The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW - dmpublisher.s3 … Way Ahead for Planning in NSW ... in Volume 1...

The Way Ahead for Planning in NSWRecommendations of the NSW Planning System Review

June 2012

Volume 2 – Other Issues

JUNE 2012THE W

AY AHEAD FOR PLANNING IN NSW | RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NSW

PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW | VOLUM

E 2

About the Authors

Tim Moore:• AppointedSeniorCommissioneroftheLandand

EnvironmentCourtofNewSouthWaleson12March2009

• CommissioneroftheLandandEnvironmentCourt(appointedNovember2002)

• BachelorofLaws(UNSW)1977• GraduateDiplomainPlanning(UTS)2008• MemberoftheNSWLegislativeAssemblyforthe

ElectorateofGordonbetween1976-1992• NewSouthWalesMinisterfortheEnvironment

1988-1992• ExecutiveDirectoroftheNSWMasterBuilders

Association1992-1993• AssistantSecretary,DepartmentPrimeMinisterand

CabinetandSecretarytotheCouncilforAboriginalReconciliation1993-1996

• Practisedasabarristerintheareasofplanningandenvironmentlaw,commercialandcorporationslawandbuildingdisputes1997-2002

Ron Dyer:• AdmittedasasolicitoroftheNewSouthWales

SupremeCourt1972• DiplomainCriminology1975• MemberoftheNSWLegislativeCouncilbetween

1979and2003• MinisterforCommunityServices,MinisterforAged

ServicesandDisabilityServices1995-1997• MinisterforPublicWorksandServices1997-1999• DeputyLeaderoftheGovernmentintheLegislative

Council1995-1999• Chair,LegislativeCouncilStandingCommitteeonLaw

andJustice1999–2003• MemberoftheBoardoftheMotorAccidentsAuthority

ofNSWsince2006

©CrownCopyright2012NSWGovernmentISBN978-0-7313-3549-7

The Way Ahead for Planning in NSWRecommendations of the NSW Planning System ReviewJune2012Volume 2 – Other Issues

DISCLAIMER

Whileeveryreasonableefforthasbeenmadetoensurethatthisdocumentiscorrectatthetimeofprinting,theStateofNSW,itsagentsandemployees,disclaimanyandallliabilitytoanypersoninrespectofanythingortheconsequencesofanythingdoneoromittedtobedoneinrelianceuponthewholeoranypartofthisdocument.

COPYRIGHTNOTICE

InkeepingwiththeNSWGovernment’scommitmenttoencouragetheavailabilityofinformation,youarewelcometoreproducethematerialthatappearsintheRecommendationsoftheNSWPlanningSystemReview:Volume2–OtherIssuesforpersonal,in-houseornon-commercialusewithoutformalpermissionorcharge.Allotherrightsarereserved.Ifyouwishtoreproduce,alter,storeortransmitmaterialappearingintheRecommendationsoftheNSWPlanningSystemReview:Volume2–OtherIssuesforanyotherpurpose,requestforformalpermissionshouldbedirectedtotheNSWPlanningSystemReview,GPOBox39,SydneyNSW2001.

The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW | Recommendations of the NSW Planning System Review | Volume 2 – Other Issues | June 2012 1

Letter to the Minister from Joint Chairs

The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW | Recommendations of the NSW Planning System Review | Volume 2 – Other Issues | June 20122

TABLE OF CONTENTSPrologue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4RecommendationsinVolume2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6PART1–ThePlanningCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Hearingsandprocedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Powertodeterminemattersarisingunderotherlegislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35AppealsfromPlanningCommissiondecisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35ProvisionofinformationaboutthePlanningCommission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Othermatters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

PART2–TheMinister,Director-GeneralandDepartment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41TheroleoftheMinister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41TheroleoftheDirector-General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42TheroleoftheDepartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

PART3–FinancialMatters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Localinfrastructurefunding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46FundingfortheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Fundinginformationtechnologyinareformedplanningsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52FundingthePlanningCommission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53Legislativecostshifting–PlanningCommission&JointRegionalPlanningPanels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53Developmentapplicationfees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54Developmentcontributionsforuniversities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

PART4–TheSpatialInformationAct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Legislativestructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Co-ordinatingcommitteeforspatialinformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Responsibilityforpreparationofthelegislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

PART5–Integrityintheplanningsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59PART6–TheSustainablePlanningAct–additionalmatters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Alternativecommunityconsultationprocesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Alternativedecision-makingprocesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Amendmentstodevelopmentproposalsduringassessmentprocesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Architecturalreviewanddesignpanels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Assessingdevelopmentproposedbypublicauthorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Assistingelectedcouncillorsindevelopmentdecisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Availabilityofassessmentreports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Bestpracticeguidelinesforplandevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Certificationofcodeassessabledevelopmentproposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74ChangestoLocalLand-UsePlans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Conditionsofdevelopmentconsent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76DefinitionsintheSustainablePlanningAct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Demolition–limitationsondevelopmentapprovals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Determiningdevelopmentproposedbypublicauthorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Developmentapplicationswithminorcodenon-compliances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Developmenttofittheexemptandcodeassessableclassifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Existinguses:Changes,expansionorintensification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Incompleteapplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89IndependentHearingandAssessmentPanels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90IndependentHearingandDeterminationPanels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91JointRegionalPlanningPanels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Landowner’sconsent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94Modeldelegationsfordevelopmentdecisionmakinginlocalcouncils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95Modificationstoexistingapproveddevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95


Namesforapplicationstoreflectpurpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96PlainEnglishguidetotheclassificationofdevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96Potentialcrossborderimpacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97PreambletotheSustainablePlanningAct?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98Registerofconsents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Removing“consistency”asadesigncriterioninassessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100‘StoptheClock’Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Verificationofthestateddevelopmentapplicationvalues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

PART7–TheLandandEnvironmentCourt–additionalmatters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Hearingfromobjectorsduringconciliationprocesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Costsorders–applicationamendmentduringtheappealprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Extensionofordersabletobemadein‘remedyorrestrain’matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104CommissionersassistingJudgesinClass4matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Class4mattersandrelatedcommonlawissues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Revocationofdevelopmentconsents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Challengestovalidityofdevelopmentconsents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Costsordersincivilenforcementcases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Compliancecosts/expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

PART8–Councils–additionalmatters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109CouncilOrdermakinggenerally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Draftingprecisionfororders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Strictliabilitypenaltynoticeoffence–falseormisleadinginformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

PART9–Enforcementpolicies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112PART10–EnvironmentalImpactStatements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114AccreditationforthosepreparinganEISorsupportingstudies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Carbonaccounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Director-General’srequirementsforEnvironmentalImpactStatements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116ReviewsofEnvironmentImpactStatements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

PART11–FormerAboriginalreservesandmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119PART12–CommunityEngagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Assistingwiththe“righttoknow”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122Precinctcommittees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122ProjectidentificationontheDepartment’swebsite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

PART13–Otherreformmeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124PlanningintheunincorporatedareaoftheState. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124RevitalisationoftheNewcastleCentralBusinessDistrict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Transferabledevelopmentrightstoagriculturalland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

PART14–Certificationmatters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Theroleofprivatecertifiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Finalandinterimoccupationcertificates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

PART15–Rejectedmatters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Mattersoutsidethescopeofourreview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Rejectedmatter–Anabsoluterighttodevelop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Rejectedmatter–Commercialviabilityofaproposeddevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Rejectedmatter–Commercialviabilityofexistingbusinesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Rejectedmatter–Deemedapprovals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Rejectedmatter–Pastperformanceofadevelopmentapplicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Rejectedmatter–Propertyvalues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134Rejectedmatter–Useofpublicpositivecovenantsbycouncils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Appendix1:TermsofReference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Note:Referencesto‘Volume1’arereferencesto:TheWayAheadforPlanninginNSW–Recommendations

oftheNSWPlanningSystemReview–Volume1MajorIssues.PublishedMay2012,ISBN978-0-7313-3529-9

Prologue


PrologueInVolume1ofourReviewPaper,wesetoutthemajorreformsthatarenecessary,inouropinion,toreshapetheplanningsystemofNewSouthWalestomakeitmoreecologically,economicallyandsociallyresponsive.TheprincipalfocusofVolume1wasthebroadstructureof(andmajorelementsfor)theSustainablePlanningAct.Wealsooutlinedthereasonsfor(andbroadfunctionsof )thetwootherpiecesoflegislationweconsidernecessarytosupportthereformprocess,theyare:

• thePlanning Commission Act–toestablishthemembership,functions,powersandprocessesoftheindependentPlanningCommission

• theSpatial Information Act–tofacilitatea‘wholeofgovernment’approachandfoundationalbasisforallspatialinformationheldacrossgovernmentandlocalgovernment.Itwillpermitexternalprivatesectorservicetointegratedataconcerningtelecommunicationsnetworks,gaspipelinesandthelikeintoacommonspatialdatabase.

Inaddition,thisvolumealsosetsoutarangeofmorespecificmattersweconsiderneedtobeaddressedinthedraftingoftheSustainablePlanningAct,ifitistoprovideacoherentframeworkforareformedplanningsystem.Weshouldnote,atthispoint,thatadealofthemoreminoradministrativeelementsoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979willneedtobecarriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningActanditssupportingregulations.ThismustbeundertakeninafashionthatdoesnotdetractfromthecoreobjectivediscussedinVolume1ofadoptingbestdraftingpracticeinthepreparationofthislegislation.Suchadoptionisnecessarytoproduceprincipallegislationinassimple,narrativeandreadableformaspossiblewiththenecessarycomplexitiescontainedinschedulesorregulations.AswediscussedinVolume1,thepresentplanninglegislationisacomplexandalmostincomprehensiblealphabetsoupandentirelyinaccessibletoordinaryreaders.

Importantly,thisvolumealsosetsoutthedetaileddiscussiononandrecommendationsfortheeffectiveintegrationofformerAboriginalreservesandmissionsintotheplanningsystem.Weacknowledgethatthisprocesswilltakeaconsiderableperiodoftime.Addressingit,however,inourviewisnotmerelyalanduseplanningissuebutitisalsoanimportantsocialjusticestepalongthepathtoreconciliation.

Wehaveprovidedfurthermaterialonfinancialmatters–assufficientfundingforabroadrangeofreformprocessesisessentialiftheyaretosucceed.Cruciallyinthisregard,ifefficientbutmoreimmediateuseofaccruedlocalinfrastructurecontributionsheldbycouncilscanbetriggered,thereispotentialforasignificantshort-termstimulustotheState’seconomytobeachieved.

InVolume1,wenotedthatwehadmadearangeofrecommendationsaddressingissuesofintegritywithinareformedplanningsystem.WenotedthatwehadreceivedasubmissionfromtheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruptionthathadmade16specificrecommendationsandthatwewouldsetout,inthisvolume,howwehaverespondedtothem.Part5ofthisvolumesetsoutthoserecommendationsandhowwehavedealtwiththem.

