Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021

Clause 282(1) prescribes which types of development can be subject to "utilities orders" — orders that enforce compliance by cutting off services like water, electricity or gas. Previously only backpackers' accommodation and boarding houses were listed. The amendment adds places of public worship to that list, so enforcement authorities can now use cessation-of-utilities powers against non-compliant places of public worship as well. Subclause (2), dealing with the authorisation of utilities orders for boarding houses, is unchanged.

Schedule 5 lists the offences that can be dealt with by a penalty notice (on-the-spot fine) instead of court prosecution, and the fixed amount for each. The only substantive change is to the penalty for failing to comply with a development control order under s 9.37 of the Act (excluding the specified order types in Schedule 5, Part 1, items 6, 10, 12 or 13). The individual penalty has increased from $1,500 to $6,000 and the corporation penalty from $3,000 to $6,000 — wait, the prior figure was $3,000/$6,000, now $6,000/$12,000. In short, the on-the-spot fine for ignoring a development control order has doubled, reflecting a tougher enforcement stance on non-compliance with such orders.

This is the annual CPI indexation update for planning fees. The editorial note now records the new fee unit amount of $118.55 for the 2026–27 financial year. The calculation method, rounding rules and notification process are unchanged — only the indexed dollar figure has been added. In practice this raises any fee that is expressed in fee units.

Section 177A makes environmental assessment requirements (EARs) for certain State significant residential development expire if a DA isn't lodged within 9 months of the requirements being issued. A new subsection (3A) clarifies that any request to the Planning Secretary to extend that period must be made before the period expires. In short, you can't apply for an extension after the EARs have already lapsed — the request has to be in while the requirements are still live.

Schedule 4 sets most planning and development fees as a number of "fee units" that are indexed to CPI each financial year. The only substantive change here is the addition of the 2026–27 fee unit amount of $118.55 to the editorial note (up from $113.90 in 2025–26). The underlying formula, fee structures and fee-unit multipliers across Parts 2 to 6 are unchanged. The practical effect is that all fees expressed in fee units rise by roughly 4% for the new financial year.

The trigger wording for when notification rules apply to certain modification applications has been tightened. Previously the section covered s 4.56 modifications the consent authority considered to have "no or minimal" environmental impact; it now covers those with "minimal" environmental impact. The heading was updated to match. This aligns the Regulation's language with the relevant provisions of the Act and removes the redundant "no" category, since a modification with no impact is captured by the minimal-impact test.

New clause 118A fills in the prescribed period required by section 4.55A(2) of the EP&A Act, fixing it at 14 days after the modification application is lodged. Once that 14 days passes without a determination, the application is taken to have been refused. This gives applicants a clear, short timeframe before they can treat the modification as deemed-refused and pursue their rights (such as an appeal), rather than waiting indefinitely.

Section 119 sets the 40-day clock after which a consent authority is taken to have refused a modification application, allowing the applicant to appeal. The amendment clarifies the scope: rather than referring generically to "a modification application", the provision now expressly ties the deemed refusal to modifications made under the Act's sections 4.55(1A), 4.55(2) or 4.56. The substantive mechanics — the 40-day period, the stop-the-clock rule for requests for additional information, and the appeal provisions — are unchanged. The effect is to remove ambiguity about which modification applications attract a deemed refusal.

Section 192 sets out what must be included in an EIS. Three changes have been made. First, paragraph (1)(c) — which required an analysis of feasible alternatives to carrying out the development (including the consequences of not proceeding) — has been deleted entirely. Second, paragraph (1)(d)(iii) now requires a description of the 'significant likely impacts' on the environment rather than 'the likely impact', focusing the assessment on material impacts. Third, the mitigation measures in (d)(iv) and the compilation in (e) are now framed as 'proposed measures'. The net effect is a reduced and more targeted set of EIS content requirements.

Clause 244(2) previously set two deadlines for lodging review applications on the NSW planning portal: 28 days to seek review of a determination of a modification application, and 14 days to seek review of a council's decision to reject and not determine a DA. The amendment (2025 No 71, Sch 2[20]) deletes the modification-application limb (former (2)(a)), leaving only the 14-day rejection-review timeframe. This reflects a change to how reviews of modification determinations are handled — that pathway is no longer governed by the 28-day timeframe in this clause.

This adds a transitional provision to the Regulation's savings schedule. It locks in the pre-amendment position for modification applications that were already lodged but not yet determined when certain items of the amending Act commenced. Those applications must be assessed and determined as though the listed Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 items had never started. It exists to avoid mid-stream rule changes disrupting modification applications already in the system.

