Who are the Winners and the Losers?

The NSW Government has just unveiled the biggest rewrite of the state’s planning laws in nearly five decades. After months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the government has finally dropped the Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill 2025… and it’s a bombshell.

Whether it’s the new Development Coordination Authority (DCA) or the ‘Targeted Assessment Pathways’, the reforms all revolve around one goal: speed. Fewer obstacles. More consistency. Faster approvals.

For those of us working in the industry, these reforms feel long overdue. But while they promise plenty of wins, our experience tells us not everyone will come out on top. So let’s break down who stands to benefit — and who may not be as lucky.

Developers → Winners

Verdict: For Developers, this is as close to a green light as you’ll get

Key changes:

1. Targeted Assessment Pathway
   • Currently, councils can refuse or delay a DA by leaning on the s4.15 subjective tests like public interest, likely impacts, and site suitability, even if a project complies with controls.
   • Now these are switched off; if the planning controls are met, the DA is harder to refuse.
2. CDC Variations with Deemed Approval
   • Today, if a proposed design only slightly breaches a complying development standard, it’s often pushed into the full DA process — a huge leap in time, cost, and uncertainty.
   • An introduction of a new ‘Variation Certificate’ means councils will now have only 20 days to decide on small variations - any longer and they’ll be automatically approved.
3. Centralised Authorities
   • The new DCA will act as a single front door for referrals, herding up 22 government agencies that currently slow down DAs.
   • As well, the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) will have a legislated role in advising the minister on rezoning and state-significant projects
   • So, instead of chasing agencies one by one, Developers can expect more streamlined, coordinated approvals and potentially faster rezoning processes. It creates a clearer path to escalate large projects directly to the Minister’s radar.

Developers have hit the jackpot. Expect faster approvals, fewer discretionary hurdles, and more certainty in timelines. However, with reduced external scrutiny, the responsibility to deliver quality outcomes rests more heavily on developers - cut corners now, and the political backlash could be fierce.

Architects & Designers → Conditional Winners

More certainty and fewer subjective hurdles mean less design discretion is needed, but now there will be fewer chances to argue site suitability.

Key Changes:

1. Targeted Assessment Pathway and Limited Creativity
   • This new pathway strips out the subjective hurdles causing compliant designs to be rejected if a panel didn’t feel like it ‘fit’ in the local context.
   • However, removing tests like ‘site suitability” and “public interest” limits the ability to push creative or context-specific solutions
   • For example, nuanced designs that could improve integration with the site are less likely to be considered, as focus shifts to compliance over design quality.
2. Standardised DA/SEE templates
   • Uniform documents and model conditions could reduce council-related delays due to application technicalities, completely unrelated to design quality
   • This means more predictable requirements, less admin risk and fewer re-submissions caused by paperwork differences across councils
3. CDC Variation Certificates
   • Under the reforms, architects can apply for a variation certificate alongside a CDC. Councils must determine these within 20 days, and if they don’t, the application is deemed approved.

Councils → Losers

Councils are set to lose much of their influence, shifting from decision-makers to compliance processors.

Key Changes:

1. Regional Planning Panels Wound Back
   • Regional planning panels - once key in depoliticising big project decisions since 2009 - will see their role shrinking, with the Minister now deciding what they can assess
2. Planning Secretary Controls DA Documentation
   • Councils have historically set their own requirements for DA documents, leading to variation (and frustration). Under the new rules, the Planning Secretary can specify the form and content of documents — potentially introducing standardised DA/SEE templates.
   • While this will improve consistency for applicants, it reduces the council’s ability to request information tailored to local planning challenges.
3. Standardised Conditions of Consent
   • Approvals will now come with model conditions mandated by SEPP. Councils can still add conditions, but not if they conflict with the model.

Councils’ role has shifted from place-shapers to rule-enforcers, with much of their discretion stripped away. For applications, this does mean smoother, more predictable processes, but at the cost of local responsiveness and potentially, trust in the system.

Communities → Losers

Community input is being reduced, meaning objections carry less weight and local voices have less influence.

Key changes:

1. One Statewide Community Participation Plan
   • Replacing council-specific consultation plans, creating a uniform approach across NSW; however, this limits councils’ ability to tailor engagement to local priorities or concerns
2. Removal of Public Interest in Targeted Assessments
   • Projects can now be approved even if there are community objections; the subjective consideration of ‘public interest’ and ‘local impact’ is no longer grounds for refusal

Residents will have fewer ways to influence planning decisions in their local areas. While this speeds up approvals for developers, communities risk feeling sidelined, and concerns about local character or environmental impact may be overlooked.

Other Key Changes

• Reviews and Appeals
  • Previously, reviews and appeals could be lodged simultaneously, creating overlapping delays.
  • Under the reforms, they cannot be done at the same time, simplifying the process but potentially limiting recourse for applicants.
• Bush Fire Provisions Removed
  • EPA Act rules requiring DAs to conform to Planning for Bush Fire Protection and councils to prepare bushfire-prone land maps have been deleted.
  • Arguing this will reduce complexity for landowners and remove red tape, this raises questions about climate risk management.
• Model Conditions of Consent
  • Development consents must now include SEPP-specified “model” conditions.
  • Other custom conditions cannot conflict with these, standardising approvals across the state but reducing flexibility for unique site circumstances.

These reforms represent a bold attempt to centralise power in the state government and standardise planning processes across NSW, but the question remains: will stripping councils of discretion truly deliver faster approvals, or simply shift the bottlenecks elsewhere?

CDC variations are undoubtedly a game-changer, enabling more projects to move through the system and giving developers greater certainty. But speed alone won’t guarantee better outcomes; the backbone of every DA is high-quality, compliant reporting. Without smarter, faster reporting, even the most streamlined approval pathways risk faltering.

That’s where software like Planna’s comes in, helping developers and NSW governments alike accelerate approvals, maintain compliance, and tackle the ongoing challenge of housing supply.

‍