David

Highlight


Althoughawiderangeofmattersconcerningprivatebuildingcertificationwereraisedwithusduringtheconsultationprocess,forthereasonssetoutinVolume1,ithasnotbeenappropriateforustoundertake,aspartofareviewoftheplanningsystem,whatwouldhavebeen,ineffect,areviewoftheentiresystemofregulationofthebuildingindustry.Thereare,however,aquitelimitedrangeofareaswhereprivatecertificationandtheplanningsystemintersectandsomeadditionalmattersconcerningprivatecertificationarethereforedealtwithinthisvolume.

Finally,wehavenotconsidereditappropriatetocanvassallofthemattersthatweresetoutintheIssuesPaper1wereleasedinDecember2011thatwerenotadoptedbyusforareformedplanningsystem.However,wehavefeltitdesirabletosetoutsomebriefcommentsonmattersnotproperlywithinthescopeofourreviewandtoexplainwhyasmallnumberofspecificmattersthathadloomedlargeduringtheconsultationprocesswerespecificallyrejectedbyus.

ConclusionWeconsiderthatthewiderangeofrecommendationswehavemadeinVolumes1and2ofourReviewPaperconstituteanappropriatebasisforreformingtheNewSouthWalesplanningsystemthatwillfreeitfrombeingamajorimpedimenttoeconomicactivityintheStatewhilst,atthesametime,restoringpublicconfidenceintheunderlyingintegrityofthesystem.

1 The way forward for planning in NSW?NSWPlanningSystemReview,December2011–ISBN978-0-7313-3968-6

Recommendations in Volume 2


Recommendations in Volume 2The Planning Commission1. TheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistobeappointedonafull-timebasis.2. TheChairpersonoftheCommissionistobeaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironment

Court,withtheappointmentofanadditionalJudgetotheCourtandtheimmediatesecondmentofthatJudgetothepositionofChairpersonofthePlanningCommission.

3. TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istoincorporateaprovisionthatwillpermitanyJudgeoftheCourttobeabletoactastheChairpersonoftheCommission.SuchaprovisionwillprovideadefinedpoolofpersonswhowouldbeabletoactasChairperson,intheeventthatthepermanentlyassignedChairpersontookleaveanditwasdesirabletomakeareplacementduringthatperiodofabsence.

4. TheJudgeselectedtobeappointedandsecondedtothePlanningCommissionmustalsohavethenecessaryskillsandattributestoperformtheroleofaJudgeoftheCourt,aswellasthosenecessarytofulfiltheroleatthePlanningCommission.

5. ResponsibilityforselectionoftheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistoliewiththeAttorneyGeneralwiththeconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

6. TheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistoexercisethefollowingfunctions:• presideoverdeterminationprocessesforcomplexand/orcontroversialprojects

• determinethecompositionofPanelstohearanddeterminemattersoverwhichtheChairpersondoesnotpreside

• allocateminormatterstosinglemembersoftheCommissionfordetermination,includingmodificationmattersthatcanbedealtwithonthepapers

• runtheselectionprocessforothermembersoftheCommission• runinductiontrainingfornewmembersoftheCommission• establishacontinuingeducationprogrammeformembersoftheCommission• ensurethattheCommission’sprocessesaremanagedtomeetperformancecriteriaestablished(andpublished)fortheefficientdischargeoftheCommission’srole

• undertakeannualperformancereviewsforothermembersoftheCommission• beresponsibleforpreparationoftheCommission’sannualreport• managetheresourcesoftheCommissioninanefficientandcost-effectivefashion.

7. AllofthecostsoftheChairpersonofthePlanningCommission(includingofanyJudgeactingduringanyabsenceoftheChairperson)aretobemetfromitsbudgetandreimbursedtotheDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJusticebytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.


8. TheprocessforselectingCommissionersofthePlanningCommission,whetherfull-timeorpart-time,istobebypublicadvertisementandrecommendationtotheMinisterbyaselectionpanelcomprisingthefollowing:

• theChairpersonoftheCommission• theDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure• anindependentpersonnominatedbytheChairperson(withtheconcurrenceoftheMinister).

9. EvenifanexistingCommissionerseeksreappointment,thepositionshouldusuallybesubjecttoacontestableadvertisingprocess.However,iftheChairpersonrecommendsthatadirectreappointmentshouldbemade,thentheMinistermayagreetothis.Full-timeCommissionersshouldholdappointmentforsevenyearsandbeeligibleforasecondtermonly.

10. Part-timeCommissionersaretobeappointedforuptothreeyearswithamaximumperiodofnineyears.

11. ThequalificationsofCommissionersshallremainasprovidedforinSchedule3ofthepresentplanninglegislation.

12. Commissioners(otherthantheChairperson)shouldnotbejudicialofficers.13. ThenumberofpersonsabletobeappointedasCommissionersisnottobelimited.14. ThepowertoappointcasualCommissioners,ifthereisaparticularworkloadissueora

needforhighlyspecialisedexpertise,istoberetained.15. WiththeconcurrenceoftheChiefJudgeandoftheChairperson,aCommissionerof

theLandandEnvironmentCourtistobeabletobeappointedtochairapanelortositonapanelofthePlanningCommission(ifitweretobechairedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission).

16. IfaCommissioneroftheCourtweretotakepartinaPlanningCommissiondeterminationprocess,thecostsoftheCommissioner’sparticipationistocomefromthebudgetofthePlanningCommission.

17. TheChairperson,anyactingChairpersonoranysecondedCommissioneroftheCourtisnottoperformroleofinvestigating,reviewingand/oradvisingtheMinisteronanymatterthattheMinistermighthavereferredtothePlanningCommission.

18. AllmatterstobedealtwithbythePlanningCommissionaretohaveaproperpublichearing.

19. Hearingsarenottobeheldincourtroomsandvenuesshouldbearrangedinasinformalafashionasispossible,consistentwiththescopeofthelikelyparticipationinandpublicattendanceatthehearing.

20. MattersthataretobeconsideredbytheCommissionaretobedealtwithbyapanelthatisselectedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission.

21. PriortoanypublichearingoftheCommissionwherethereislikelytobesignificantpublicparticipationorinvolvetechnicallycomplexmaterial,thereistobeapublicplanningdiscussionwellpriortothedateofthepublichearings.

22. ThepublichearingprocessfortheCommissionistooperateaccordingtopublishedguidelinesthatdonotimposemandatoryrestrictionsortimelimitsonthoseparticipatingbutcontrolofthehearingistoliewiththepanelconductingit.



23. ThePlanningCommissionActistoprovidethatthosetakingpartinapublichearingcanonlyberepresentedbyanexternallawyerorpaidagentwiththepermissionofthepanelhearingthematterif,andonlyif,thepanelissatisfiedthatthereissomepublicinterestreasonwhythisshouldbepermitted.

24. Companiesaretobeabletoberepresentedbydirectorsoremployeesofthecompany;theDepartmentbyitsemployees;councilsbycouncillorsorcouncilofficersandindividualsabletospeakontheirownbehalf.

25. Associationsandcommunitygroupsaretobeabletoappointoneoftheirmemberstospeakontheirbehalf.

26. ThePlanningCommission’sprocessesmustremaindistinctlydifferentfromthoseofaCourt:

• Theprocessistobeinquisitorialratherthanadversarial.• Thereistobenocross-examinationprocesses(whetherbylawyersoragents–ifpermitted–orbyanyotherparticipants)ofthosepresentinginformationduringhearings.

• TheCommissionpanelmembersaretoundertakethequestioningofthoseparticipating.

• Therulesofevidencearenottoapply.• Thoseparticipatingarenottobeswornin.• Transcriptsarenotautomaticallytobetakenoftheproceedingsalthough,withpermissionofthepanel,recordingmaybeallowedifthereweresomespecialcircumstancedemonstratedwhythismightbewarranted–ifrecordingweretobepermitted,thecostsofdoingsoshouldbemetbythepersonorentityrequestingpermissionforthistooccur.

27. TheCommissionistogivereasonsforallitsdecisionsexplainingwhythedecisionhasbeenmade.Thedecisionsaretobemadepublicand,ifnotgivenattheendoftheCommissionhearing,aretobenotifiedtoallthosewhoparticipatedinthehearingandpublishedontheCommission’swebsite.

28. Allconcurrencefunctions,nomatterwhatthelegislativeprovisionthatmakestheapprovalnecessary,aretobevestedintheCommissionwhenmakingadecisionaboutadevelopmentproposal.

29. AppealsonquestionsoflawaretobeonthesamebasisasthatwhicharisesintheLandandEnvironmentCourt:

• againstdecisionsmadebyapanelofthePlanningCommissionpresidedoverbytheChairpersonshouldlietotheCourtofAppeal(thisbeingthepositionthatapplieswhenameritappealdeterminationismadebyaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt).

• againstdecisionsmadebyanyotherpanelofthePlanningCommissionshouldlietoaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt(thisbeingthepositionthatappliesfordecisionsmadebyCommissionersoftheCourt)andthentotheCourtofAppeal.

30. TheCommissionistoprepareandpublishaplainEnglishstep-by-stepguidetoitsprocesses–fromhowamattercomesintoitsremittohowadecisionismade,publicisedanditseffect.

31. AllsecretariatsupportistocontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,butbeindependentoftheDepartmentandremaininaseparateoffice.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight


32. TheheadoftheCommission’ssecretariatistoberesponsibletotheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionforhearingprocessmattersandtotherelevantseniorofficeroftheDepartmentforadministrativeandpersonnelmatters.

33. TheMinisterresponsiblefortheSustainablePlanningActistobetheMinisterresponsibleforthePlanningCommissionAct.

34. Generaladministrativesupportforaccounting,payrollandsimilarfunctionsaretocontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartment.

35. TheGovernmentconsidertheearlyenactmentandcomingintoeffectofthePlanningCommissionActtoenablethestartofreformsthroughthePlanningCommissionprocessindeterminingwhetherornottoapprovemajordevelopmentproposals.

The role of the Minister36. TheMinisteristocontinuetoberesponsiblefortheformalmakingofLocalLand-Use

Plans(asdiscussedinVolume1).However,therewillbealessinterventionistrolefortheMinister(ortheMinister’sdelegates)inthepreparationofamendmentstosuchlocalplans,includingre-zonings.

37. TheMinisteristoretainthepowertoreferprojectsforStatelevelassessmentanddetermination.Themeritsofadecisiontoremoveaprojectfromacouncilwillnotbesubjecttoappeal.

38. WiththeexceptionofthoseprojectsthatweredeclaredbytheMinistertobeStatesignificantinfrastructure,theMinisterisnottomakeanydecisionsaboutwhetheranyprojectshouldbeapproved.DecisionmakingataStatelevelwouldbeundertakenbythePlanningCommission.

39. IftherewerepublicobjectionsduringtheexhibitionstageofaStatesignificantinfrastructureproject,theconditionsproposedbytheMinisterforprojectapprovalareautomaticallytobereferredtothePlanningCommission.TheCommissionistodeterminewhatchanges,ifany,aretobemadetothoseconditions.TheCommissionisnottobepermittedtoconsiderwhethertheprojectshouldbeapproved,ortoimposesuchonerouschangestotheconditionsofapprovalsoastoconstituteconstructiverefusal.