This new transitional provision (item 34B in Schedule 6, Part 15) ensures continuity for reviews and appeals already underway. If a review or appeal under Part 8 of the EP&A Act was lodged but not finally determined before the listed amending items commenced, it must be decided as though those amendments had not happened. The affected items are Schedule 1[119], [123]–[125] and [129]–[133], and Schedule 2[20] of the amending Act. It prevents mid-stream rule changes from disrupting matters already in the system.

This is a wording change to item 6.5 of the State significant fees table. The lower fee tier (9.94 fee units) previously applied to a minor matter such as a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation; it now also expressly captures a modification request involving "no environmental impact". The higher tier (58.47 fee units) previously applied to a request "involving minor environmental assessment" and now applies to one "involving minimal environmental impact". The fee amounts themselves are unchanged — only the descriptions of which request falls into which tier have been clarified to be framed around the level of environmental impact rather than the assessment work involved.

Schedule 4 sets the fees (in fee units) for development applications, modifications and State significant proposals. In this version the fee scales, fee unit values and editorial note remain the same. The one real change is in item 6.5, which covers modification requests for State significant infrastructure. The lower-fee category (9.94 fee units) now expressly covers a minor matter 'such as a minor error, misdescription, miscalculation or no environmental impact', and the higher-fee category (58.47 fee units) now refers to a modification 'involving minimal environmental impact' rather than 'involving minor environmental assessment'. This aligns the SSI modification fee thresholds with the language used elsewhere for minimal-impact modifications.

Schedule 6 is the Regulation's running list of savings and transitional provisions — the rules that say which version of the law applies to applications and approvals that straddle a change in the Regulation. This consolidation reflects a modification to that schedule. The visible body of the schedule (Parts 1 to 9, covering matters from the 2000 Regulation repeal through to the Housing and Productivity Contributions transition) is unchanged; the amendment sits in the later part of the schedule that records the transitional arrangements for a more recent amending instrument. Such provisions exist to preserve fairness when rules change mid-stream, typically by carving out applications already lodged.

Section 177 sets the rule that environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) for State significant development expire if no DA is lodged within 2 years of the requirements last being given. The only change is the addition of the words 'Subject to section 177A' at the start of subsection (1), so the expiry rule now operates subject to whatever qualification or exception the new section 177A introduces. The extension mechanism (up to 2 further years on written request) is unchanged.

This new provision puts a use-by date on environmental assessment requirements for State significant development that is declared SSD by a Ministerial planning order under section 4.36(3) and that includes residential accommodation. If the development application is not made within 9 months after the SEARs were last given to the responsible person under section 176, those requirements expire and can no longer be relied on. The Planning Secretary can grant an extension on written request, but only for a combined total of up to 3 months. Importantly, it also applies retrospectively to SEARs that were issued before the section commenced. The aim is to stop assessment requirements for residential SSD sitting open indefinitely without a DA being lodged.

Section 209 sets the maximum percentage of a development's cost that councils can impose as a section 7.12 development levy in specified areas. This change adds a new row to the table for land outlined in red in Figure 1 to the St Marys Town Centre Development Contributions Plan 2025 (adopted by Penrith City Council on 28 April 2025). For that land, development for commercial premises, industry, residential accommodation, tourist and visitor accommodation, or mixed use including those purposes, attracts nil levy up to $200,000 and a maximum 4% levy above $200,000. The rest of the section is unchanged.

New subsections (3A)–(3C) shift the determination of development applications away from Sydney district and regional planning panels to councils, where a local planning panel has been constituted for the area. The council exercises this as a function on behalf of the panel. There is one exclusion: councils cannot determine DAs of a kind listed in the 'Instruction on functions not exercisable by council on behalf of Sydney district or regional planning panels—certain regionally significant development applications' published on the NSW planning portal in December 2025 — those stay with the panel. Subsection (3C) confirms that when a council determines these applications it does so as the consent authority under section 4.8, removing doubt about its legal standing.

This newly inserted clause fills in a number left open by the Act. Section 4.57(1)(a)(ii) of the EP&A Act allows a consent authority to revoke or modify a development consent in certain circumstances, and the Act relies on a prescribed period that the Regulation must specify. Clause 116A now fixes that period at 25 years. Without this clause the relevant revocation/modification power could not operate against the prescribed-period limb, so its insertion gives the provision practical effect.

