies conditions), it can still arrange — with the applicant's agreement — for any related Land and Environment Court appeal to be withdrawn before it is decided. These are mechanical clarifications to the review framework rather than a change to what development is permissible.

This adds a new rule preventing an applicant from running a review and an appeal at the same time. If you have lodged a request for review of a determination or decision under Division 8.2, you cannot start an appeal under Division 8.3 until that review is resolved. The block lasts from when the review request is lodged until the determination is confirmed or changed under section 8.4, the period set under section 8.5(1)(b) expires, or the applicant withdraws the review request. It forces applicants to finish the review pathway before turning to the appeal pathway.

This adds clause 9C to Schedule 1 of the EP&A Act, creating a dedicated public exhibition regime for a new category called "targeted assessment development". For both the initial application and any re-exhibition of an amended application, the minimum exhibition period is whatever a State environmental planning policy specifies, no exhibition if a SEPP says none is required, or 14 days by default if a SEPP is silent. It expressly overrides the general re-exhibition rule in clause 13 for these applications. The aim is a streamlined, SEPP-driven exhibition pathway tailored to targeted assessment development.

New subsections 4.15(1C) and (1D) carve out a narrower set of assessment matters for a new category called "targeted assessment development". For ordinary DAs, a consent authority must still weigh the full list in section 4.15(1) — planning instruments, likely impacts, suitability of the site, submissions and the public interest. But for targeted assessment development, the authority may consider only the relevant planning instruments, DCPs, planning agreements and regulations (paragraph (a)) and any submissions made (paragraph (d)). It is expressly prohibited from taking into account the development's likely environmental, social and economic impacts (b), the suitability of the site (c), or the public interest (e). The aim is a faster, more rules-based pathway where compliance with the planning framework largely determines the outcome.

This new Division 4.3A creates a framework for "targeted assessment development" — a category of development that a State environmental planning policy (SEPP) can declare, either specifically or as a class, and to which assessment criteria can be attached. Before such a SEPP is made, the Minister must publicise the intended effect, invite public submissions for at least 28 days, and consider them. Designated development (and development that would be designated but for section 4.10(2)) cannot be declared targeted assessment development. Importantly, where the targeted assessment rules conflict with other parts of the Act dealing with development, the targeted assessment provisions prevail. The Division establishes the legal scaffolding, but the actual development and criteria depend on a SEPP being made under it.

Section 4.43 says that the State significant development (SSD) provisions of Division 4.7 prevail over any inconsistent provisions elsewhere in the Act. The amendment splits the section into two subsections and adds a new exception: this prevailing rule does not apply to other provisions of or made under the Act that relate to "targeted assessment development". In effect, the SSD precedence rule no longer trumps the rules governing the targeted assessment pathway, so those targeted assessment provisions can operate on their own terms. The rest of Division 4.7 (ss 4.36–4.42) is unchanged.

This change reworks the post-consent modification provisions. Section 4.55(1) is broadened: as well as fixing minor errors, misdescriptions or miscalculations, it now also covers modifications the consent authority is satisfied have 'no environmental impact'. The old 'no or minimal' impact category in 4.55(1A) is narrowed to just 'minimal environmental impact'. The matters a consent authority must consider when deciding a modification (under both 4.55 and 4.56) are reworded to apply only so far as relevant, and targeted assessment development is hooked into the streamlined section 4.15(1C) consideration test. Most significantly, a new section 4.55A says that for the simplest modifications (those under 4.55(1)), the authority must determine the application within a regulation-prescribed period; if it misses that deadline, it must still decide as soon as practicable and must not refuse the application — it can only impose conditions that relate to the modification and do not defeat its purpose. An exception preserves the need to refuse changes to housing and productivity contribution conditions unless the Minister has approved them.

Division 5.1 covers environmental impact assessment for activities that don't need development consent under Part 4 (the Part 5 / REF pathway). Section 5.5, the core duty on determining authorities, has been amended. Previously a determining authority had to "examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters" affecting the environment. That language has been narrowed to simply "examine and take into account matters" affecting the environment, and a new subsection (5.5(2)) allows the authority to take those matters into account "in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity." The practical effect is a shift to a risk-proportionate assessment standard for Part 5 activities — lower-risk activities can be assessed more lightly, while the obligation to consider effects on wilderness areas is unchanged. The rest of Division 5.1 is unchanged.

The only difference here is in the historical/drafting notes attached to Division 8.1. The earlier consolidation grouped Divisions 8.1 and 8.2 together in a single insertion note ("divs 8.1, 8.2 (ss 8.1–8.5)"); the later version splits this out so the note refers to Division 8.1 / section 8.1 alone. The substantive content — the definitions of "appeal" (an appeal to the Land and Environment Court under Divisions 8.3–8.6) and "review" (a review by a consent authority under Division 8.2) — is identical in both versions.

The 2025 amendments reshape Division 8.2 (review of consent decisions). The biggest practical change is new section 8.3(4)(c): where a determination or decision was made by a council delegate, the applicant can now request that the review be conducted by the local planning panel — except for reviews of a council's decision to reject and not determine a DA. Section 8.3 is also re-cast so the request to review and the duty to review are split into separate subsections. New section 8.4(2) makes clear a determination cannot be reviewed, confirmed or changed once the Court has disposed of an appeal against it. Section 8.5's regulation-making power is expanded to cover the process for making and conducting review applications, the setting of fees for reviews, and the period within which a rejection review (s8.2(1)(c)) must be requested. Section 8.5(7) is also extended so the consent authority's entitlement to have an appeal withdrawn now applies where it modifies a consent on review, not only where it grants or varies one.

Two things change in the development-consent appeals division. First, a new section 8.9A stops an applicant or objector from lodging a Court appeal while a request for review under Division 8.2 is on foot — you cannot run a review and a Court appeal at the same time; the bar lifts once the review is confirmed, changed, withdrawn or its time expires. Second, section 8.10 is rewritten to replace the old COVID-era sliding windows (the 25 March 2020–25 March 2022 'prescribed period' with 6/12-month and 28/56-day options) with clean limits: an applicant dissatisfied with a determination has 6 months from notification/portal registration to appeal; an objector has 28 days; and an appeal against a deemed refusal can be made any time after the determination period expires and before the consent authority actually determines the application. Time spent in a Division 8.2 review is disregarded when calculating the appeal period.

This entry records a modification to Part 4 of the EP&A Act, the part that governs how development applications are made, assessed and determined. In the provisions reproduced here (the core rules on development that needs consent, the designation of consent authorities, panels, and the application/notification process), the earlier and later text are materially the same. The substantive amendments commencing on this date sit within other sections of the Part not captured in this excerpt. The core architecture — who is the consent authority, what triggers consent, EIS requirements for State significant and designated development, and concurrence/notification rules — continues to operate as before.