40. TheMinister’sabilitytointervene,generally,intheplanningpowersofacouncilistoremain.

41. TheMinister’spresentpowerstoproposeappointmentstothePlanningCommissionandtheMinister’sroletonominatechairsandstatemembersofJointRegionalPlanningPanelsistoremain.

42. TheMinisteristoretainthepowertogivecouncilsdirectionswithrespecttoDevelopmentControlPlansandthepowertomake,amendorrevokeaDevelopmentControlPlanifthecouncildoesnotimplementtheMinister’sdirection.

43. TheMinister’sgenerallegislativeandregulationmakingfunctionsareotherwisetoremainunchanged.



The role of the Department 44. TheDepartmentistoestablishaprogrammeforstaffingexchangeswithlargerregional

citycouncils.45. TheDepartmentistosecondstafftosmallerruralcouncilstoassistinstrategicplanning

andforcapacitybuilding.46. TheDepartmentistoestablishanewsub-regionalofficeinWaggaWagga.47. TheDepartmentistoestablishasmall-scaletraineeplannercadetshipschemewitha

cycleoftraineeplacementswithregionalandruralcouncils.48. TheDepartmentistoreviewthetiming,locationandcostsofmeetingsbetween

Departmentalregionalstaffandstaffofregionalandruralcouncils.Thisexaminationistofocusonthenecessityforandaffordabilityofsuchmeetingsandtheuseofalternativeoptionstoeliminatetravelthatcanarisefromtechnologysuchaswebcameras.

The compliance role of the Department

49. TheSustainablePlanningActistoincludeaprovisionpermittingtheimpositionofchargesonprojectsapprovedbytheMinisterand/orthePlanningAssessmentCommissionand/orthePlanningCommissionforthepurposesoffundingDepartmentalcomplianceactivitiesdirectedatthoseclassesofproject.

Financial matters

Local infrastructure funding

Deriving local contributions50. TheSustainablePlanningActistoincludeprovisionsforthethreemethodsfor

derivinglocalinfrastructurecontributionscurrentlyprovidedforinthepresentplanninglegislation.

Accountability and planning agreements51. TheprovisionscontainedintheuncommencedSchedule1Part3tothepresent

planninglegislationrelatingtoPlanningAgreementsaretobeincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

52. Anyassessingofficerconsideringwhethertorecommendacceptanceofthetermsofavoluntaryplanningagreement,oranydecisionmakingbodydeterminingwhetherornottoenterintosuchanagreement,istoberequiredtoconsideranysubmissionsreceivedduringthenoticeperiodoftheproposedagreement.

Content of Local Infrastructure Plans53. CouncilsaretosubmitdraftLocalInfrastructurePlans(oramendmentstothem)tothe

Director-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureforreview.54. TheDirector-Generalmaymodifyanysuchplan.


55. IftheDirector-Generalmodifiesaplan,thecouncilmayrequesttheproposedmodificationbereferredtothePlanningCommissionfordetermination.

56. APlanningCommissiondeterminationonaLocalInfrastructurePlanistobetreatedaswouldanapplicationforaprojectdetermination.

Accumulated local infrastructure funds57. AreferenceistobegiventotheIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunalto

determinehowtoacceleratetheexpenditureofaccumulatedfundsraisedbycouncilsfromlocalinfrastructurecontributions.

58. Councilsarerequiredtopublishthefollowingaspartoftheirannualreporting:• asimplifiedanalysisofsuchmoniescollectedandexpended• infrastructureprovided• anticipatedtimetablingforfutureinfrastructuretobefundedfromtheseinfrastructurecharges.

Contributions appeals to the Land and Environment Court59. TherightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtinitsClass1jurisdiction

againstthereasonablenessofconditionsimposingacontributionforlocalcommunityinfrastructureistoberetained.

Fitting a Local Infrastructure Plan into the unitary planning document framework60. AlllocalinfrastructurecontributionsplansaretobeconsolidatedintoasingleLocal

InfrastructurePlanandincorporatedintotheDevelopmentControlPlanintheunitaryplanningdocumentforacouncil.

61. ThisconsolidationistotakeplacewhenthecounciltranslatesitsDevelopmentControlPlantothestandardtemplateforsuchplans.

Funding for the Department of Planning and Infrastructure62. Developmentapplicationassessmentfeesformajorprojectsandcontributionstothe

PlanningReformFundaretoberemittedtotheStateTreasury.63. ThebudgetoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistobebroughtwithin

theconventionalbudgetbiddingandsettingprocessoftheConsolidatedFund.64. ThemoniesraisedasPlanningReformFundleviesaretobeappliedtothreepurposes:

• meetingtheappropriateportionofthebudgetoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure(butexcludingassessmentcostsformajorprojectassessments).

• providingafundfromwhichtheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurecanmakegrantstocouncilstorolloutcomprehensiveuseofinformationtechnologytosupporte-planninganddataaccuracyandfuturecollection.

• meetingthecostsofthePlanningCommission.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

This will need to reflect the data collection costs of other agencies and the implementation of interoperability within spatial databases. Need also to consider the cost of an SDI.



Funding information technology in a reformed planning system65. Inconsultationwithlocalgovernment,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure

istoestablishaframeworkforassessingcouncilgrantapplicationsforgrantsgiventocouncilstoimprovetheiruseofinformationtechnology,tosupporte-planning,electronicdataaccuracyandfuturecollection.

66. TheDepartment’sbudgetistoincludeanallocation(drawnfrommoniespaidintothePlanningReformFund)forthemakingofsuchgrants.

Funding the Planning Commission67. SufficientbudgetallocationistobemadeforthePlanningCommissiontoenableitto

fulfiltheexpandedroleintendedforit.

Legislative cost shifting – Planning Commission & Joint Regional Planning Panels68. CostrecoveryfromcouncilsisnottobeincludedintheSustainablePlanningActwhen

eitherthePlanningCommissionorJointRegionalPlanningPanelsactasconsentauthoritiesfordevelopmentonlandinacouncil’sarea.

69. TheStateistoforgivedebtsthathaveaccrued(andwillcontinuetoaccrue)undersection23Oofthepresentplanninglegislationuntilitsrepealiseffected.

70. ThepresentprovisionrequiringacounciltomeetthecostofanyIndependentHearingAssessmentPanelthatitmightestablishistoberetained.

71. AsimilarprovisionistobeincorporatedforanyIndependentHearingandDeterminationPaneloranyArchitectural,Designand/orHeritageAssessmentPanel.

Adjustment of development application fees72. AreferenceistobegiventotheIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunalto

investigatewhetherdevelopmentapplicationfeescalesforcouncilsshouldbeincreasedtoensurethattheyreflectaproperuserpaysbasisfortheassessmentanddeterminationprocessesfordevelopmentapplications.

73. Theprocessforsettingcouncildevelopmentapplicationfeescalesistoprovidethatthesefeesareadjusted,automaticallyonanannualbasis,bythesamepercentageasthebaseannualincreasepercentageforordinarycouncilraterevenue.

Development contributions for Universities 74. Universitydevelopmentsforstudentaccommodation,teachingandresearchfacilities

arenottobesubjecttodevelopmentcontributionsexceptfordrainageandtrafficmanagementworks(atthedevelopmentsite’sentrance).

David

Highlight

David

Highlight


The Spatial Information Act 75. TheSpatialInformationActbeenactedcoveringcertainclassesofspatialinformation

heldinelectronicformbygovernmentagenciesthatrelatetoNewSouthWales(includingthecoastalwatersoftheState).

76. DraftingoftheSpatialInformationActistoberesponsibilityoftheDepartmentofFinanceandServicesassistedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

The Sustainable Planning Act – additional matters

Alternative community consultation processes77. Thebestpracticeguidelinesforplanmaking(strategicplanningandlocalland-use

planning)aretoincludeexplanationsofhowalternativecommunityconsultationprocessesmightbeutilisedinplandevelopment.

Alternative Decision-making processes78. TheSustainablePlanningActistopermitacounciltoadoptanalternativedecision

makingprocess,outsidethescopeofthemandatoryrangeofprocessesprovidedfor,butonlywiththeconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

Amendments to development proposals during assessment processes

79. TheSustainablePlanningActistomakeitclearthatanyamendmentsmadetoaproposedprojectduringtheassessmentprocesscannotaltertheproposalinsuchamajorwaythatitisnolongersubstantiallythesameprojectasthatintheoriginalapplication.

80. Amendmentstocodeassessabledevelopmentaretobepermittedpriortodeterminationoftheapplication.

81. Unless,intheopinionoftheassessingcertifier,theamendmentsareminor,ortheassessingcertifierissatisfiedthattheamendmentsarebeingmadeafterconsultationwiththeownersandoccupiersofallneighbouringpropertiesandareagreedtobythoseowners,anyamendmentstocodeassessableapplicationswillrequirethecounciltoprovideacopyoftheamendmentstotheownersoftheneighbouringpropertieswhoseownershavenotagreedtotheamendments.

82. Formeritandimpactassessabledevelopment,iftheamendmentsarenotminorintheopinionoftheassessingofficer,theamendmentsaretohaveafurthernotificationperiod,orextensionofthenotificationperiodiftheamendmentsaremadeduringtheoriginalnotificationperiod.

83. Formeritassessabledevelopment,theadditionalnotificationperiodistobe5 working days,whilstforimpactassessabledevelopmentitistobe10 working dayseachtimeamendmentsareproposed.

84. Ifextensionsaremadetothenotificationperiod,asimilarextensionistobeappliedautomaticallytothemandatedperiodfordetermination.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

ALL CLASSES must be included in an SDI.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Agreed.



85. Anyamendmentsaretobenotifiedontheassessingbody’swebsite.86. Formeritandimpactassessabledevelopment,thereistobeelectronicnotificationto

anypersonswhohavenotifiedtheassessingbodythattheywishedtobeinformedofanyamendmentsorwhohavealreadylodgedasubmission.

Architectural review and design panels87. Councilsaretobeabletoestablishspecialistlocaladvisorypanelstodealsolelywith

architectural,urbandesignand/orheritagematters.

Assessing development proposed by public authorities 88. Assessmentprocessesforpublicauthorityprojectsaretobeassetoutbelow:

Development Track Assessment Body

Exempt Publicauthority

Prohibited Notapplicable

Codeassessment Publicauthority

Meritassessment Publicauthority

Impactassessment PublicauthorityorDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure

Assisting elected councillors in development decision making89. Theworkinggroupestablishedtocreateaprofessionaldevelopmentprogramfor

councilandStateGovernmentplannersisalsotoconsiderwaystodevelopanddelivertrainingmaterialsforelectedcouncillorsonplanningpolicyanddevelopmentdecisionmaking.

Availability of assessment reports90. Anyassessmentreportformeritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopment

proposalsistobemadeavailableonthewebsiteoftheassessingbody,atleastoneweekpriortoanydeterminationbeingmadeoranyhearingplanningmeetingofthePlanningCommission.

91. Ifthesubmittershaveregisteredane-mailaddress,theassessingauthorityistoe-mailadvisingoftheavailabilityoftheassessmentreportontheassessingauthority’swebsite.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Provide info on eLearning program for SI - Noel Hamey and George Havakis.