Clause 300 exempts the Housing Delivery Authority from certain public meeting requirements under Schedule 2 of the EP&A Act (clauses 25 and 26(3)). The only change is to how the Authority is described — the reference to its establishing instrument (the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Housing Delivery Authority) Order 2024) has been removed, leaving a plain reference to "the Housing Delivery Authority". The substantive exemption is unchanged.

This adds a definitions provision to a new transitional Part (Part 15) of Schedule 6. It clarifies that "amending Act" means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025, and that "regionally significant development" means development declared as such by an environmental planning instrument. These definitions support the operation of the transitional arrangements tied to the 2025 planning system reforms.

This provision is a savings/transitional measure added to handle the changeover caused by the amending Act repealing section 4.5(b) of the EP&A Act, which dealt with consent authority arrangements for regionally significant development. Without it, there would be uncertainty about who determines applications already in the system. The clause specifies the correct determining body for pending regionally significant DAs and modification applications — Sydney district planning panels, local planning panels, or regional planning panels — depending on the area, whether a local planning panel exists, and whether the council has handed up an assessment report. It also preserves council nominees on regional panels for Central Coast, Wingecarribee and Wollongong City matters.

This provision grandfathers certain pending applications from a batch of amendments to the EP&A Act. Where a development application or a section 4.96/4.55-type modification application was lodged but not finally determined before the relevant amending items commenced, the application must be assessed as if those items had not commenced. This applies to the amendments to the Act's objects (Schedule 1[1] — permanently), to the new section 4.15(1A) and (1B) evaluation provisions and Schedule 2[3] (for 12 months), and to changes to section 4.17 conditions powers (Schedule 1[66] — for 12 months). The 12-month sunset means that after that window, even pending applications are assessed under the new rules.

This new clause 35 in Schedule 6 deals with the transition to the Development Coordination Authority (DCA). Where a development consent contains a condition requiring something to be carried out to the satisfaction of a Minister or public authority, and that function has since been conferred on the DCA, any decision about that aspect is now treated as a decision of the DCA. This matters because it brings those legacy "satisfaction" decisions within the review pathway under Division 8.2 of the EP&A Act, so applicants can seek review of them as DCA decisions. The deeming applies from the commencement of the relevant amending Act provision (Schedule 1[122]).

This new transitional provision confirms that the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) — originally established by the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Housing Delivery Authority) Order 2024 — continues as the body now constituted under section 2.11A of the Act. The 2024 Order is revoked, but everything done under it keeps its effect, existing HDA members are taken to have been appointed by the Minister under section 2.11B, and any document referring to the old Order-based HDA now reads as a reference to the statutory HDA. It is essentially a clean legal handover so the HDA's work and decisions carry across without interruption.

This adds a standing oversight mechanism for the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) changes introduced by the Planning System Reforms Act 2025. A Joint Select Committee of Parliament must be established and must review the HDA amendments every three years, checking whether the policy objectives still hold, whether the legislation remains fit for purpose, and whether the HDA has actually increased housing supply, sped up delivery, and improved affordability. A report must be tabled in both Houses within 12 months of each three-year period. The provision also fixes the committee's composition (a chairperson and five other Assembly members, plus four Legislative Council members).

This new clause (Schedule 6, Part 15, item 39) is a transitional/savings provision dealing with the abolition of Sydney district and regional planning panels. It assigns responsibility for notifying and publicly exhibiting modification applications to the council where the panel previously granted or was deemed to have refused the original consent — including where the Court later granted consent on appeal from a panel decision. It also clarifies that where the development spans two or more local government areas, each relevant council carries this obligation.

A new transitional provision (clause 40 in Schedule 6, Part 15) has been added to the Regulation. It clarifies that when section 4.53 of the EP&A Act (which deals with how and when a development consent lapses) was substituted with a new version, the new lapsing rules do not apply to or alter any development consent that was already in force immediately before that substitution. In short, existing consents keep operating under the lapsing framework that applied to them, and the rewritten provision only governs consents going forward.

This adds a transitional provision (Schedule 6, Part 15, clause 41) confirming that the former definition of "development standards" in section 1.4(1) of the EP&A Act — as it stood immediately before being repealed and replaced by the new "development standard" definition — continues to apply to any development application that was lodged but not finally determined at the time of the repeal. It prevents the change in defined term from disturbing applications already in the system.