Section 5.5 sets the core environmental-assessment duty that applies to "activities" under Part 5 (development not needing development consent, typically assessed by public authorities via a Review of Environmental Factors rather than a DA). Previously a determining authority had to "examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters" affecting the environment. From 21 March 2026 the words "to the fullest extent possible" and "all" are removed, so the duty is simply to examine and take into account the relevant matters. A new subsection (2) expressly allows the authority to do so "in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity". The effect is to relax the long-standing high threshold and embed a proportionate, risk-based assessment standard for Part 5 activities.

The 2025 amendments reshape Part 8's review and appeal machinery. On reviews (Division 8.2): an applicant for a delegate's determination can now ask for the review to be conducted by the local planning panel (new s8.3(4)(c), except for reject-and-not-determine decisions); the regulations can now set the review process, charge fees for reviews, and fix the time for requesting review of a council's decision to reject an application; and a review can't be confirmed or changed once the Court has disposed of an appeal (new s8.4(2)). On appeals (Division 8.3): a new s8.9A stops you running an appeal at the same time as a review — no appeal may be lodged from when a review request is lodged until the review is decided, lapses or is withdrawn, and that period is excluded from appeal time limits (s8.10(4)). Section 8.10 is rewritten to give a clean 6-month appeal window for applicants, an open-ended window for deemed-refusal appeals (any time after the determination period expires and before the consent authority actually determines), and 28 days for objectors, removing the old COVID-era 'prescribed period' extensions.

Schedule 2 sets out the housekeeping rules for NSW planning bodies — the Independent Planning Commission, Sydney district and regional planning panels, local planning panels, and the Housing Delivery Authority. It covers how panels are constituted, the geographic areas they cover, public hearing procedures, and the appointment, terms, remuneration and removal of members. This amendment modifies the Schedule as part of the package of EP&A Act changes commencing 21 March 2026. In the provisions shown, the wording is identical to the earlier version, so any substantive change sits in parts of the Schedule not reproduced here (the text was truncated). The Schedule governs the internal makeup and conduct of planning bodies rather than the criteria for assessing development.

This change reworks the long-standing duty under section 5.5 (formerly s 111) that applies when a public authority assesses an "activity" under Part 5 (typically via a Review of Environmental Factors, where no development consent is required). The old test required the authority to "examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters" affecting the environment — a deliberately demanding standard. The new wording drops "to the fullest extent possible" and "all", and a new subsection (2) expressly allows the authority to take those matters into account "in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity." In practice this scales the depth of environmental assessment to the significance of the proposal, reducing the obligation for low-risk activities while preserving full scrutiny for higher-risk ones. It is in force from 21 March 2026.

This new clause wipes out a defined set of prescriptive conditions attached to development consents for licensed premises. By operation of law, conditions controlling the genre of music, whether it's original or covers, the number and type of instruments, the number of musicians, whether dancing happens, the use of a dance floor, the direction a stage faces, and decorations like mirror balls or performer lighting all stop having effect. Equally, conditions on hotels, clubs and small bars that prohibit live entertainment or live music (including bans after a set time) cease to apply. The same applies where these matters are buried in a required plan of management. This is part of the NSW push to support live music and night-time economy by removing red-tape conditions that historically suppressed entertainment venues.

Schedule 8, Part 1 gains a new clause 1A that, by operation of law, cancels certain prescriptive conditions on development consents for licensed premises. From commencement, conditions dictating the type or genre of music, original vs cover music, the number and type of instruments, the number of musicians, whether dancing occurs, dance floors, the direction a stage faces, and decorations/lighting (e.g. mirror balls) cease to have effect. The same applies to equivalent provisions buried in a plan of management that a consent requires compliance with. Importantly, conditions that prohibit live entertainment or live music entirely, or after a set time, also cease to have effect for premises holding a hotel, club or small bar licence. There are carve-outs: clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to State significant development consents, complying development certificates, or Minister-granted consents under Part 4 Division 4.3, and clause (4) excludes complying development and Part 4 Division 4.3 consents. A Dark Sky exception preserves lighting controls in protected areas. This is part of the NSW vibrancy/night-time-economy reform agenda to free up live music venues.

Schedule 2 of the EP&A Act sets out membership and procedural rules for the various planning bodies. This change adds the Housing Delivery Authority (as new paragraph (a1)) to the definition of "planning body", placing it alongside the Independent Planning Commission, planning panels and Ministerial panels. The effect is that the Schedule's rules about members, appointments and procedures now also cover the Housing Delivery Authority, formally recognising it within the Act's framework.

Section 1.3 sets out the statutory objects that guide how the whole Act is interpreted and how planning decisions are made. The list has been substantially recast. The housing object is broadened from just "affordable housing" to promoting the "supply, delivery and maintenance of housing, including affordable housing". Three new objects are added: promoting productivity through development and management of the State and its resources; promoting resilience to climate change and natural disasters through adaptation, mitigation, preparedness and prevention; and promoting a proportionate and risk-based approach to environmental planning and assessment. Good design, amenity, and proper construction/maintenance are consolidated into a single object, and the objects are reordered so housing now sits near the top while ecologically sustainable development moves further down. The former object about sharing responsibility between levels of government has been dropped. The intent is to refocus the planning system toward boosting housing supply, productivity and climate resilience.

The definitions section has been updated to recognise two new statutory bodies: the Housing Delivery Authority (a corporation constituted under new Division 2.3A) and the Development Coordination Authority (under new Division 2.3B). These definitions are signposts to the substantive provisions establishing those bodies, which support faster pathways for housing and a coordinated approach to development referrals and concurrences. The change also corrects the NSW planning portal web address from www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au to www.planning.nsw.gov.au.

This change strips out the text of subsection (2), which previously spelled out that a regulation could apply generally or be limited by exceptions, apply differently according to different factors, or authorise a specified person to determine matters. That flexibility is standard machinery already covered by the general law on subordinate legislation (the Interpretation Act 1987), so removing it from the EP&A Act tidies the section without altering the substantive scope of the Governor's power to make regulations. The rest of the section — including the list of matters that can be prescribed and the $110,000 offence penalty cap — is unchanged.

This new provision in Schedule 2 (savings, transitional and related provisions) creates a framework allowing local planning panels to be constituted to cover more than one local government area, rather than only a single area. The explanatory note makes clear that, as at commencement, no such cross-area panels have actually been set up. The clause establishes the legal mechanism; whether and when any combined panels are formed is a separate step.

This adds section 2.11A, which formally constitutes the Housing Delivery Authority as a body corporate and declares it a NSW Government agency. It gives the Authority legal standing so it can hold a role in the planning system. On its own this section is purely the constitution step — it establishes the body's existence and status but does not, by itself, spell out the Authority's assessment functions, powers, or processes.

This new provision formally constitutes the membership of the Housing Delivery Authority. It requires the Authority to comprise the Planning Secretary and at least two members appointed by the Minister, and it mandates that one member be designated chairperson via the instrument of appointment. This is a structural/governance provision that sets up the body itself rather than altering assessment rules directly.

