2025 planning reforms and what we are seeing in practice so far

Throughout 2025, planning reform was firmly on the agenda across Australia. In New South Wales, this took the form of the most significant overhaul of the Environmental Planning and Assessment framework in decades, alongside the rollout of the Housing Pattern Book, refinements to the Housing SEPP and expanded use of state-led assessment pathways. Victoria progressed major amendments to its planning legislation aimed at faster permit decisions and clearer statutory timeframes, while Queensland focused on regional plan updates, infrastructure coordination and refinements to its code assessment framework.

By the end of the year, the direction of travel was clear. Planning systems were being pushed towards faster approvals, higher housing output and a more risk-based approach to assessment.

Now, at the start of 2026, the focus has shifted. The question is no longer what these reforms promise on paper, but how they are actually playing out in day-to-day applications. What we are seeing so far is a mix of genuine improvement, slower cultural change within councils, and familiar pressure points that have not disappeared.

What the reforms were trying to fix

Across all states, the 2025 reforms were responding to the same underlying problems. Approval timeframes for relatively simple projects were blowing out. Councils were applying the same level of scrutiny to small infill development as they were to complex or contentious proposals. Applicants were also often finding out too late that basic planning issues had been missed.

Risk-based assessment, non-discretionary standards, clearer housing typologies and statutory timeframes were all intended to address this. The aim was not to remove planning judgement, but to better align assessment effort with actual planning risk.

NSW: Risk-based pathways in theory and practice

In NSW, the 2025 reforms marked the most substantial shift in planning policy since the introduction of the EP&A Act itself. Key changes included amendments to assessment pathways, expansion of state and regional assessment roles, and the formal rollout of the Housing Pattern Book to standardise low-rise housing outcomes. The Housing SEPP and its non-discretionary standards were intended to play a stronger role in filtering assessment, particularly for dual occupancies and small-scale infill development.

In practice, many councils are still operating within legacy internal workflows. While the policy framework now supports faster and more proportionate assessment, applications are often still triaged using pre-reform checklists and referral processes. As a result, genuinely low-risk projects do not automatically move faster unless the submission is exceptionally clear and well framed from the outset.

What has changed more noticeably is council tolerance for how issues are presented. Officers appear increasingly willing to accept minor, well-explained variations early, particularly where they are clearly linked to planning objectives and site-specific constraints. Poorly justified or generic variations, however, are being challenged early and often become a source of delay.

The practical effect is that more responsibility now sits at the front end of the process. Councils are expecting permissibility, controls and variation logic to be resolved prior to lodgement, rather than during assessment. This is why we are seeing a growing reliance on preliminary planning reports in NSW to test feasibility, Housing SEPP compliance and risk early, before designs are locked in and before relatively small issues become assessment delays.

Victoria: Faster pathways still rely on solid groundwork

Victoria’s 2025 reforms focused on legislative amendments to the Planning and Environment Act, introducing clearer statutory timeframes and a more tiered approach to permit assessment. Alongside this, the state continued refining standardised controls for townhouses and low-rise housing and expanded reduced car parking requirements in well-serviced locations. VicSmart was positioned as a genuinely fast-track pathway, not a flexible one.

In practice, councils are enforcing this distinction more strictly. Applications that do not clearly meet VicSmart or fast-track criteria are being redirected early rather than allowed to progress on a technicality. This reflects a broader shift towards front-loaded decision-making, where eligibility and completeness are tested at lodgement rather than during assessment.

Despite increased standardisation, neighbourhood character remains a dominant assessment lens. Councils continue to rely on character-based reasoning, particularly where proposals technically meet numeric standards but fail to demonstrate contextual fit. The reforms have not removed discretion in this area to the extent some applicants expected.

The practical outcome is that Victoria’s faster pathways reward preparation rather than optimism. Projects supported by proper feasibility analysis that confirms pathway eligibility, followed by a well-structured planning report that addresses character and risk upfront, are far more likely to benefit from the reforms. Those that rely on technical compliance alone often find the system moving just as slowly as before.

Queensland: Certainty depends on understanding constraints

Queensland’s 2025 reforms were less about wholesale legislative change and more about strategic alignment. Updates to regional plans, infrastructure sequencing and the Planning Regulation were focused on unlocking housing supply while managing servicing constraints. Code-assessable development remains central to the system, but councils are increasingly interrogating what sits behind the code.

In practice, most delays we see are driven by overlays that are underestimated early. Flood hazard, coastal hazard and environmental overlays are consistently the most restrictive. Flood overlays in particular trigger modelling, minimum floor levels and stormwater constraints that are often not fully understood until after design work has commenced. Coastal hazard overlays introduce siting and building envelope limits that are difficult to resolve late, while environmental overlays frequently require supporting reports that are not obvious from a zoning check alone.

Where these constraints are identified and tested early, projects tend to move efficiently. Where they are assumed away or addressed generically, even code-assessable projects can stall. This is why early planning checks followed by a robust planning report are proving far more effective in Queensland than relying on code compliance alone.

What hasn’t changed

One thing that has remained consistent is the cause of delays. They are still rarely driven by major strategic objections. More often, they come down to uncertainty.

Unclear zoning interpretation, overlays identified late, calculations that are difficult to follow and so forth. Planning reports that reference controls but do not clearly explain how a proposal meets council expectations.

The 2025 reforms didn’t remove these risks. If anything, they have increased the importance of early clarity. Councils may be willing to move faster, but only when they are confident the fundamentals have been addressed properly.

What this means for 2026

As 2026 begins, there is a clear opportunity for planners, designers and clients to rethink how early decisions are made. Reform has created better pathways, but it has not replaced sound planning judgement.

The projects moving fastest are those where zoning, overlays, assessment pathways and variation risk are tested before designs are locked in, not after. Expediting the process does not mean cutting corners. It means doing the right work earlier.

At Planna, this is exactly where we see the greatest value. Preliminary planning reports prepared early, across New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, allow feasibility, risk and pathway decisions to be made with confidence. Well-prepared planning reports then support councils to assess applications more efficiently, because the heavy lifting has already been done.

Final thoughts

2025 set the policy direction. 2026 will test whether the system, and the industry, can deliver on it.

Planning reform provides the framework, but outcomes are still shaped by preparation. In short, good-quality planning still does the heavy lifting.

For low-risk projects in particular, the reforms reinforce a simple truth. The smoother the planning groundwork, the more benefit there is from faster pathways and streamlined assessment. That is how approvals move faster, with less friction and better outcomes for everyone involved.

‍