This adds a transitional (savings) provision confirming that the amendments made to sections 4.32, 4.33 and 4.34 of the EP&A Act — covering how Crown development applications are dealt with — do not apply retrospectively. Crown DAs that were already lodged but not finally determined before those amendments commenced continue to be assessed under the previous rules. It exists to give certainty about which version of the Crown development provisions applies to applications in the pipeline.

This adds clause 43 to the Regulation's transitional schedule to handle planning agreements caught mid-process when section 7.4(3A) of the Act was substituted. It covers proposed voluntary planning agreements that aim to exclude developer contributions under section 7.11 or 7.12 and that named the Minister or consent authority as a party, where public notice under section 7.5(1) had already been given. It clarifies that the change to section 7.4(3A) does not force fresh public notice merely because the Minister or consent authority steps out as a party and the Minister instead approves the planning authority entering into the agreement.

Schedule 6, clause 44 is a transitional savings provision. It allows an environmental planning instrument (EPI) to be made under Part 3 of the EP&A Act to pursue the objects of the Act as they existed immediately before Schedule 1[1] of the amending Act commenced — despite section 3.13. This smooths the transition for EPIs that were already in the pipeline under the old framing of the Act's objects. It is time-limited and self-repeals 12 months after commencement.

This new clause uses the power in s 4.15(1A)(b) of the EP&A Act to declare certain factors irrelevant to a DA assessment. Specifically, when a consent authority considers the likely impacts of a development under s 4.15(1)(b), it must disregard the significant likely impacts of "other development"—meaning development that is likely or will be required as a consequence of the development applied for, but for which consent is not actually being sought. It narrows the scope of impacts a consent authority can lawfully consider, focusing assessment on the development before it rather than downstream or flow-on development.

This added Part 15 is the savings-and-transitional package for the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025. It preserves the old assessment pathways for matters already in the system while the reforms (including abolition of Sydney district/regional planning panels, the new Development Coordination Authority, changes to objects of the Act, s 4.15, s 4.17, Crown development provisions, lapsing rules, the new 'development standard' definition, planning agreements and the Housing Delivery Authority) bed down. Critically, several clauses say pending applications must be determined as if particular reform items had never commenced, and some of those protections expire 12 months after commencement. It also continues the Housing Delivery Authority (previously under a 2024 Order) as a statutory body and establishes a Joint Select Committee to review it every three years.

Schedule 6 is the running list of savings and transitional provisions that explain how each amending regulation applies — in particular whether changes apply to applications already in the system or only to new ones. This schedule was modified in the consolidation in force from 15 December 2025, typically by adding new transitional items for recent amending instruments. The portions visible here (Parts 1–9, covering the 2000 Regulation repeal through to the Housing and Productivity Contributions reforms) are identical to the earlier version; any genuinely new transitional rule would sit in a later Part beyond the truncated text.

The only substantive change to Schedule 7 is in the definition of "public notification development". Previously, paragraph (b) referred only to State significant development on land with multiple owners designated by the Planning Secretary "for the purposes of section 23". The definition now reads "for the purposes of section 23 or 98". Section 23 deals with public notification of development applications; section 98 deals with notification of modification applications. The amendment extends the Secretary's designation power so it also applies in the modification notification context, ensuring multi-owner SSD sites are captured for both initial and modification notifications.

This adds item 25 to Schedule 2 of the EP&A Regulation 2021, which lists conditions that must be imposed on development consents in certain circumstances. Where State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 section 4.7A applies to the land — that is, land within a future infrastructure corridor — any condition that Transport for NSW imposes as part of its concurrence under that section becomes a condition of the development consent. It ties the consent authority's consent to whatever requirements TfNSW attaches when giving concurrence for interim development in a corridor reserved for future infrastructure.

Section 50 lists development in the Parkes, Wagga Wagga and Moree Activation Precincts that is NOT treated as designated development. Previously the exemption only applied to land in the Regional Enterprise Zone. The provision has been restructured into subsections and the geographic scope expanded: in Moree and Wagga Wagga it now also covers the Rural Activity Zone and Zone SP2, and in Parkes it now also covers Zone SP2. The actual list of qualifying development types (thermal electricity generation under 50 MW, plus the specified schedule items) is unchanged. The practical effect is that more land in these precincts can host that development without it being classified as designated development.

Schedule 2 lists the matters councils must include on planning certificates issued under section 10.7 of the Act. A new clause 25 now requires the certificate to state, where SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 section 4.7A applies to the land, any condition of a development consent that is a condition of the concurrence granted by Transport for NSW under that section. This captures consents for interim development on land within future infrastructure corridors, so prospective purchasers and their advisers can see the relevant concurrence conditions. The rest of Schedule 2 is unchanged.