Certification of code assessable development proposals92. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroupdrawn

frompropertyindustryinterests;localgovernment;therelevantprofessions(planning,architecture,urbandesign,heritageandlaw);andconservationandcommunitygroups[reflectingthecompositionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard]todevelopdraftguidelinesonbestpracticeoptionsforcommunityengagementintheplandevelopmentprocess.

93. TheguidelinesaretobeconsideredbythePlanningAdvisoryBoardpriortoadoptionbytheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

Certification of code assessable development proposals

94. Privatecertifiers(includingpartnersinoremployeesofthesameentity)andcouncilstaffarenottobepermittedtoinspectdevelopmentsthattheyhaveapproved.

95. Councilsaretobeabletoseekanexemption,fromtheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure,tothisprohibition.

Changes to Local Land-Use Plans96. TheprocessesformakingchangestoLocalLand-UsePlans(otherthanthedevelopment

ofanewplanoraregular,statutorilyrequiredreview)aretobedividedintoseparatestreams,onetodealwithrezoningandonetodealwithotherproposedchanges.

97. Proposalsfornon-rezoningchangestoLocalLand-UsePlans(otherthanminorclericalordraftingcorrectingchanges)aretoincorporatepublicnotificationandconsultationpriortoadoptionofsuchachange.

Conditions of development consent

Categorising the elements of a development consent98. Developmentconsentsaretoberequiredtohavetheirconditionsdividedinto:

• thosethatdefineandauthoriseapermitteduseoftheapproveddevelopment• thosethatdefinetheconditionsthatregulateandcontrolthedevelopmentthatisnecessarytoallowthepermittedusetooperate

• thoseconditionsthathaveanongoingbasisinregulatinghowthepermitteduseoperatesintothefuture.

The use of template or default conditions of development consent99. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroupwith

representativesfromlocalgovernment,thedevelopmentindustryandcommunityandenvironmentalnetworkstoidentifydevelopmenttypeswheretemplateormodelconditionsofconsentwouldbedesirable(includingdevelopmenttypeswhereconcurrenceauthoritydelaysarecommon)andtodeveloptemplateormodelconditionsofconsentforthosedevelopmenttypes.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Note that neither the API or SIBA is included.



Trial periods for development consents100. TheSustainablePlanningActistomakeitclearthattrialperiodsfordevelopment

proposalsaretobepermittedbutthatamaximumofthreetrialperiodsencompassingatotalmaximumperiodoffiveyearsistoapply,beforeafinaldetermination(togivepermanentapprovalortorefuseapproval)ismadeontheproposal.

Requiring security bonds as a condition of consent101. ConditionsrequiringsecuritybondsaretobepermittedbytheSustainablePlanning

Actformeritandimpactassessabledevelopmentformattersbroaderthandamagetopublicinfrastructure,butonlytotheextentwhereitcanbedemonstratedthattherewasarealandsubstantialriskofnon-compliancewiththeconditionsofadevelopmentconsentandthatsuchnon-compliancewouldresultinapublicauthorityoraneighbouringlandholderhavingtopayrectification/remediationcoststoremedytheconsequencesofthebreach.

Public interest conditions102. Thereistobeaspecificstatutoryprovisionthatpermitsaconsentauthoritytoimpose

aconditionofdevelopmentconsentfoundedonthepublicinterest,evenifthereisnoimmediatenexusorconnectionwiththeproposeddevelopmentbutwherethenatureoftheconditioncanbeseenasreasonableandasasufficientlygeographicallyproximateresponsetotheproposeddevelopment.

Definitions in the Sustainable Planning Act103. AlldefinitionsintheSustainablePlanningActaretobelocatedinadictionaryatthe

endofthatActandnotlocatedwithinthebodyofthelegislation.104. Adefinitionof‘affordablehousing’istobeincludedinthedictionaryintheSustainable

PlanningAct.105. Studentaccommodationistobeincludedinthedefinitionof‘affordablehousing’.106. Alldefinitionsthatarepresentlyderivedbyreferencingthetermsofadefinition

containedinanotherstatutearetobespeltoutinfullinthedictionarytotheSustainablePlanningAct.

107. Adefinitionof‘sustainabledevelopment’istobeincorporatedinthesametermsastheProtection of Environment Operations Act 1995.

108. Existingdefinitionscontainedinthepresentplanninglegislationaretobebroughtacross,totheextentnecessary,buttheirlanguageistobereviewedtoseeifanyrevisionofanytermisrequired.

109. DefinitionsintheSustainablePlanningActaretoreflectthecategoriesofdevelopmentsetoutinthemodifiedDevelopmentAssessmentForummodeldescribedinVolume1,PartCChapter6.


Demolition – limitations on development approvals110. Clause136EoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000istobe

carriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningActforcodeassessabledevelopmentandanoticebeincludedincodeassessableapprovals,preparedbytheDepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanninginconsultationwithrelevantauthorities,thatinformsaboutbondedandfriableasbestos,howtohavesuspectmaterialtestedandthepersonalandcommunityhealthimplicationsfrominhalation.

111. Demolitionofanyitembeinginvestigatedbyacouncilforpossiblelistingasanitemoflocalheritageistobeexcludedfrombeingexemptorcodeassessabledevelopment,iftheowneroftheitemhasbeengivennoticeoftheinvestigation.

112. Thereistobealimitof28daysafterlodgementofanapplicationtodemolishwithinwhichaheritageinvestigationistobefinalised(andtheowneroftheitemtobenotifiedoftheoutcome)astowhetherthecouncilshouldconsiderseekinganamendmenttotheLocalLand-UsePlantolisttheitemasoneoflocalheritagesignificance.

113. Iftheinvestigationprocessrecommendslocallisting,theapplicationistobemeritassessableonthisbasis.

114. Iftheinvestigationdoesnotrecommendlocallistingoriftheinvestigationisnotcompletedandtheownernotifiedoftheoutcomewithintherequired28days,thedemolitionapplicationshallbedeemedtobeapproved.

Determining development proposed by public authorities115. Determinationprocessesforpublicauthorityprojectsaretobeassetoutbelow:

Development Track Decision Maker



Codeassessable Publicauthority

Meritassessable PublicauthorityorJointRegionalPlanningPanel(dependingonscale).JointRegionalPlanningPanelifadispensationfromadevelopmentstandardisrequired.

Impactassessable PlanningCommissionorJointRegionalPlanningPaneldependingonscale

Development applications with minor code non-compliances 116. Ifaminornon-compliancecausesanapplicationtobemeritassessableratherthancode

assessableandtheassessingofficerconsidersthataminoramendmentwouldrendertheapplicationtotallycodeassessable,theassessingofficeristocontacttheproponentandsuggestthattheproponentmaketheminoramendmenttotheproposal.



117. Ifsuchanamendmentismadebytheproponent,theapplicationwillbedealtwithascodeassessable.

118. Inthealternative,iftheassessingofficerconsidersthatthenon-complianceisminor,theassessingofficercanelecttoconsidertheacceptabilityorotherwiseofthenon-compliantelementwithoutundertakingafullassessmentoftheoverallproject.

Development to fit the exempt and code assessable classifications119. Alldevelopmentnowclassifiedasexemptorcomplyingistobecategorisedasexempt

orcodeassessabledevelopment.120. Asinglesimplifiedlistofthesecategoriesofdevelopmentistobecompiledbyareview

ledbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurewithrepresentationfromlocalgovernmentacrosstherangeoftypesofcouncilsin(urban,semi-urban,ruralandwesternNewSouthWales).

121. TheMinisteristoestablishanongoingprocessforconsiderationoflocalvariationproposalstoclassifydevelopmentasexemptorcodeassessabledevelopmentwithinalocalgovernmentarea.

Existing uses: changes, expansion or intensification122. Onlylandthatissubjecttoachangeofzoningfromanagriculturalzonetoan

environmentalzone,asaconsequenceofthemakingofanewlocalplanpursuanttotheStandardInstrumenttemplate,shallhavearightattachedtoittomakeanapplicationtochangeaspecificanddeclaredexistingnon-conformingagriculturalusetoanewspecificnon-conformingagriculturaluseortoaddanewspecificnon-conformingagriculturalusetothedeclarednon-conformingagriculturaluse.

123. Thisrightistobeavailablefora10yearperiodafterthecommencementoftheSustainablePlanningActoraftersuchachangeofzoningiseffectedbythecomingintooperationofanewlocalplanbasedontheStandardInstrumenttemplate,whicheveristhelaterdate.

124. Therearetobenofurtheropportunitiespermittedtochangeonenon-conformingusetoanothernon-conforminguseafterthe10yearperiodexpires.

125. Applicationstopermitexpansionofanexistingnon-conformingusebeyonditspresentfootprintmaybeapprovedifthereisnoadverseimpactasaconsequenceoftheexpansion.

126. Applicationstointensifyanexistingnon-conformingusearetobepermittedbutaretobemeritassessableorimpactassessable,unlessthatintensificationfallswithinaclassofcodeassessabledevelopment.

127. Applicationsforexpansionofanexistingnon-conformingusearetobepermittedifthereisnoadverseimpactonothersurroundingusesandaretobedeterminedbyeitheraJointRegionalPlanningPanelorthePlanningCommission.

Incomplete applications 128. Applicationsthatarenotcompletepriortothedayuponwhichtheapplicationis

scheduledtobemadeavailable,physicallyorelectronically,forpubliccommentshallberejectedandshallberegardedasnothavingbeenlodged.


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels129. IndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelsaretobeprovidedforintheSustainable

PlanningAct.130. ThepresentqualificationsforIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelsaretobe

retainedwiththeadditionofAboriginalculturalheritageasanareaofexpertise.

Independent Hearing and Determination Panels131. IndependentHearingandDeterminationPanelsaretobeprovidedforinthe

SustainablePlanningAct(withthesamerangeofmembershipqualificationsasrecommendedforIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanels),withcouncilstobeabletodelegatedevelopmentdecisionmakingtosuchaPanel.

Joint Regional Planning Panels132. AlloralsubmissionstoJointRegionalPlanningPanelsaretobeinpublic.133. AllJointRegionalPlanningPanelprocessesaretoincorporatetheopportunityforthe

proponentandsupportersofandobjectorstoaproposaltobeheardbythePanel(withthePaneltosettherulesforsuchpresentations).

134. StatePanelmembersarenottodeterminemattersinthelocalgovernmentareawheretheyreside.

135. WhenaPanelrejectsconclusionsoforvariesrecommendationsintheassessmentreport,thePanelistogivereasonsfordoingso.

136. Wheretheassessmentreportrecommendsapprovalandtherehavebeennosubmissionsopposingthedevelopment,thecouncilistoremaintheconsentauthority.

137. InvokingthejurisdictionofaPanelbyaggregationofprojectsondifferentsitesincommonownershipistobeprohibited.

138. TheCentralSydneyPlanningCommitteeistobebroughtwithinthescopeoftheSustainablePlanningActthroughaseparateprovisioninthatportionofthelegislationdealingwithJointRegionalPlanningPanels.