This new section 2.11C formally sets out what the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) does. Its functions include exercising any powers delegated to it under the Act, advising and making recommendations to the Minister about housing supply, the declaration of specific residential (or mixed residential and other) development as State significant development (SSD), the zoning of land for residential purposes, and who should be the planning proposal authority for an instrument. The HDA also prepares guidance on SSD declarations under section 4.36. Importantly, if the Minister rejects an HDA recommendation about declaring SSD, rezoning, or appointing a planning proposal authority, the Minister must publish the decision and reasons on the NSW planning portal — creating a transparency check on the new fast-track housing pathway.

This new provision establishes how the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) operates. It can use Department or other public authority staff and facilities, engage its own experts, and delegate its functions (including functions delegated to it under section 2.4) to other authorised persons or bodies. It also allows regulations or environmental planning instruments to give the HDA extra functions and govern how it exercises them, and requires its annual reporting to be folded into the Department's annual report. In short, it gives the HDA the administrative machinery to function as a body within the planning system.

This new section 2.11E inserts a definition into the Act: wherever the term "Development Coordination Authority" (DCA) appears, it means the Planning Secretary. The definition is part of a broader framework introducing a coordinating authority role into the planning system. While the definition itself sits in the consolidated Act from 15 December 2025, the substantive DCA powers that give it practical effect are expected to commence around July 2026, so the role does not yet do anything operationally.

This new provision creates the statutory role and functions of the Development Coordination Authority — including exercising delegated functions under the Act, advising the Minister on planning and development matters, and any other functions given to it under the Act, regulations or instruments. It is the foundation for a new coordinating body in the NSW planning system. Although the section formally commenced on 15 December 2025, the DCA's powers are not yet switched on; the operative trigger for these functions is expected around July 2026.

Section 2.11G establishes the housekeeping rules for the new Development Coordination Authority (DCA): it can use Department or other public authority staff and facilities, engage experts, and delegate its functions to bodies listed in section 2.4(1). The regulations or an environmental planning instrument can give it extra functions and set its procedures, and the Planning Secretary must report on its operations in the Department's annual report. The DCA is being set up to coordinate input from referral and concurrence authorities in the development assessment process, but this section only deals with how the body is staffed, delegates, and is governed — not the substantive assessment changes.

New section 2.11H sets up a two-way information-sharing regime between the Development Coordination Authority and public authorities. Public authorities must hand over information the DCA reasonably needs to carry out its functions, within the DCA's specified timeframe, and the DCA may share information back where a public authority reasonably needs it. The provision makes clear this sits on top of any existing information-sharing powers. It supports the DCA's intended role as a coordinating body for concurrences and referrals in development assessment, but it only becomes meaningful once the DCA itself is operational.

This adds section 2.11I, which creates a delegation power tied to the new Development Coordination Authority. It allows a Minister or any public authority to hand over (delegate) the exercise of their functions under the EP&A Act or another Act to the DCA or a member of Department staff, provided the function relates to what the DCA does. The one thing that cannot be delegated is the power of delegation itself. This is part of the legislative scaffolding for the DCA, which is intended to coordinate referrals and concurrences in development assessment.

This change adds a mechanism for the Planning Secretary to constitute a single local planning panel across multiple council areas, with those panels listed in Schedule 2, Part 3A. Where such a multi-area panel exists, the affected councils cannot set up their own panel for those areas or jointly constitute a separate one, and their panel functions must be exercised jointly. The Secretary can also amend Schedule 2, Part 3A by published order to create, abolish, rename or re-scope these panels and make savings/transitional arrangements. The effect is to centralise control over panel structure for designated regions in the Secretary's hands.

Section 2.18 has been amended so that local planning panels are no longer exclusively a council creation. Where a panel is constituted by a council, the council appoints the members; where a panel is constituted by the Planning Secretary, the Secretary appoints them. The eligibility rules, the four-member composition (an independent chair, two other independent experts, and a community representative), and the relevant-expertise list are unchanged. The ward-representative rules in subsection (5) have been consolidated and tightened in drafting (former subsection (6) is now folded into (5)), but their substance — one designated community representative per matter forming part of the quorum and voting — is retained.

Section 2.19 sets out what a local planning panel does — acting as consent authority for specified matters and advising on planning proposals and development matters. The amendment removes the phrase "constituted by a council" and changes "the council" to "a council" in the advisory functions. The effect is to express the panel's functions in a way that is not tied to a single council, accommodating panels that may serve or advise more than one council. The core functions themselves (consent authority role, advising on planning proposals and development matters) are unchanged.

The operative text of section 2.20, covering miscellaneous matters about local planning panels (Schedule 2 procedures, written reasons, regulations, council support, performance monitoring, annual reporting, legal proceedings, delegation, and ICAC status), is identical in both versions. The only difference is the editorial drafting note at the top, which changed from referencing both sections 2.19 and 2.20 to referencing only section 2.20. This reflects housekeeping following changes elsewhere; the panel rules themselves are unchanged.

Section 2.28 protects planning decision-makers from being sued personally for things done in good faith to administer the Act. A new paragraph (h1) adds members of the Housing Delivery Authority to the list of protected persons, putting them on the same footing as IPC members, planning panel members and departmental staff. This reflects the formal recognition of the Housing Delivery Authority within the planning framework.

The list of bodies that can receive delegated planning functions has been expanded. Two new entities — the Housing Delivery Authority and the Development Coordination Authority — are now valid delegates alongside existing ones like the Independent Planning Commission, planning panels, public authorities and councils. This reflects the establishment of these new coordinating bodies and gives them formal authority to exercise delegated functions under the Act.

This new clause adds a composition requirement for local planning panels handling development applications for coastal protection works on land within the coastal zone (as defined by the Coastal Management Act 2016). If a panel member other than the chairperson lacks expertise in coastal engineering or coastal geomorphology, the Minister must appoint an alternate member who has that expertise to act in their place for that determination. The change ensures these technically complex applications are assessed by a panel with the right specialist knowledge.

The operative text of section 3.13 — which allows environmental planning instruments (SEPPs and LEPs) to be made to achieve the Act's objects — is identical before and after. The only difference is in the historical renumbering note: the earlier version grouped the note as covering sections 3.13–3.19, while the later version narrows it to refer only to section 3.13. This is a drafting/editorial housekeeping change with no effect on the law itself.

The substantive content of section 3.14 (what an environmental planning instrument may provide for) is unchanged. The only amendment is the insertion of an editorial Note pointing to sections 5(6) and 42(2) of the Interpretation Act 1987, clarifying that an EPI may apply generally, be limited by specified exceptions or factors, apply differently according to different factors, or do both. This merely restates an existing legal effect already conferred by the Interpretation Act; it adds no new power or obligation.

This change updates the editorial annotation at the head of section 3.15 — the previously consolidated note covered a range ("ss 3.13–3.19 (previously ss 24, 26–31)") and now correctly references just this section ("s 3.15 (previously s 27)"). Every operative subsection (1)–(4) is word-for-word identical to the earlier version. The rules about an EPI specifying the acquiring authority, the application of section 21 of the Just Terms Compensation Act, and the limits on construing an EPI as requiring acquisition are all unchanged.