Schedule 3 lists the categories and thresholds that make a development "designated development" — the trigger for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement, expanded public notification and third-party appeal rights. This amendment, made by SI 2025 (666) Schedule 1, updates the Schedule with effect from 12 December 2025. The introductory definitions (Part 1) and the early designated-development categories (agricultural produce processing, aircraft facilities, aquaculture, artificial waterbodies) shown here are unchanged; the operative amendments sit in the parts of the Schedule not reproduced in full. Because Schedule 3 governs whether a project is treated as designated development, any change to its categories or thresholds can change the assessment pathway for affected proposals.

Clause 102 sets out what a modification application must include where the original DA needed a qualified designer's statement under section 29 of the Regulation — namely the extra fee plus a designer's statement addressing design quality, the design principles for residential apartment development and the Apartment Design Guide. The 2025 amendment adds subclause (9), which switches off the whole clause for modification applications relating to development that falls under Chapter 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. In short, those Chapter 7 developments are taken out of the clause 102 designer-statement and fee regime for modification applications.

A new provision has been added to deal with modification applications (under s4.55(2) or s4.56(1)) for developments that originally relied on the Pattern Book pathway and had to be accompanied by a qualified designer's statement under section 36A. When you seek to modify such a development, you must now pay an additional fee (set in Schedule 4) and submit a fresh written statement from a qualified designer. That statement must identify the development type (residential flat building or shop top housing), the mid-rise housing pattern chosen, and confirm the modification will still comply with that pattern's development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information.

Section 288C sets out the role of design review panels in giving independent advice on the design quality of residential apartment development. The amendment expands the list of development to which the section does not apply. Previously only State significant development was excluded; now development to which Chapter 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 applies is also excluded. This removes that category of development from the design review panel advice framework in this provision.

Section 29 normally requires any DA relating to residential apartment development to include a statement from a qualified designer verifying the design and explaining how it meets the design principles and the Apartment Design Guide. A new subsection (5) carves out development to which Chapter 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 applies, so that requirement no longer attaches to those applications.

A new section 36A has been inserted into the EP&A Regulation 2021 to support the "pattern book" pathway under Chapter 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. Where a development application relies on that chapter (for residential flat buildings or shop top housing), the application must now include a written statement from a qualified designer. The statement must specify which development type the application relates to, identify the mid-rise housing pattern selected, and confirm that the proposed development will comply with the development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information set out in that pattern. This locks the pattern book pathway to a designer-certified compliance statement so consent authorities can verify the proposal genuinely follows the chosen pre-approved pattern.

Section 288C(5) sets out the developments a design review panel does NOT review. It previously excluded only State significant development. From 28 November 2025 it also excludes development to which Chapter 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 applies. In effect, residential apartment development governed by Housing SEPP Chapter 7 is now carved out of the design review panel advice function, narrowing the categories of development that panels evaluate against the design principles and the Apartment Design Guide.

This new provision prescribes the Deputy Secretary of the Department as a "planning proposal authority" for the purposes of section 3.32(1)(b) of the EP&A Act. Part 3 of the Act deals with making and amending environmental planning instruments (LEPs). By being named a planning proposal authority, the Deputy Secretary can formally take on the role of preparing and progressing planning proposals, supplementing existing authorities such as councils and the Planning Secretary.

Section 126 requires CDC applications in certain Activation Precincts to be accompanied by a current Activation Precinct certificate. Previously, subsection (2) exempted two categories from that requirement: applications by public authorities, and land in the Snowy Mountains Activation Precinct. The amendment deletes the Snowy Mountains carve-out, so only public authority applications remain exempt. Development in the Snowy Mountains Activation Precinct is now treated the same as other Activation Precincts and must comply with the certificate requirement.

This transitional provision was added to deal with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Snowy Mountains) Regulation 2025. It makes clear that any amendment made by that regulation does not apply to a complying development certificate (CDC) application that was already made but not finally determined when the amendment commenced. In short, in-flight CDC applications are assessed under the rules that existed before the Snowy Mountains changes took effect.

Clause 66 requires that a development application for specified land in Sydney (industrial, certain Central River City and Western Parkland City precinct land) cannot be determined unless a contributions plan has been approved. The 2025 amendment (2025 (501), Sch 1[1]) deletes the former subsection (3), which was a transitional rule applying that requirement to subsection (1)(b) applications made but not finally determined before 25 January 2019. With that backlog now long resolved, the spent transitional provision has been removed, leaving subsections (1) and (2) operating as before.