Land owner’s consent 139. AnydevelopmentapplicationinvolvinganylandownedbyanyNSWCrownentityshall

notbeacceptedbyaconsentauthorityunlessaccompaniedbythewrittenconsentofthelandowningNSWCrownentity.

Model delegations for development decision making in local councils140. TheDepartmentistoconsultwiththeLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation

todevelopasetofmodeldelegationsfordeterminationbyCouncilstaffofdevelopmentproposals.

141. Thesemodeldelegationsarenottobemandatoryand,ifadoptedingeneralterms,maybemodifiedtoreflectlocalcircumstances.



Modifications to existing approved development142. Themodificationprocessinthepresentplanninglegislationistobecarriedoverto

theSustainablePlanningAct,withminormodificationstobecodeassessable(ifthereisanapplicablecode)eventhoughtheoriginalapplicationwasmeritassessableorimpactassessable.

Names for applications to reflect purpose143. Applicationsfordevelopmentandforapprovalofconstructionplansaretobeknownas

‘applicationfordevelopmentapproval’and‘applicationforconstructionapproval’.

Plain English guide to the classification of development 144. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inconjunctionwiththeLocal

GovernmentandShiresAssociation,istoprepareaplainEnglishguidetothedevelopmentclassification,assessmentanddeterminationprocessesundertheSustainablePlanningAct.

145. PreparationoftheguideistobeunderthesupervisionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard.

Potential cross border impacts146. Whenaconsentauthorityconsidersthatadevelopmentproposalhasthepotentialto

causeimpactsacrossaStateborderorinanadjoininglocalgovernmentareatothelocalgovernmentareawheretheproposeddevelopmentistobelocated,theconsentauthorityistonotifytherelevantland-useauthorityacrosstheStateborderortheadjoiningcouncil(s)oftheproposeddevelopmentandinvitecommentsonit.

147. Theconsentauthorityfortheproposeddevelopmentistoconsiderandhaveregardtoanycommentsreceivedinresponsetosucharequest.

Preamble to the Sustainable Planning Act?148. TheGovernmentconsiderifthereshouldbeapreambletotheSustainablePlanningAct.

Register of consents149. TheSustainablePlanningActistorequireelectronicregistrationoffuturedevelopment

consentsandpermit(butnotmandate)thedigitalbackcaptureofexistingdevelopmentconsents.

150. Allconsentauthorities(otherthantheLandandEnvironmentCourtandthePlanningCommission)aretoberequiredtoensurethatanyconsentissuediselectronicallyregistered.

151. ForconsentsgivenasaconsequenceofdeterminationsofthePlanningCommission,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoberesponsibleforelectronicregistration.

152. ForconsentsgivenasaconsequenceofordersmadeinLandandEnvironmentCourtproceedings,theconsentauthoritywhoserolehasbeenassumedbytheCourtistoberesponsibleforelectronicregistration.

153. Anypersonorentity(otherthanacouncil)istoberequiredtonotifytherelevantcouncil(s)thataconsenthasbeenelectronicallyregistered.


154. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inco-operationwiththeOfficeofLocalGovernment,istodiscusswiththeLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationacommencementdateforelectronicregistrationofconsents.

155. Theregisteristobetheauthoritativerepositoryofalldevelopmentconsentsissuedonoraftertheoperativedateofelectronicregistration.

156. Foranybackcaptureofconsents,theconsentauthorityistoberelievedoftherequirementtomaintainphysicalrecordsafterpublicationonanelectronicregister.

157. Datacustodianshiparrangements,includingdeterminationofwhetherthereshouldbeacentralregisterorseparateregistersforeachcouncil,istobeundertakenbytheCo-ordinatingcommitteeforspatialinformation.

Removing “consistency” as a design criterion in assessments158. ‘Consistency’or‘non-inconsistency’testsarenottobepermittedforcodeassessable

development,unlesstheproposeddevelopmentthatwouldotherwisebecodeassessableisinanidentifiedlocalheritageconservationareaorintheimmediatevicinityofaStateorlocallyidentifiedheritageobjectorgroupofobjects.

‘Stop the Clock’ Provisions159. Theconsentorconcurrenceauthority,whenundertakingassessmentofmeritand

impactassessableproposals,istobepermittedoneopportunitytorequestfurtherinformationfromtheapplicant,coupledwiththeabilitytonotifytheapplicantthattheassessmentperiodhasstopped.

160. Theassessmentperiod‘clock’istoberestartedonthedateofreceiptiftheapplicantprovidestheinformationtotheconsentorconcurrenceauthorityornotifiestheconsentorconcurrenceauthority(inwriting)thattheinformationwillnotbeprovidedorfailstoprovidetheinformationwithinareasonabletimeperiod.

161. Theapplicantisalsotobepermittedtheabilitytohaltthedecisionmakingperioduponwrittenrequest(thatcanbewithdrawn)inordertoprovidefurtherinformationortomakerepresentationstotheconsentauthorityoraboutaconcurrenceauthority’sresponse.

Verification of the stated development application values162. ForprojectsfallingunderthejurisdictionthresholdofaJointRegionalPlanningPanel,

noquantitysurveyor’scertificaterelatingtoprojectvalueistoberequired.163. ForprojectsabovetheJointRegionalPlanningPaneljurisdictionthreshold,the

proponentistoberequiredtoprovideaquantitysurveyor’scostcertificate,iftheassessingauthoritydisputestheaccuracyofthestatedprojectvalue.

164. Ifthecertificateendorsestheapplicationvalue,thequantitysurveyor’sfeeistobedeductedfromtheapplicationfee.

165. Ifthecertificateshowsanapplication’svaluetobeunderstated,thecorrectfeeshallbepayableandthequantitysurveyor’sfeeisnottobeoffset.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Ed is on this



The Land and Environment Court – additional matters

Hearing from objectors during conciliation processes 166. Duringtheconciliationphaseofconciliation/arbitrationproceedings,submittersareto

beabletoexplaintheirpositionbutnottakeanyotherpartinthisphase.

Requiring concurrence authorities to defend their delay or refusal167. TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istoprovidespecificallythataconsent

authoritymayapplytotheCourttohaveaconcurrenceauthorityjoinedasarespondenttoameritappeal.

Costs orders – application amendment during the appeal process 168. Thecostsprovisionsofsection97Bofthepresentplanninglegislationaretoberetained

butincorporatedintheLand and Environment Court Act 1979.

Extension of orders able to be made in ‘remedy or restrain’ matters169. TheSustainablePlanningActistogivetotheLandandEnvironmentCourt,incivil

enforcementmatters,powertoenableittoorderpublicationnotificationsofthetypeprovidedintheProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Commissioners assisting Judges in Class 4 matters170. TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istobeamendedsothat,inClass4

mattersinvolvingtheSustainablePlanningAct,CommissionersareabletositwithandassistJudges.

171. ConsiderationbegiventoextendingthistoallmattersinClass4oftheCourt’sjurisdiction.

Class 4 matters and related common law issues172. TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istobeamendedsothat,inmattersarising

intheCourt’sjurisdictionfromtheSustainablePlanningAct,ancillarycommonlawmattersareabletobecommencedintheLandandEnvironmentCourtandbroughtwithintheplanningproceedings.

173. ConsiderationbegiventoextendingthispositiontoallmattersintheCourt’sciviljurisdiction.


Revocation of development consents174. TheLandandEnvironmentCourtistobegiventheabilitytorevokeadevelopment

consentforuseoflandasadeterrentsentencingoptioninaprosecutionforaTier1offenceforabreachoftheSustainablePlanningActoranyregulationsmadeunderit.

Challenges to validity of development consents175. Therighttochallengethevalidityofaconsentistoberetained(withretentionofthe

presenttimelimitandnotificationrequirements).

Compliance costs/expenses176. Abroadercosts/expensesreimbursementordermakingpowershouldbeavailablein

civilandcriminalenforcementproceedingsbroughtundertheSustainablePlanningActtoenableorderstobemadetorequirethecompliance/investigationcosts/expensesoftheenforcingbodytobereimbursed.

Councils – additional matters

Council Order making generally177. Theessentialelementsforcouncilordermakingpowerscontainedinthepresent

planninglegislationistobecarriedintotheSustainablePlanningAct.Theremainderoftheordermaking,reviewandappealprocessesaretobecontainedinregulations.

178. TheregulationssupportingtheSustainablePlanningActaretoincludethepresenttableoforders(asaninterimmeasure)pendingtherecommendedreview.

179. Consistentwiththerecommendationsconcerningurgentapplicationstoshutdownunapprovedactivities,anadditionalorderistobeincludedinthetablepermittingthemakingoforderstorequiretheimmediatecessationofanyunapprovedactivitywherethereisademonstratedsignificantimpact(orpotentialimpact)onpublicamenity,healthorsafety.

180. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureinconjunctionwithrepresentativesoflocalgovernment,thedevelopmentindustryandcommunityandenvironmentalnetworksaretoreviewtherangeoforderscontainedinthepresentorderstableandrecommendanychangesthatmightbemadetothatexistingtableoforders.

Drafting precision for orders181. TheSustainablePlanningActistoprovidethatanordershallnotbeinvalidif,despite

anydefectsinitsdrafting,theintentionoftheorderisclearfromitsterms.

Strict liability penalty notice offence – false or misleading information182. Anewpenaltynoticeoffenceistobecreatedfortheprovisionoffalseor

inaccurateinformation.183. Thecircumstancesunderwhichsuchpenaltynoticesmaybeissuedaretobesetoutby

theDepartmentandcouncilsintheircomplianceandenforcementpolicies.



Enforcement policies184. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure’scomplianceandenforcementpolicies

berevisedafterpassageoftheSustainablePlanningAct.185. TherevisionistobeundertakenunderthesupervisionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard

withimplementationtotakeplaceaftertheMinisterhasconsideredtheBoard’sadviceontheproposedrevisedpolicies.

186. TheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructurewritetotheMinisterforLocalGovernmentaskingthatMinistertorequestthepanelreviewingtheLocal Government Act 1993toconsiderwhethercouncilsshoulddeveloporrevisecomplianceandenforcementofpoliciesofacomprehensivenature(notmerelyformattersarisingundertheSustainablePlanningAct).

Environmental Impact Statements

Accreditation for those preparing an EIS or supporting studies187. AreferenceistobegiventotheLegislativeCouncilStandingCommitteeonState

Developmenttoinvestigatewhetheranaccreditationsystemshouldbeadoptedforconsultantspreparingenvironmentalstudies(includingthosethatsupportEnvironmentalImpactStatements).

Director-General’s requirements for Environmental Impact Statements188. IssuingofDirector-General’srequirementsforpreparationofEnvironmentalImpact

StatementsistoberetainedintheSustainablePlanningAct.189. Totheextentthatitispossible,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureis

topublishonitswebsiteatemplateoftheDirector-General’srequirementsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStatementfordevelopmentproposals.

190. AnyDirector-General’srequirementsissuedforapossibledevelopmentaretobemadepubliclyavailableontheDepartment’swebsitetogetherwithidentificationoftheareaencompassedbythepossibledevelopment.

191. ThereistobearightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtbyapotentialprojectproponenttochallengetheDirector-General’srequirements.

Reviews of Environment Impact Statements192. Assessingauthoritiesaretobepermittedtorequirepeerreviewingofreportsor

informationprovidedinsupportofanEnvironmentalImpactStatement.193. Peerreviewingcanonlyberequestedononeoccasionbutmayberequestedonmore

thanoneaspectoftheproposal.194. ForproposalsbyassessingauthorityotherthantheDepartmentofInfrastructureand

Planningforpeerreviewing,theconcurrenceoftheDirector-Generalistobeobtained.195. WhentheassessingauthorityistheDepartment,suchrequestshallbereferredtothe

ChairpersonofthePlanningCommissiontobedealtwithonthepapers.


196. Theassessingbodiesseekingthepeerreviewshallnominatethreeproposedpeerreviewersfromwhichtheprojectproponentcanselectthereviewertobecommissioned.

197. Thepeerreviewingistobeundertakenattheproponent’sexpense.198. Ifpeerreviewingisrequired,anadditionalperiodoffiveworkingdaysshallbeaddedto

thestatutoryassessmentperiodfortheproject.199. Theresultsofanypeerreviewaretobepublishedontheassessingauthority’swebsite.200. Thisprocessistobegiveneffectbyregulationsothatitcanbereviewedaftertheexpiry

of12months.

Former Aboriginal reserves and missions201. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,theNewSouthWalesAboriginal

LandCouncil(withthisCouncilinvolvingrelevantLocalAboriginalLandCouncilsasitconsidersappropriateforsequencing),andtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation(togetherwithsuchcouncilsastheAssociationconsidersappropriateinthesesequencingdiscussions)aretodevelopanindicativesequencinglistforintegratingAboriginalreservesandmissionsintothenewplanningsystem.

202. IfthesepartiesconsidereditappropriateandtheOfficeofLocalGovernmentindicatedawishtoparticipate,theOfficeofLocalGovernmentisalsotobeinvolvedinthesequencingdiscussions.

203. ForeachformerAboriginalreserveormission,theassessmentprocessistobeundertakenbytherelevantregionalofficeoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

204. TheDepartment’sprocessistobefacultativeandincludeidentifyingthenatureoftheinformationrequiredandtheappropriateformthatanapplicationmighttaketoeffectintegrationofthelandsbeingassessedintothenewplanningsystem.

205. WhenanassessmentofanyformerAboriginalreserveormissionhasbeencompleted,thereistobeapublicprocessundertakenbythePlanningCommission,eitherholdingpublichearingsandmakingadeterminationonanyapplicationthatmayhavebeenmadearisingfromtheassessmentprocessorholdingpublichearingsandmakingrecommendationstotheMinisteronhowthatmattershouldproceedfurther.

206. TheDepartmentisnottochargeanyfeeforundertakingthisprocess.

Community Engagement

Assisting with the “right to know”207. ThecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentworkinggrouprecommendedinVolume1

PartIistoincorporateamoduleonopportunitiesforactivecommunicationwiththecommunityintheprogramthattheydevelop.



Precinct committees208. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroup

comprisingrepresentativesoftheOfficeofLocalGovernmentandtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationandrepresentativesofthosecouncilscurrentlyoperatingaprecinctcommitteesystemwishingtobeinvolvedintheworkinggroup.

209. ThetaskoftheworkinggroupistoproduceaplainEnglishguidetobestpracticeintheestablishment,rolesandoperationofprecinctcommittees.

Project identification on the Department’s website210. TheDepartment’swebsiteistoincludeaninteractivemaptofacilitateaccessto

informationconcerningallprojectsbeingassessedbytheDepartment.

Other reform measures

Planning in the unincorporated area of the State211. TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoprepareaLocalLand-UsePlanand

DevelopmentControlPlanfortheunincorporatedarea.TheseplansaretobepreparedinconjunctionwiththeWesternLandsCommissionerandinconsultationwiththeWesternLandsAdvisoryCouncil,theNewSouthWalesMineralsCouncil,theNationalParksandWildlifeServiceandanyboardsofmanagementofAboriginal-ownedandjointly-managedNationalParksintheunincorporatedarea.

212. TheconsentauthorityfordevelopmentproposalsintheunincorporatedareaistobetheWesternLandsCommissioner,withthefollowingexceptions:codeassessableCrowndevelopment,developmentthatwillfallwithinthejurisdictionofaJointRegionalPlanningPanelordevelopmentthatwillfallwithinthejurisdictionofthePlanningCommission.

213. TheconsultationprocessforthedevelopmentoftheLand-UsePlanfortheunincorporatedareaistoincludespecificconsultationsabouttherangeofmattersthatcanberegardedascodeassessabledevelopmentswithinthisplanningframework,particularlyonpastoralholdings.

Revitalisation of the Newcastle Central Business District214. TheSustainablePlanningActtoincludeparticularprovisionsfacilitatingestablishment

ofaschemetoencourageredevelopmentofminesubsidenceareasidentifiedwithintheNewcastleCentralBusinessDistrict.Theseprovisionsaretopermitaschemetobeabletobeimplementedtoallowtheproposedredevelopmenttoproceed,withoutowners’consentbeinggivenbyownersofpropertiesadjoininganypropertyproposedtoberedevelopedorwheretheadjoiningpropertieswouldrequiretohavesubsidencepreventionmeasuresundertakenunderthem.

215. AssuchprovisionsmayalsohavewiderapplicationthanmerelyNewcastle,theyaretobedraftedingeneralterms.


216. TheselegislativeprovisionsarenottocomeintoeffectuntiltheGovernmentissatisfiedthatanappropriateschemefordoingsohasbeendevelopedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inconjunctionwithlandholderinterestsintheidentifiedarea,NewcastleCityCouncilandtheMinesSubsidenceBoard.

Transferable development rights to agricultural land217. AworkingpartyistobeestablishedcomprisingrepresentativesoftheDepartment

ofPlanningandInfrastructure,theLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationandtheNewSouthWalesFarmersAssociationtoconsiderwhethercreatingtransferabledevelopmentrightsforagriculturallandisfeasibleanddesirableand,ifso,howitshouldbeimplemented.

Certification matters

Final and interim occupation certificates 218. OnlyoneInterimOccupationCertificateistobepermittedforanysingleaspectofa

particularproject.219. InterimOccupationCertificatesaretolapseafterfiveyears.

1 The Planning Commission


PART 1 – The Planning CommissionIntroductionThecurrentPlanningAssessmentCommissionwasestablishedbyamendments2tothepresentplanninglegislationin2008.FromthetimethecurrentCommissioncommencedoperation3,untilthechangesmadebythepresentMinisterin2011,itsprimaryroleswereto:

• considertheassessmentreportspreparedbytheDepartmentconcerningmajordevelopmentprojectproposals

• makerecommendationsconcerningwhatdecisionsshouldbemadeaboutthoseproposals.

AtthetimeoftherepealofPart3Aofthepresentplanninglegislationin2011,thepresentMinistersaidthefollowingconcerningthefutureroleoftheCommission:

The bill sets out revised functions for the Planning Assessment Commission. This includes any functions delegated to it under the Act and allows the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, in addition to the Minister, to request the Planning Assessment Commission to provide advice, to review certain matters or to hold public hearings. The bill also amends schedule 3 to the Act to clarify that the chairperson is a member of the Planning Assessment Commission and that membership of the commission can range from four to nine members, including the chairperson. The bill also includes amendments to the membership of the Planning Assessment Commission so that members may not hold office for more than six years in total to strengthen the independence of the commission. The amendments also include allowing for Planning Assessment Commission members to be appointed on either a full-time or part time basis and allowing the Minister to change the basis of the appointment during the member’s term of office.

With the establishment of State significant development and increased delegation of ministerial determination functions to the Planning Assessment Commission, there is a strong need to ensure that the membership and operation of the commission is optimal for undertaking its heightened role. The provisions relating to the Planning Assessment Commission membership and functions are part of a broader suite of measures to improve the transparency, independence and professional operation of the Planning Assessment Commission. Other measures will include providing more resources to assist the Planning Assessment Commission in carrying out its expanded role. As Minister I will require the commission to publish new operational procedures and protocols which outline how the commission will undertake its day-to-day functions in a more open and transparent way. Meetings where determinations of development applications are made will generally be open to the public to give opportunities to communities, local councils and proponents to address the Planning Assessment Commission directly.

There will also be an increase in Planning Assessment Commission public meetings in rural and regional New South Wales, where there is significant community interest in a proposal. As well as making determinations in public and holding public briefing meetings for contentious proposals, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will still be able to direct the Planning Assessment Commission to hold an inquiry into a proposal by way of a full scale public hearing and report back to the Minister with the results of that hearing. In this case the commission

2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,Part2A,Division2

3 On3November2008


will also ask for written submissions from interested parties before asking them to make submissions to the commission in person. Consistent with the current provisions of the Act, if the Planning Assessment Commission determines a development application after conducting a public hearing at the Minister’s request, with an opportunity for the community to make submissions and participate in the investigation of the proposal, there will be no appeal rights for applicants and third parties for applications under part 4 of the Act. This will ensure that the public’s participation in the process cannot be undermined either by an applicant or a third party following the report of the Planning Assessment Commission, merely because they did not agree with the report of the independent umpire.4

Asaconsequence,allsuchproposalsarenowdeterminedbytheCommissionunderdelegationfromtheMinister.TheCommissionalsohasthepowertorequiremodificationtoaproposalbeforeconsentwillbegranted(providedthemodificationfallswithinthegeneralscopeoftheoriginalapplication).MatterstobedeterminedbytheCommissionincludethemodificationofprojectssubjecttoanexistingMinisterialorCommissiondetermination.Applicationstomodifyanapprovedprojectmaybesubjecttofurtherpublicexhibitionandsubmission.DecisionsoftheCommissionmaybeappealedtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtonthemeritsonlyiftheCommissionhasnotheldapublichearingintotheproposal5.Whatconstitutesapublichearingforthesepurposesisdiscussedbelow.DecisionsoftheCommissionmaybeappealedonaquestionoflawtoaJudgeoftheCourt.

TheadditionalrolesofthecurrentCommissionare:• toadviseonplanninganddevelopmentmatters,EnvironmentalPlanningInstrumentsandadministrationorimplementationofthepresentplanninglegislation

• toreviewanyaspectoforpartofadevelopmentoractivity• toholdapublichearingintoanymattersubjectofarevieworpreparationofadvice• toreviewthecreationorabolitionofadevelopmentarea• toundertakefunctionsofaregionalpanelwhereorderedbytheMinister• tocarryoutthefunctionsofaregionalpanelwherenoregionalpanelhasbeenappointed.

MembershipCurrently,theCommissionfunctionswithapart-timeChairpersonandanumberofpart-timeCommissioners–limitedbythepresentplanninglegislationtonineinnumber6.TheseCommissionersaresupplemented,asneedsarise,byusingthechairsoftheJointRegionalPlanningPanelsandotherexpertsascasualCommissioners.TheChairpersonandtheCommissionersareappointedforuptoamaximumthreeyeartermandmaybereappointedtoamaximumofsixyears.