This change is purely an editorial fix to the historical note attached to the heading. The note previously grouped the provision under a range ("ss 3.13–3.19 (previously ss 24, 26–31)") and now correctly identifies it as "s 3.16 (previously s 28)". The substantive provisions in subsections (1)–(6) — which allow an environmental planning instrument to suspend or modify the operation of other laws (regulatory instruments) so development can proceed, subject to the Governor's prior approval and any responsible Minister's concurrence — are word-for-word identical. Nothing about how the section works has changed.

The operative text of section 3.17 is identical before and after this update. An environmental planning instrument may still declare any class or description of development to be designated development. The only difference is in the historical note at the foot of the provision: the earlier consolidation grouped the note across sections 3.13–3.19 (previously ss 24, 26–31), while the later version splits it out to refer specifically to s 3.17 (previously s 29). This is a presentation tidy-up of the renumbering reference, not a change in law.

Section 3.18 (Consents and concurrences) reads exactly the same as before. The only difference is in the editorial note recording the provision's history — it was changed from a broad reference ("ss 3.13–3.19 (previously ss 24, 26–31)") to the accurate, specific reference for this section ("s 3.18 (previously s 30)"). This is a housekeeping fix to the historical annotation, not a change to the law itself. The substantive rules — that an EPI may specify development needing or not needing consent, may require a Minister's or public authority's concurrence, and must state the matters relevant to granting concurrence — are untouched.

Section 3.19 still does exactly what it did before: it confirms that an environmental planning instrument can specify development that is prohibited. The only thing that changed is the editor's note at the foot of the provision, which was narrowed from referring to the block of sections 3.13–3.19 to referring just to section 3.19. The operative wording is word-for-word identical.

Section 3.22 lists the limited situations where an environmental planning instrument can be amended without going through the usual plan-making conditions precedent (public exhibition, gateway-style checks, etc.). A new paragraph (1)(d) adds a further situation: amendments the Housing Delivery Authority considers reasonably necessary to enable development that has been declared State significant development under section 4.36(3). This streamlines rezonings and other instrument changes that stand in the way of HDA-pathway housing SSD projects, allowing those instrument changes to be made quickly.

Section 4.12 now includes subsection (10), which gives the Planning Secretary express power to specify, via a notice published on the NSW planning portal, the form and content of documents that must be submitted with a development application. This shifts some documentation requirements out of the regulations and into Secretary-issued portal notices, allowing the standardisation and updating of DA submission requirements without a regulatory amendment. The provision is in force from 15 December 2025; the actual documentation requirements will depend on what the Secretary publishes.

The provision has been broadened to add a new category — notification — to the existing duties around consultation and concurrence before a DA is determined. Where an environmental planning instrument requires the consent authority to notify a person before deciding, the consent authority must do so in accordance with the EPI and the regulations. The heading and the State significant development exclusion in subsection (2A) were updated to reflect the new notification limb. The change makes the existing framework explicitly accommodate referral-style notification obligations imposed by EPIs.

Two changes take effect. First, in the core list of matters for consideration, subsection (1)(b) has been changed from "the likely impacts" to "the significant likely impacts" of the development — refocusing the assessment of environmental, social and economic impacts on those that are significant. Second, new subsections (1A) and (1B) give the regulations power to declare factors that are relevant — or not relevant — to the impact (1)(b), site suitability (1)(c) and public interest (1)(e) considerations, and where the regulations declare a factor irrelevant, the consent authority is prohibited from taking it into account. This is aimed at giving the Government a lever to standardise and constrain what can be brought into the merit assessment under s 4.15.

Section 4.17 lists the circumstances in which a condition of consent may be imposed. The amendment inserts a new paragraph (1)(a1) allowing a condition where it 'relates to a likely impact of the development the subject of the consent'. Previously conditions had to relate to a section 4.15(1) assessment matter or one of the other listed grounds; the new paragraph gives an additional, standalone basis tied directly to the development's likely impacts. This clarifies and expands a consent authority's power to condition consents to manage anticipated impacts.

This change in the Division 4.6 definitions (covering Crown development) replaces the old term "applicable Sydney district or regional planning panel" with a new defined term, "applicable planning panel". For Crown development, the relevant body is now the regional planning panel for the area, or — if there is no regional planning panel — the local planning panel. This brings the Crown development provisions into line with the broader restructure of NSW planning panels, removing references to the now-defunct Sydney district planning panels and providing a clear fallback to local panels.

Section 4.33 governs how Crown development applications are determined and referred when a council fails to decide them in time. The amendment swaps the specific reference to "Sydney district or regional planning panel" for the wider phrase "applicable planning panel" throughout the section, reflecting the broader panel framework. More importantly, it inserts a new subsection (2B): the rule that a council-determined Crown DA must be referred to a planning panel before it can go to the Minister no longer applies where no applicable panel is constituted for the part of the State where the development is to occur. In those areas, the application can go straight to the Minister.

Section 4.34 lets the Minister direct a consent authority to approve or refuse a Crown development application once a referral is made. The only change updates the terminology: where the provision previously referred to an "applicable Sydney district or regional planning panel" as one of the bodies that can make a referral, it now simply says "applicable planning panel". This aligns the wording with broader planning panel terminology used elsewhere in the Act. The Minister's powers, the obligation to comply, the deemed-determination mechanism, and the ability to vary conditions with the applicant's approval are all unchanged.

The operative text of section 4.39, which lets regulations set procedures for State significant development (EIS requirements, public information, responses to submissions, etc.), is unchanged. The only difference between the two versions is a historical/editorial note at the foot of the provision: it previously grouped sections 4.39 and 4.40 together ("previously ss 89G, 89H") and now refers to section 4.39 alone ("previously s 89G"). This is a drafting/annotation correction with no effect on the law itself.

This provision sits in Division 4.7, which governs State significant development (SSD). Previously it imported only section 4.15 (the matters for evaluation) into the determination of an SSD application. The provision has been substituted so that the entire Part 4 of the Act now applies to SSD determinations, subject to the modifications in Division 4.7. The heading change from 'Evaluation of development application' to 'Application of Part 4 to State significant development' reflects this broadening: a wider set of Part 4 development assessment rules, not just the evaluation test, now governs SSD.

Section 4.5, which sets out who the consent authority is for different categories of development, is unchanged in substance. The four limbs — IPC or Minister for State significant development, the relevant planning panel for regionally significant development, a public authority where so declared, and the council for all other development — remain exactly the same. The only difference is the editorial historical note, which previously grouped the citation for sections 4.5–4.7 and now cites section 4.5 alone. This is a formatting/citation tidy-up, not a change to the law.