This adds Part 14 to Schedule 6 of the EP&A Regulation 2021, a transitional provision tied to the Snowy Mountains Amendment Regulation 2025. It ensures that the changes made by that amending regulation only apply going forward — they do not reach back to affect complying development certificate (CDC) applications that were lodged but not finally determined before the amendments commenced. In short, in-progress CDC applications are assessed under the rules that applied when they were made.

Schedule 6 is the part of the Regulation that holds savings and transitional provisions — the rules that decide whether a new change applies to applications already in the system or only to future ones. This consolidation modifies Schedule 6, consistent with one or more amending regulations taking effect. The substantive operative provisions earlier in the Schedule are unchanged; the modification sits in the later, truncated parts of the Schedule and typically inserts a fresh transitional Part tied to a specific amending instrument that commenced on this date.

Section 130(6) normally requires a complying development certificate application for a dual occupancy, manor house, or multi dwelling housing (terraces) to include a design statement from an accredited designer. New subsection (6A) removes that requirement for development carried out under Part 3BA of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. That Part has its own design and assessment pathway, so the standard design statement obligation no longer applies to those applications.

This adds a documentation requirement for complying development certificate (CDC) applications made under the new Pattern Book pathway in Part 3BA of the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP. The application must include a written statement from an accredited designer that identifies the development type (dual occupancy, manor house, multi dwelling housing, or multi dwelling housing terraces), names the specific pattern selected, and confirms the proposal will comply with that pattern's development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information. An accredited designer means a qualified designer or a person accredited as a building designer by the Building Designers Association of Australia. The requirement gives certifiers a clear, designer-verified basis for assessing Pattern Book CDCs.

Section 133 sets the statutory clock for determining complying development certificate (CDC) applications. A new subsection (2) carves out development specified in Part 3BA of the Codes SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008), giving certifiers a 10-day determination period for that category even though it would otherwise attract the longer 20-day timeframe under subsection (1)(a). The effect is a faster turnaround requirement for these specific CDC applications.

Section 134 sets out how long a certifier must wait, after notifying neighbours and the council, before issuing a complying development certificate. A new subsection (3A) carves out development specified in Part 3BA of the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP: for that development the certifier need only wait 7 days (rather than the standard 14) after giving written notice. The notice for this category goes to neighbours on land in a residential zone (not rural or residential as under the general rule) and to the council where the certifier is not the council. This speeds up the issuing timeline for the relevant Part 3BA development type.

This provision sets out when money can be paid out of the SBC Fund under section 7.31(4)(c) of the Act. It was originally inserted in 2024, repealed in early 2025, and has now been reinserted by the 2025 (340) amendment. It allows a payment back to a person who paid a housing and productivity contribution entirely in cash that included a strategic biodiversity component, where the Planning Secretary considers the strategic biodiversity amount actually paid exceeded what the relevant Ministerial planning order required — the refund equals the overpaid difference. It also allows the SBC Fund to reimburse the Consolidated Fund where the Consolidated Fund has already paid the person. Importantly, it applies to contributions and payments made before the section commenced, so historic overpayments are captured.

This adds a refund mechanism for housing and productivity contributions paid in full as money to satisfy a development consent condition. If the Planning Secretary decides someone paid more than the relevant Ministerial planning order required, the excess can be paid back out of the HAP Fund (net of any amount already refunded under section 222B). It also allows the HAP Fund to reimburse the Consolidated Fund where an overpayment refund was made from there. The rule applies retrospectively to contributions and payments made before the section commenced.

Division 6 has been expanded with two new refund provisions. New section 222B authorises payments out of the Strategic Biodiversity Component (SBC) Fund where someone paid a monetary housing and productivity contribution that included a strategic biodiversity component, and the Planning Secretary is satisfied the biodiversity component paid exceeded what the relevant Ministerial planning order actually required — the excess can be refunded to the payer (or back to the Consolidated Fund where it earlier covered the refund). New section 222C does the same thing for the broader Housing and Productivity (HAP) Fund, allowing the overpaid amount of a housing and productivity contribution to be refunded, less any amount already refunded under 222B. Both provisions apply to contributions and payments made before they commenced. The pre-existing section 222A (Sydney Metro Western Airport Rail Project) is unchanged.