4 HansardTranscript,LegislativeAssembly(16June2011)Hon.BradHazzardMP,MinisterforPlanningandInfrastructurefortheEnvironmentalPlanningandAssessmentAmendment(Part3ARepeal)Bill2011,page2592–seehttp://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20110616032?open&refNavID=HA8_1

5 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23F

6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,Schedule2,clause2

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20110616032?open&refNavID=HA8_1



The Chairperson of the Planning CommissionUnderthepresentplanninglegislation,theChairpersoncanbeappointedoneitherafullorpart-timebasis7.GiventhelikelyincreasedworkloadofthePlanningCommission,weconsiderthatitisappropriatethattheChairpersonofthatCommissionbeappointedonafull-timebasis.

TheNSWlegislationestablishingtheWorkersCompensationCommissionandtheAdministrativeDecisionsTribunalprovidethattheheadofeachbodyshouldbeaJudge8.Asaconsequence,forappointmenttoheadeitherofthesebodies,apersonmustfirstbeappointedtojudicialoffice.HoldingjudicialofficeisregardedasanessentialelementindemonstratingindependencefromtheexecutiveGovernment.

WeproposethatthisapplyforthePlanningCommission,withtherelevantofficetobeasaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt.ThiswouldnecessitatetheappointmentofanadditionalJudgetotheCourtwithimmediatesecondmentofthatJudgetothepositionofChairpersonofthePlanningCommission.Ifthisweretobethecase,itwouldbeappropriatetoincorporateintheLand and Environment Court Act 1979aprovisionsimilartothatcontainedinthe Supreme Court Act 19709thatwouldpermitanyJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourttobeabletoactastheChairpersonoftheCommission.SuchaprovisionwillprovideadefinedpoolofpersonswhowouldbeabletoactasChairperson,intheeventthatthepermanentlyassignedChairpersontookleaveanditwasdesirabletomakeareplacementduringthatperiodofabsence.

TherearecriticismsthatmembersofthepresentCommissionaretoodependentonMinisterialapprovalforreappointmenttotheirrole–withnochecksandbalances.EstablishingaChairpersonwiththetenureandindependenceofjudicialofficeprovidesanappropriatelymeasuredresponsetothesecriticisms,whencoupledwiththeappointmentprocessforCommissionersdiscussedbelow.

ItwouldalsobepossibletorotatetheJudgesoftheCourtthroughtheroleofChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionatperiodsofthreeorfouryears,subjecttotheconcurrenceofthefollowingpeople:

• theMinisteradministeringtheSustainablePlanningAct• theAttorneyGeneral• theChiefJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt.

Asrotationmayoccurasdiscussedabove,theJudgeselectedtobeappointedandsecondedtothePlanningCommissionmustalsohavethenecessaryskillsandattributestoperformtheroleofaJudgeoftheCourt,aswellasthosenecessarytofulfiltheroleatthePlanningCommission.ResponsibilityforselectingtheChairpersonofthePlanningCommission,giventhatthispersonwillrequireappointmentasaJudgeoftheCourt,shouldliewiththeAttorneyGeneraltomakearecommendationtoCabinet.ThisrecommendationshouldberequiredtobewiththeconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.Itisenvisagedthat,aswithotherappointmentstotheCourt,theAttorneyGeneralwould

7 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,Schedule2,clause2

8 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1979,section17andWorkplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998,section369

9 Supreme Court Act 1970,section37B


consulttheChiefJudgeoftheCourtonanyproposedappointment.ThenormalCabinetandGovernor-in-Councilprocesswouldfollow.

TheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionwillexercisethefollowingfunctions:• presideoverdeterminationprocessesforcomplexand/orcontroversialprojects• determinethecompositionofPanelstohearanddeterminemattersoverwhichtheChairpersondoesnotpreside




AllofthecostsoftheChairpersonofthePlanningCommission(includingofanyJudgeactingduringanyabsenceoftheChairperson)wouldbemetfromitsbudgetandreimbursedtotheDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJusticebytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

CommissionersTheprocessforselectingCommissionersofthePlanningCommission,whetherfull-timeorpart-time,shouldbebypublicadvertisementandrecommendationtotheMinisterbyaselectionpanelcomprisingthefollowing:

• theChairpersonoftheCommission• theDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure• anindependentpersonnominatedbytheChairperson(withtheconcurrenceoftheMinister).

EvenifanexistingCommissionerseeksreappointment,thepositionshouldusuallybesubjecttoacontestableadvertisingprocess.However,iftheChairpersonrecommendsthatadirectreappointmentshouldbemade,thentheMinistermayagreetothis.Full-timeCommissionersshouldholdappointmentforsevenyearsandbeeligibleforasecondtermonly.

Part-timeCommissionersshouldbeappointedforuptothreeyearswithexistingCommissionersabletobereappointed.Amaximumperiodofnineyearsshouldapplytopart-timeCommissioners.ThequalificationsofCommissionersshallremainasprovidedforinSchedule3ofthepresentplanninglegislation.ThisgenerallyparallelstheprocessusedfortheappointmentofCommissionersoftheCourt.Commissioners(otherthantheChairperson)shouldnotbejudicialofficers10.

ThenumberofpersonsabletobeappointedasCommissionersshouldnotbelimited,butshouldbedeterminedbytheGovernmentfromtimetotimeafterconsultationbytheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructureandtheChairpersonofthePlanningCommission.

10 ForthepurposesoftheJudicial Officers Act 1986



Currently,itispossibletoappointcasualCommissionersifthereisaparticularworkloadissueoraneedforhighlyspecialisedexpertiseandacasualCommissionermaybeappointedonrecommendationoftheChairperson.Thisshouldremain.

Commissioners of the Court may be members of a Planning Commission panelDecisionsgivenbythePlanningCommissionaretobegenerallyanalogoustothosegivenbyCommissionersoftheCourt–inthattheyarenottobesubjecttoappealonthemerits,butaretoremainsubjecttoappealtoaJudgeoftheCourtonaquestionoflaw.Forthisreason,theremaybeoccasionsonwhichitwouldbeappropriatetoengagetheparticularexpertiseofaCommissioneroftheCourtinahearingofthePlanningCommission.Asaconsequence,withtheconcurrenceoftheChiefJudgeandoftheChairperson,aCommissioneroftheCourtcouldbeappointedtochairapanelortositonapanelofthePlanningCommission(ifitweretobechairedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission).ThisisanalogoustothepositionofJudgesoftheLandandEnvironmentCourtwhocansitasJudgesintheSupremeCourtwiththeconsentoftheChiefJusticeandoftheChiefJudgeoftheCourt.TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979shouldbeamendedtopermitthistooccur.

Itisnotexpectedthatthiswouldoccurfrequently.Ifitweretooccur,asapracticalmatter,itwillbenecessarytogivesufficientadvancenoticeofanyrequesttotheChiefJudgeoftheCourttoensurethattheCourtwouldbeabletoreplacethesecondedCommissionerwithanactingCommissioneroftheCourtduringthesecondment.IfaCommissioneroftheCourtweretotakepartinaPlanningCommissiondeterminationprocess,thecostsoftheCommissioner’sparticipationwouldcomefromthebudgetofthePlanningCommission.ThiswouldensurethatanyreplacementarrangementsbyoneormoreactingCommissionersoftheCourtcouldbeeffectedwithoutadditionalimpactontheCourt’sbudget.

Limit on the role of the Chairperson or seconded Court CommissionersInourview,itisnotappropriateforanymemberofaCourttohavetheroleofinvestigating,reviewingand/oradvisingtheMinisteronanymatterthattheMinistermighthavereferredtothePlanningCommission.Topermitthistooccurwouldbetobreachthedoctrineoftheseparationofpowers11.Therefore,theChairpersonoranysecondedCommissioneroftheCourtshouldnotperformsuchanadvisoryrole.

Hearings and procedureHolding public hearingsPresently,theCommissionoperatesusingproceduresthatarepublishedonitswebsite.TherearethreeseparateprocessesfortheCommissiondealingwithamatter,asfollows:

• determiningthematterwithoutanypublicengagementintheprocess• conductingapublicmeetingwhentherearemorethan25submittersontheproposal• holdingapublichearingwhentheMinisterdirectsthatthisistooccur.

11 ThatunderpinstheWestminsterparliamentarymodel,withinwhichtheCommonwealthandtheAustralianStatesandTerritoriesoperate.


Ifthematterisdeterminedwithoutapublichearing,ameritappealliestotheLandandEnvironmentCourt.Ifapublichearingisheld,nomeritappealliestotheCourt12.TheCommission’swebsitepublisheswhatitsaysconstitutetheprocessesforholdingapublichearing:

8. Application determined after a Public Hearing directed by the Minister

8.1 Prior to the preparation of the Director General’s Environmental Assessment Report for an application, the Minister may request the Commission to first review the application by conducting a public hearing. In these cases, the Commission will provide a report to the Minister following the public hearing. The Commission’s report is required to be considered in the Director General’s Environmental Assessment Report.

8.2 If a public hearing has been held and the application is subsequently delegated to the Commission for determination, the Commission may determine the application without holding a public meeting. The members of the Commission who determine the application will be different to those who conducted the public hearing.13

ThisprocesspurportstosatisfytherequirementsforholdingapublichearingandremoveanymeritappealtotheCourt.However,therearetwofundamentaldefectsinthisprocess:

• first,the‘hearing’istobeconductedpriortofinalisationoftheassessmentreportoftheproposal.Asaconsequence,thoseconductingthe‘hearing’cannotbeproperlyinformedofthemeritsoftheproposal;thevalidityofanyobjectionsthathavebeenmadetoit;ortheconditionsthatmightbeproposed,ifitweretobeapproved.

• second,thepaneloftheCommissiontodeterminethematteristobeconstituteddifferentlyfromthepanelthatundertooktheinitial‘hearing’.Thisdoesnotconstituteapanel‘hearinganddetermining’.Thosewhohavelodgedsubmissionshavearighttobeheardbythosewhomakethedecisionaboutthemeritsoftheproposal.

However,wedonotproposethatthePlanningCommissionshouldoperateonanypublic meetingbasis,butthatallmattersdealtwitharetohaveaproper public hearing.Ifaproposeddevelopmentisuncontroversial,suchahearingmaybelittlemorethanaformalprocessbut,nonetheless,wouldinvolveanopportunityforthepaneltoaskquestionsabouttheproposedconditionsofconsentandsatisfythemselvesthatitwasappropriatetoapprovetheprojectandtheproposedconditions.

AstoapplicationstomodifyaprojectthathadbeenapprovedbythePlanningCommission,itmaybethatthemodificationsthemselvesarecontroversialandhaveattractedasignificantnumberofsubmissions.Inthatcase,apublichearingshouldbeheld.Inothercasesthatareuncontroversialandonlyinvolveminormodifications,theChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionmayconsiderthatitisappropriatethattheybedealtwithonthepapers,butonlyaftergivingtheassessingbody(theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure),therelevantcouncilorcouncilsandtheprojectproponenttherighttobeheardinpublic,beforemakingadetermination,ifanyofthemwishthatthistakeplace.