The lapsing provisions have been fully substituted and greatly simplified. The previous version carried a tangle of rules tied to a "prescribed period" (25 March 2020 to 25 March 2022) introduced during COVID, including special 5-year minimums, revival of consents taken not to have lapsed, and multiple branches depending on when a consent commenced. All of that transitional COVID material is gone. The new section states the core rule plainly: a consent lapses 5 years after the date it operates, a consent authority may reduce that period when granting consent (subject to the existing 2-year minimum for building/demolition/subdivision and any regulation-prescribed periods), and consents don't lapse where physical work or use has genuinely commenced. Deferred commencement consents now lapse if the applicant fails to satisfy the condition within 5 years (or a shorter specified period).

Previously the Planning Secretary could only move to revoke or modify a consent by reference to a proposed State environmental planning policy. From 15 December 2025 the Secretary can act having regard to any proposed environmental planning instrument, and — significantly — also to an existing environmental planning instrument, but only where the consent was granted at least a prescribed period before the Secretary proposes to act. Councils' power remains tied to a proposed local environmental plan. This widens the circumstances in which a granted consent can be unwound or altered on planning-policy grounds.

Section 4.6 lists the consent authority functions that the Planning Secretary carries out on behalf of the Independent Planning Commission (IPC). A new paragraph (c1) has been added so that, where an environmental planning instrument requires notification of persons about a development application, that notification is handled by the Planning Secretary rather than the Commission itself. This fills a gap alongside the existing community participation and concurrence functions already delegated to the Secretary, making clear who is responsible for instrument-mandated notifications on IPC matters.

Section 4.64 lists what the planning regulations can cover for Part 4 development. Two heads of power were broadened. Paragraph (f1) — which lets regulations impose a levy on applicants to reimburse councils for compliance investigation and enforcement — now expressly extends to applications for complying development certificates, not just development applications. Paragraph (i) now allows regulations to require the notification of (in addition to consultation with, or concurrence from) the Planning Secretary, public authorities and others about proposed development. These are enabling provisions: they expand what regulations may do, rather than imposing new obligations directly.

Section 4.66 sets out how an existing (lawful but now non-conforming) use can continue, and the limits on it — including the rule that a use is presumed abandoned if it stops for a continuous 12-month period. During the pandemic, subsection (4) temporarily replaced that 12-month period with 3 years, but only for uses ceasing between 25 March 2020 and 25 March 2022. That window has long since closed, so the temporary provision was spent. This amendment simply clears out the now-defunct subsection (4), leaving the ordinary 12-month abandonment test as the operative rule.

Section 4.68 protects the continuance of lawful existing uses but treats a use as abandoned (and so lost) if it stops for a continuous period of 12 months. During the pandemic, subsection (4) temporarily extended that period to 3 years for the window from 25 March 2020 to 25 March 2022. That window expired long ago, so the provision was spent. This amendment simply removes the now-empty/expired subsection. The core rule is unchanged: the 12-month abandonment presumption in subsection (3) still applies.

The operative text of section 4.7 is identical before and after this amendment. The only difference is in the historical note attached to the heading, which previously read "ss 4.5–4.7" and now reads "s 4.7". This is a drafting/consolidation correction to the editorial annotation and does not alter any rule about regional planning panels or the council functions exercised on their behalf.

Section 5.12(4) previously required that a Ministerial order declaring particular development to be State significant infrastructure (SSI) had to take the form of an amendment to a State environmental planning policy. The amendment removes the words "that amends a State environmental planning policy for that purpose", so the Minister can now make a direct order (published on the NSW legislation website) declaring specified development on specified land to be SSI. This streamlines the mechanism for case-specific SSI declarations, removing the need to package each declaration as a SEPP amendment.

This change extends the reporting deadline for the Treasurer's annual report on payments into and out of the Special Build Contributions (SBC) Fund and Housing and Productivity (HAP) Fund. The window for providing the report to each House of Parliament has been lengthened from 4 months to 6 months after the end of the financial year. It is a minor administrative timing adjustment to the parliamentary reporting obligation.

Subsection (3A) has been reworked. Previously a planning agreement could only switch off the application of section 7.11 (local contributions) or section 7.12 (levies) to development if the consent authority for that development or the Minister was actually a party to the agreement. The amendment adds a second pathway: the exclusion is now also permitted where the Minister has approved the planning authority (or authorities) entering into the agreement. In short, Ministerial sign-off can substitute for the consent authority being a signatory, giving more flexibility to structure VPAs that displace standard contributions.

This change adds two newly created bodies — the Development Coordination Authority and the Housing Delivery Authority — to the list of entities whose services, certificates, approvals, research and other functions can attract charges and fees prescribed by regulation. It simply brings these new authorities within the existing fee-setting framework so that, like the Minister, Department and Planning Secretary, they can charge for the things they do under the Act. The actual amounts still depend on the regulations.

This amendment expands the list of recipients entitled to receive a charge or fee under Division 7.4. Previously the fee was payable to the Minister, Planning Ministerial Corporation, Department or Planning Secretary; the provision now also names the Development Coordination Authority and the Housing Delivery Authority. This is a consequential update reflecting the creation of these two bodies within the NSW planning system, ensuring they can lawfully collect charges and fees for services, permissions, information or registrations they provide.

This amendment adds two newly established bodies — the Development Coordination Authority and the Housing Delivery Authority — to the list of entities that can recover charges, fees or money owed under the Act as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. The substance of the recovery mechanism is unchanged; the change simply extends the same debt-recovery power to these new authorities so money due to them can be pursued through the courts.

Section 9.34 lists the development control orders councils and authorities can issue (general, fire safety, and brothel closure orders) and explains what a "planning approval" means when that term appears in the order tables. The change adds a fourth category to that meaning: an approval given under the now-repealed Part 3A (major projects) while it was in force or continued in operation. Previously the definition only captured development consents, State significant infrastructure approvals, and Part 6 certificates. The subsection was also reformatted from running text into a lettered list, but that is cosmetic.

Section 9.35 lists who can give development control orders as a "relevant enforcement authority". Two new categories were added to subsection (1): the Minister or Planning Secretary can now give orders under Schedule 5, Part 1, item 13 (new paragraph (a1)), and can give orders in relation to development approved under the former Part 3A regime, including approvals that were continued in operation after Part 3A was repealed (new paragraph (a2)). This closes gaps in enforcement coverage so that older Part 3A projects and the relevant Schedule 5 order type are clearly within the Minister's and Secretary's enforcement reach.

This change updates the delegation power in section 2.4. The list of bodies that the Minister, Planning Ministerial Corporation or Planning Secretary can delegate Act functions to has been expanded to add two named bodies: the Housing Delivery Authority (new paragraph (b), which was previously blank) and the Development Coordination Authority (new paragraph (b1)). It reflects the establishment of these coordinating bodies and lets planning decision-making and processing functions be formally handed to them. The rest of the delegation framework, including the functions that cannot be delegated, is unchanged.

This adds Division 2.3A to the EP&A Act, formally creating the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) as a NSW Government agency made up of the Planning Secretary and at least two Ministerial appointees. The HDA's job is to advise and make recommendations to the Minister about housing supply, declaring particular residential projects as State significant development, rezoning land for housing, and who should be the planning proposal authority for a proposed instrument. It also prepares guidance on SSD declarations under section 4.36 and can exercise delegated functions. Importantly, if the Minister rejects an HDA recommendation about an SSD declaration, rezoning or a planning proposal authority direction, the Minister must publish the decision and reasons on the NSW planning portal. The HDA had been operating administratively; this gives it a statutory footing and clear functions.

This new Division inserts a 'Development Coordination Authority' (DCA) into the Act, defined as the Planning Secretary. It sets out the DCA's functions (advising the Minister, exercising delegated and conferred functions), allows it to use departmental staff, engage experts, and delegate functions, and lets regulations or planning instruments give it additional roles. It also creates information-sharing obligations between the DCA and other public authorities, and lets Ministers and public authorities delegate functions to the DCA. The intent is to consolidate the various agency referral, concurrence and advice roles in the development process under a single coordinating body to streamline assessment. The provisions are in the consolidated Act but have no practical effect until the DCA powers are switched on, expected around July 2026.

Until now, local planning panels were constituted by councils, either for a single area or jointly by neighbouring councils. The amendments add a new pathway: the Planning Secretary can constitute multi-area (regional) local planning panels, which are listed in a new Schedule 2, Part 3A, and the Secretary can add, abolish, rename or re-scope these panels by order on the NSW legislation website. Where the Secretary constitutes a panel for an area, the relevant councils can no longer set up their own panel for that area and must exercise their panel-related functions jointly. Members of a Secretary-constituted panel are appointed by the Planning Secretary rather than the council. The functions provisions (s 2.19) are reworded so they apply to any local planning panel, not only council-constituted panels. Drafting in s 2.18(5) was also tidied (and former subsections 2.18(5)–(6) consolidated).

Section 2.28 shields decision-makers and officials from personal legal liability for anything done or omitted in good faith in administering the Act. The only change here adds Housing Delivery Authority members to that protected list (new paragraph (h1)), putting them on the same footing as the Minister, the Planning Secretary, planning panel members and Commission members. This reflects the Housing Delivery Authority's growing role in the planning system and means individual members can't be sued personally for good-faith decisions.

Two changes were made to Division 3.2. The substantive one adds a new ground for expedited (fast-track) amendments of environmental planning instruments in section 3.22(1): paragraph (d) lets the Minister make EPI amendments without the usual plan-making conditions precedent where the Housing Delivery Authority considers them reasonably necessary to enable development declared to be State significant development under section 4.36(3). This streamlines rezoning and control changes needed to clear the way for HDA-driven housing projects. The other change is a clarifying note added under section 3.14 confirming that, under the Interpretation Act 1987, an EPI may apply generally, with exceptions, or differently by specified factors — this note has no operative effect.

The substantive content of Division 4.10 is unchanged except for the regulation-making power in section 4.64. Two tweaks were made. First, paragraph (f1) now lets regulations impose the compliance investigation/enforcement cost-recovery levy on people lodging complying development certificate (CDC) applications, not just on people lodging development applications. Second, paragraph (i) now allows regulations to require 'notification of' the Planning Secretary, public authorities and other persons about proposed development, in addition to the existing power to require consultation with, or concurrence of, those parties. These are enabling provisions — they widen what future regulations can do rather than directly changing anyone's obligations.

During the pandemic, sections 4.66(4) and 4.68(4) temporarily replaced the usual 12-month abandonment test for existing uses and other lawful uses with a 3-year period, but only for uses ceasing between 25 March 2020 and 25 March 2022. That window closed long ago, so those subsections were spent. The 2025 amendments have now stripped them out, leaving only empty placeholder '(4)' markers. Nothing of substance changes: the abandonment presumption for existing and continuing lawful uses remains a continuous period of 12 months of non-use.

For State significant development determined by the Independent Planning Commission, certain consent-authority functions are exercised by the Planning Secretary on the Commission's behalf. A new paragraph (c1) has been inserted into the list in section 4.6 so that the act of notifying persons about a development application — where an environmental planning instrument requires that notification — is expressly one of those Secretary-exercised functions. The rest of Division 4.2 (designation of the consent authority, planning panel functions, and council functions where a local planning panel exists) is unchanged. This is a clarifying addition to who performs notification, not a change to what development is permissible.

Several substantive amendments to Division 4.3 are now in force. In section 4.15 (Evaluation), the matter for consideration in subsection (1)(b) changes from "the likely impacts" to "the significant likely impacts" of the development — a deliberate narrowing of the impacts a consent authority must weigh. New subsections (1A) and (1B) let the regulations declare specific factors as relevant or not relevant to impacts, site suitability or the public interest, and a consent authority is now prohibited from considering any factor the regulations declare irrelevant. Section 4.12 gains a new subsection (10) empowering the Planning Secretary to specify, by notice on the NSW planning portal, the form and content of documents that must accompany a DA. Section 4.13 is broadened from "Consultation and concurrence" to "Notification, consultation and concurrence", so where an environmental planning instrument requires notification of a person, that obligation is now expressly built into the section (including the State significant development carve-out).

Division 4.6 (Crown development) has been updated so that where a council fails to determine a Crown development application in time, the referral pathway is to the new "applicable planning panel" rather than the former "Sydney district or regional planning panel". The definition is broadened: the applicable panel is the regional planning panel, and if there is no regional planning panel for that part of the State, it is the local planning panel. A new subsection 4.33(2B) clarifies that the rule requiring a council Crown DA to be referred to a panel before it can go to the Minister does not apply where no applicable planning panel is constituted for that area. The substantive Crown DA rules (Minister's approval needed to refuse or condition, time-based referral, Minister's directions) are otherwise unchanged.

The old section 4.40 said only section 4.15 (the matters a consent authority must consider) applied to determining a State significant development application. The substituted section 4.40 broadens this: the entire Part 4 development assessment framework now applies to SSD, subject to the special rules in Division 4.7. In short, SSD is now expressly slotted into the general Part 4 assessment regime rather than being linked only to the section 4.15 evaluation criteria, with Division 4.7 continuing to override where the two conflict.

Two substantive changes take effect in Division 4.9. First, s 4.53 (lapsing of consent) has been fully substituted: development consent now simply lapses 5 years after it begins to operate, a consent authority may reduce that period (subject to the existing 2-year floor for building/demolition/subdivision and any regulation-prescribed periods), and a deferred commencement consent lapses if the trigger condition is not satisfied within 5 years (or a shorter specified period). The old, convoluted subsections tied to the COVID-19 "prescribed period" (25 March 2020 to 25 March 2022) — including the revival of certain lapsed consents — have been removed because they are now spent. Second, s 4.57 broadens the Planning Secretary's revocation/modification power: previously the Secretary could only act by reference to a proposed State environmental planning policy, but now can act by reference to a proposed environmental planning instrument, or an existing environmental planning instrument where the consent was granted at least a prescribed period beforehand.

Section 5.12(4) lets the Minister declare particular development on particular land to be State significant infrastructure (SSI). Previously, a Ministerial order doing this had to take the form of an amendment to a State environmental planning policy. The amendment removes the words 'that amends a State environmental planning policy for that purpose', so the Minister can now make a freestanding order (published on the NSW legislation website) to declare SSI. The other declaration pathway (via a SEPP) is unchanged. The practical effect is to streamline how site-specific SSI declarations are made.

The rule on when a planning agreement can switch off the standard local development contributions (s 7.11) and levies (s 7.12) has been broadened. Under the old wording, a planning agreement could only exclude those contributions if the consent authority for the development, or the Minister, was actually a party to the agreement. The amended subsection (3A) adds a second pathway: the agreement can also exclude those provisions if the Minister has approved the relevant planning authority (or authorities) entering into it, even where the consent authority is not a party. This gives more flexibility to structure planning agreements that displace the usual contributions framework with ministerial sign-off.

Division 7.4 sets out who can demand, fix, charge and recover fees under the EP&A Act. From 15 December 2025 the Development Coordination Authority and the Housing Delivery Authority are inserted alongside the Minister, Planning Ministerial Corporation, Department and Planning Secretary in sections 7.44 (fees fixed by regulation), 7.45 (liability to pay) and 7.46 (recovery of fees). This is a consequential update reflecting the creation of these new authorities, ensuring they have the same fee-charging and recovery powers as existing planning bodies. The underlying fee framework is unchanged — fees are still set by the regulations.

Section 9.34(3) now expressly includes an approval given under the former Part 3A (the repealed major projects regime that continues to apply to some projects) within the meaning of a "planning approval" for development control order purposes. Section 9.35(1) adds two new enforcement powers for the Minister or Planning Secretary: a new paragraph (a1) lets them give orders under Schedule 5, Part 1, item 13, and a new paragraph (a2) lets them give orders in relation to development approved under Part 3A while that Part was in force or continued. This closes a gap so that compliance and enforcement orders can properly be directed at legacy Part 3A projects.

Schedule 5 lists the enforcement orders councils and other authorities can issue. The only substantive change is to order 13, the Complete Works Order. Previously this order could only be made where authorised works had commenced but not been completed before the planning approval would (but for that commencement) have lapsed — effectively limited to projects where commencement had kept an otherwise-lapsing consent alive. That lapsing qualification has been removed. Now the order is available whenever authorised works under a planning approval have commenced but not been completed, giving authorities a much wider basis to compel completion of partly-built works within a specified time.

Part 10 collects the Act's miscellaneous provisions — including the Crown binding clause, dispute settlement between authorities, bush fire prone land mapping, and disclosure of political donations and gifts on planning applications. This entry records a modification to Part 10 that commenced on 15 December 2025. However, the text shown for the earlier and later versions is identical across the provisions reproduced here (sections 10.1 to 10.4), so the actual amended wording must sit in the truncated remainder of the Part and cannot be characterised from the material supplied.

Two new Divisions (2.3A and 2.3B) create the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) and the Development Coordination Authority (DCA) as NSW Government agencies, and s 2.4 is amended to add both as bodies that can receive delegated functions. The HDA advises the Minister on housing supply, on declaring residential (and mixed) development as State significant development, on residential rezonings, and on who should be the planning proposal authority; it also prepares guidance on SSD declarations under s 4.36. If the Minister rejects an HDA recommendation on SSD declaration, zoning or planning-proposal-authority directions, the Minister must publish the decision and reasons on the NSW planning portal. The DCA is established as a coordinating body for development-related approvals. These changes formalise the State's pathway for fast-tracking and coordinating housing and significant development.

This entry records a modification to Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which covers planning instruments (strategic plans, LEPs and the planning-proposal process). Comparing the earlier and later consolidations of the strategic-planning provisions (Division 3.1, sections 3.1–3.12), the text is identical — definitions, regional and district strategic plan rules, local strategic planning statements and related machinery all remain as before. Any operative differences sit in the truncated remainder of Part 3 rather than in the strategic-planning framework reproduced here.

This adds a framework to Schedule 2 of the EP&A Act allowing a single local planning panel to be constituted for two or more council areas, rather than only for a single area. The new clause 10A provides the constitutional basis for these multi-area panels. Importantly, the clause carries a note stating that at commencement no such multi-area panels have actually been constituted — so the mechanism exists but is not yet being used.

Three substantive changes take effect. First, section 4.13 is renamed and reworded from "Consultation and concurrence" to "Notification, consultation and concurrence" — the consent authority must now notify (as well as consult/obtain concurrence) persons where an environmental planning instrument requires it, and the State significant development carve-out is extended to cover notification requirements. Second, section 4.6 adds a new function (c1) so the Planning Secretary, acting for the Independent Planning Commission, handles notifying persons about a DA where an EPI requires it. Third, a new section 4.12(10) lets the Planning Secretary publish a notice on the NSW planning portal specifying the form and content of documents that must accompany a development application. Together these tidy up notification obligations and give the Secretary a portal-based mechanism to standardise DA documentation.

Part 5 of the EP&A Act governs environmental impact assessment of "activities" that don't need development consent under Part 4 (such as public authority works), and sets out the duty of determining authorities to consider environmental impact and, where required, to obtain and publicly exhibit an environmental impact statement. An amendment to this Part commenced on 15 December 2025. In the portions of the text available here, the core framework — definitions, the duty to consider environmental impact (s 5.5), the EIS trigger and decision rules (s 5.7), and the publicity/exhibition rules (s 5.8) — reads the same before and after, so the operative change is not visible in the extract provided (it may sit in truncated provisions further into the Part). Planners working under Part 5 should check the current consolidated text of Division 5.1 against the version they relied on before this date.

Previously, a planning (voluntary) agreement could only switch off the standard local infrastructure contributions (s 7.11) or levy (s 7.12) for a development if the consent authority or the Minister was actually a party to the agreement. The amendment (2025 No 71, Sch 1[116]) adds a second, alternative pathway: such an exclusion is also permitted where the Minister has approved the planning authority (or authorities) entering into the agreement. This gives more flexibility for VPAs to displace standard contributions without requiring the consent authority itself to sign on, provided ministerial approval is obtained.

This update folds the new Housing Delivery Authority into the definition of "planning body" (new paragraph (a1)), so the Schedule's rules on members' terms, remuneration, removal and vacancies now apply to it. It also inserts a new Part 3A allowing local planning panels to be constituted for two or more council areas, and amends clause 16 so that for a multi-area panel constituted under section 2.17(1A) the Planning Secretary (rather than a single council) can remove members. The Schedule itself flags that no multi-area local planning panels exist at commencement.

In the Development Control Orders schedule, the circumstances in which a relevant enforcement authority can issue a Complete Works Order have been simplified and widened. Previously the order could only be given where authorised works had started but were not finished before the planning approval would (but for the commencement of the works) have lapsed. The new wording removes the lapsing qualifier entirely: an order can be given simply where the authorised works have commenced but have not been completed. This gives councils a more direct enforcement tool to compel completion of partly-built works under an approval.

Section 5.12(4) lets the Minister declare particular development on particular land to be State significant infrastructure (SSI). Previously, a Minister's order doing this had to take the form of an order "that amends a State environmental planning policy for that purpose." That qualifier has been removed. Now the Minister can make the declaration by an order simply published on the NSW legislation website, without having to amend a SEPP. This is a procedural streamlining that makes it quicker and simpler to bring a specific project into the SSI pathway.

Previously, a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) could only switch off the standard s 7.11 (contributions) or s 7.12 (levy) provisions for a development if the consent authority for that development, or the Minister, was actually a party to the agreement. The amendment adds a second pathway: the exclusion is also valid if the Minister has approved the relevant planning authority (or authorities) entering into the agreement. This gives more flexibility for agreements where the consent authority is not a signatory, provided Ministerial approval is obtained.

This change extends the deadline for the Treasurer's annual report on payments into and out of the Special Build Commencement (SBC) Fund and the Housing and Productivity (HAP) Fund. The report must now be provided to each House of Parliament within 6 months of the end of the financial year, rather than the previous 4 months. It is a timing adjustment for a government financial reporting obligation; nothing else in the provision changed.

This provision inserts the dictionary for a new part of Schedule 8 dealing with extended trading hours for food and drink premises. It defines key terms — including "extended hours of operation" (any trading past 7pm), "extended hours of operation application" (a DA or a modification application seeking those hours), "relevant food and drink premises" (premises outside special entertainment precincts and residential zones, and at least 500m from the nearest residential accommodation), the "24-Hour Economy Commissioner", and "vibrancy guidelines". On its own the section creates no rights or obligations; it gives precise meaning to the terms used by the operative provisions of the same part that govern how extended-hours applications are assessed.

A new clause lets the Planning Secretary (after consulting the 24-Hour Economy Commissioner) issue vibrancy guidelines aimed at helping venues operate to their full social, business and cultural potential, especially for the night-time economy. Where those guidelines exist, a consent authority assessing an application to extend a venue's hours of operation must take them into account. The guidelines can set out matters to weigh up, but they cannot force automatic approval or refusal, and the duty to consider them sits alongside all other existing requirements under this or any other Act.

Schedule 8 of the EP&A Act contains savings, transitional and other provisions. This change inserts numbered items 5–7 into Part 3 of that schedule. However, the text supplied for these items is blank, so the actual content of the new provisions cannot be summarised. Schedule 8 items are typically transitional rules dealing with how amendments apply to matters already underway, but the specific effect here cannot be confirmed from the material provided.

This new clause in the savings and transitional schedule sets the cut-off for the Vibrancy Reforms amendments. It makes clear those amendments apply only to an 'extended hours of operation application' (as defined in Schedule 8, clause 3) that is made after the relevant amendment commenced. In other words, the reform package doesn't reach back to applications already in the system before it started.

This change inserts a new Part 3 into Schedule 8 dealing with the night-time economy. It defines "extended hours of operation" (trading past 7pm any night) and "relevant food and drink premises" (eateries that are outside special entertainment precincts and residential R1–R5 zones, and at least 500m from the nearest residential accommodation). It empowers the Planning Secretary, after consulting the 24-Hour Economy Commissioner, to issue "vibrancy guidelines" aimed at helping venues realise their full social, business and cultural potential. Where such guidelines are issued, a consent authority must have regard to them when determining a DA or a modification application that proposes extended hours for relevant premises. The guidelines can only set matters to consider — they cannot force automatic approval or refusal — and the duty sits on top of all other assessment requirements.

This adds a transitional rule (Schedule 4, Part 3, clause 8) tied to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Vibrancy Reforms) Act 2024. It makes clear that the vibrancy guideline amendments operate prospectively only: they bite on "extended hours of operation applications" (as defined in Schedule 8, clause 3) made after the relevant amendment commenced. The point is to remove doubt about whether the new vibrancy provisions reach back to applications already in the system.

This update adds Part 3 (clause 8) to the savings and transitional Schedule. It is a transitional rule consequent on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Vibrancy Reforms) Act 2024. The clause makes clear that the Vibrancy Reforms changes apply only to an 'extended hours of operation application' (as defined in Schedule 8, clause 3) that is made after the relevant amendment commenced. The rest of Schedule 4 (the special infrastructure contributions and Greater Cities Commission abolition provisions) is unchanged.

Schedule 8's old Part 3 (empty placeholder clauses 3–7) has been replaced with a new Part 3 dealing with night-time economy 'vibrancy'. It lets the Planning Secretary, after consulting the 24-Hour Economy Commissioner, issue vibrancy guidelines aimed at helping venues operate to their full social, business and cultural potential. Where a DA or modification application proposes hours of operation extending beyond 7pm for 'relevant food and drink premises' (premises outside special entertainment precincts and residential zones, and 500m or more from the nearest residential accommodation), the consent authority must have regard to those guidelines when determining it. The guidelines can set matters to consider but cannot force automatic approval or refusal, and the requirement is in addition to all other assessment requirements.

This is a cross-reference correction in the definitions section for the housing and productivity contribution (HPC) scheme. The definition of "SBC Fund" (Special Biodiversity Conservation Fund) previously pointed to section 7.30(1); it now points to section 7.31. The substantive definitions themselves — biodiversity certified land, region, regional infrastructure and so on — are unchanged. This is a housekeeping fix to keep internal references consistent following changes elsewhere in the subdivision.

This is a modification to Part 7, Division 7.1 of the EP&A Act, which governs development contributions — planning agreements, local infrastructure (s 7.11) contributions, and levies (s 7.12). The visible provisions (definitions, planning agreement rules in ss 7.4–7.10, and the s 7.11 contribution head of power) are identical between the earlier and later consolidations, so any operative change sits within the truncated balance of the Division rather than in the contributions framework reproduced here. The change is in force from 15 August 2025.

This is a modification to Part 7 of the EP&A Act, which covers development contributions (sections 7.11 and 7.12 levies), voluntary planning agreements, and infrastructure finance. Comparing the earlier and later consolidations of the visible provisions (Subdivisions 1–3, sections 7.1 to 7.11), the wording is unchanged — the definitions, planning agreement rules, public notice requirements, registration on title, and the contribution-condition powers all read identically. Any amendment carried by the 15 August 2025 changes is not apparent in the surfaced text and appears to be administrative in this Part rather than a rewrite of substantive obligations.

The only substantive change to this Subdivision is in the section 7.22 definition of "SBC Fund" (the Strategic Biodiversity Contributions Fund). The definition previously pointed to "section 7.30(1)", but section 7.30 is actually the "No appeals" provision, while the SBC Fund is established by section 7.31. The 2025 amendment corrects the internal cross-reference so the definition points to the right section. Nothing about the contributions regime, the funds, or how contributions are imposed has changed in substance.