Hearingsshouldnotbeheldincourtroomsandvenuesshouldbearrangedinasinformalafashionasispossible,consistentwiththescopeofthelikelyparticipationinandpublicattendanceatthehearing.

12 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23F

13 Seehttp://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ddF5xG-8-58%3d&tabid=56

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ddF5xG-8-58%3d&tabid=56



Selection of the Planning Commission panel for a matterCurrently,mattersthatareconsideredbythePlanningAssessmentCommissionaredealtwithbyapanelthatisselectedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission.Panelsmaybeofone,twoorthreeCommissioners.ThisprocessshouldberetainedforthePlanningCommission.

Pre-hearing processesTherewillbepublichearingsofthePlanningCommissionwherethereislikelytobesignificantparticipationbecauseofthenumberofobjectorsorsupporterswishingtobeheardorbecauseofthecomplexityofthetechnicalmaterialthatwillneedtobethesubjectofpublicexamination.Inthesecases,thepersondesignatedtopresideovertheparticularpanelshouldholdapublicplanningdiscussion,wellpriortothedateofthepublichearings,tosortouttheorderofpresentationandanyotherprocessmattersthatneedtobeconsidered.

Right to be heardThepublichearingprocessforthePlanningCommissionshouldoperateaccordingtopublishedguidelinesthatdonotimposemandatoryrestrictionsortimelimitsonthoseparticipating.Controlofthehearingshouldliewiththepanelconductingit(includingorganisingthetimingandorderofhearingfromthosewhowishtobeheardandsettinglimitsonspeakingtimessoastoavoidunnecessaryrepetition)whilststillprovidingafairandtransparentdecision-makingprocess.

ThePlanningCommissionActshouldprovidethatthosetakingpartinapublichearingcanonlyberepresentedbyanexternallawyerorpaidagentwiththepermissionofthepanelhearingthematterif,andonlyif,thepanelissatisfiedthatthereissomepublicinterestreasonwhythisshouldbepermitted.Companiesshouldbeabletoberepresentedbydirectorsoremployeesofthecompany;theDepartmentbyitsemployees;councilsbycouncillorsorcouncilofficersandindividualsabletospeakontheirownbehalf.Associationsandcommunitygroupswouldbeabletoappointoneoftheirmemberstospeakontheirbehalf.

The procedure at a Planning Commission hearingThePlanningCommission’sprocessesmustremaindistinctlydifferentfromthoseofaCourt.Firstandforemost,theprocessshouldbeinquisitorialratherthanadversarial14.Thereshouldbenocross-examinationprocesses(whetherbylawyersoragents–ifpermitted–orbyanyotherparticipants)ofthosepresentinginformationduringhearings.ItistobetheroleoftheCommissionpanelmemberstoundertakethequestioningofthoseparticipating.Therulesofevidencearenottoapply.

ThosepresentingtothePlanningCommissionshouldbeabletodosoinaninformalfashionwithouttheconstraintsthatwouldordinarilyariseinaCourtwhereadistinctionisdrawnbetweenevidenceandsubmissions.Thoseparticipatingshouldnotbeswornin.Transcriptsshouldnotbetakenoftheproceedingsalthough,withpermissionofthepanel,recordingmightbeallowedifthereweresomespecialcircumstancedemonstratedwhythismightbewarranted.Ifrecordingweretobepermitted,thecostsofdoingsoshouldbemetbythepersonorentityrequestingpermissionforthistooccur.

14 SeeGlossary


Giving and publishing reasons for a decisionThePlanningCommissionistogivereasonsforallitsdecisions.AdecisionofthePlanningCommissionshouldprovideproperreasonswhythedecisionhasbeenmade.Thedecisionsshallbemadepublicand,ifnotgivenattheendoftheCommissionhearing,shallbenotifiedtoallthosewhoparticipatedinthehearingandshallbepublishedonitswebsite.Thereasonsforadecisionshallbesufficienttoexplainwhytheconclusionhasbeenreachedandwhyrelevantobjections,ifany,havenotbeensupported.

ThePlanningCommissionshallalsogivereasonswhyanymodificationstotheproposalortoproposedconditionstobeattachedtoithavebeenmadeinthecaseofprojectsormodificationsthatareapproved.Properreasonswhyadevelopmentproposalisrejected(ifthisisthecase)mustalsobegiven.Alldecisionsshouldbeexpectedtobegiveninclearandreadilyunderstoodterms(asisthepositionforLandandEnvironmentCourtmeritappealdecisions).

Power to determine matters arising under other legislationSomedevelopmentproposalsrequireadditionalconsentsunderotherlegislation,includingtheNative Vegetation Act 2003,theRoads Act 1993ortheNational Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.Someofthoseconsentsrequireapprovalbyanominatedconsentauthoritythatisnotacouncil.Insomeinstances,itmaybethatallconcurrencecommentsand/orconditionsfromothergovernmentDepartmentswillnothavebeengivenbythetimeamattercomestobedetermined.Weareoftheviewthatallconcurrencefunctions,nomatterwhatthelegislativeprovisionthatmakestheapprovalnecessary,shouldbevestedinthePlanningCommissionwhenitmakesadecisionaboutadevelopmentproposal.

Appeals from Planning Commission decisionsGiventhatthereistobeaclear,openandtransparentprocessforthePlanningCommission(incorporatingbotharighttobeheardandadutytoprovidereasonsforanydecision),itisunnecessarytoprovideforameritappealdecisionagainstanydecisionsmadebyit.Inthisrespect,thePlanningCommissionoutcomeswillbeanalogoustothoseofameritdeterminationmadebyCommissionerorJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt.TheCommission’sprocedures(inquisitorialnotadversarial)willstillembodytheappropriaterangeofproceduralprotectionstoensurethatnaturaljusticeanddueprocessrequirementsareobserved.

Asaconsequence,appealsonquestionsoflawshouldbethesamebasisasthatwhicharisesintheLandandEnvironmentCourt:

• againstdecisionsmadebyapanelofthePlanningCommissionpresidedoverbytheChairpersonshouldlietotheCourtofAppeal(thisbeingthepositionthatapplieswhenameritappealdeterminationismadebyaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt)15.

15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979,section57A



• againstdecisionsmadebyanyotherpanelofthePlanningCommissionshouldlietoaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt(thisbeingthepositionthatappliesfordecisionsmadebyCommissionersoftheCourt)andthentotheCourtofAppeal16.

Provision of information about the Planning CommissionCurrently,thePlanningAssessmentCommissionprovidesalimitedrangeofinformationonitswebsitetoassistwithbroadunderstandingofitsprocessesandactivities,including:

• aguideforaccesstoinformation17

• acodeofconduct18formembersoftheCommission• aguidetoprocedurefordecision-making19

• alistofmatters20dealtwithbytheCommissionwithlinkstoinformationaboutthem.

ThereisnocomprehensiveplainEnglishguidetotheactivitiesandprocessesoftheCommission.ThisistobecontrastedwithacomprehensiveguidetotheprocessesoftheformerCommissionersofInquirytitled,“HowTheyWork”21.Inordertoassisttheprocessofrestoringpublicfaithintheplanningsystem,particularlyinregardstomajorprojectdetermination,weconsideritessentialthatthePlanningCommissionprepareandpublishastep-by-stepguidetoitsprocesses–fromhowamattercomesintoitsremittohowadecisionisamade,publicisedanditseffect.

Other matters

Administrative supportThecurrentCommissionissupportedbyasmallindependentsecretariat(alsoservingtheJointRegionalPlanningPanels),comprisingofstaffsecondedfromtheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.BecauseitisdesirabletomakeitexpresslyclearthatthePlanningCommissionisnotaCourt,allsecretariatsupportshouldcontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,butindependentofitandremaininaseparateoffice.TheheadofthesecretariatshouldberesponsibletotheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionforhearingprocessmattersandtotherelevantseniorofficeroftheDepartmentforadministrativeandpersonnelmatters(apositionanalogoustothatoftheRegistrarofacourt).TheMinisterresponsiblefortheSustainablePlanningActshouldalsobetheMinisterresponsibleforthePlanningCommissionAct.Generaladministrativesupportforaccounting,payrollandsimilarfunctionsareintegratedwiththesegeneralfunctionswithintheDepartmentandshouldcontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartmentinthisfashion.

16 Land and Environment Court Act 1979,section56A

17 Seehttp://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9wL7ABHhvzY%3d&tabid=76

18 Seehttp://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/CodeofConduct/tabid/58/Default.aspx

19 Seehttp://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ddF5xG-8-58%3d&tabid=56

20 Seehttp://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/PACRegister/tabid/60/Default.aspx

21 Seehttp://www.coi.nsw.gov.au/pdf/HowTheyWork.pdf

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9wL7ABHhvzY%3d&tabid=76

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/CodeofConduct/tabid/58/Default.aspx

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ddF5xG-8-58%3d&tabid=56

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/PACRegister/tabid/60/Default.aspx

http://www.coi.nsw.gov.au/pdf/HowTheyWork.pdf


Timing of introduction of the Planning Commission ActThereisanoptiontotakethePlanningAssessmentCommissionandtransformitintothePlanningCommissionunderitsownlegislationbeforetheotherlegislativeelementsofthereformpackagecomeintooperation.Thiswouldprovidegreatertransparencyandaccountabilityforthedecisionmakingprocessaboutmajorprojectproposalsdealtwithunderthepresentplanninglegislation(pendingitsrepealandreplacementwiththeSustainablePlanningAct).

Recommendations1.TheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistobeappointedonafull-timebasis.

2.TheChairpersonoftheCommissionistobeaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt,withtheappointmentofanadditionalJudgetotheCourtandtheimmediatesecondmentofthatJudgetothepositionofChairpersonofthePlanningCommission.

3.TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istoincorporateaprovisionthatwillpermitanyJudgeoftheCourttobeabletoactastheChairpersonoftheCommission.SuchaprovisionwillprovideadefinedpoolofpersonswhowouldbeabletoactasChairperson,intheeventthatthepermanentlyassignedChairpersontookleaveanditwasdesirabletomakeareplacementduringthatperiodofabsence.

4.TheJudgeselectedtobeappointedandsecondedtothePlanningCommissionmustalsohavethenecessaryskillsandattributestoperformtheroleofaJudgeoftheCourt,aswellasthosenecessarytofulfiltheroleatthePlanningCommission.

5.ResponsibilityforselectionoftheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistoliewiththeAttorneyGeneralwiththeconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

6.TheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionistoexercisethefollowingfunctions:• presideoverdeterminationprocessesforcomplexand/orcontroversialprojects• determinethecompositionofPanelstohearanddeterminemattersoverwhichtheChairpersondoesnotpreside






7.AllofthecostsoftheChairpersonofthePlanningCommission(includingofanyJudgeactingduringanyabsenceoftheChairperson)aretobemetfromitsbudgetandreimbursedtotheDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJusticebytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

8.TheprocessforselectingCommissionersofthePlanningCommission,whetherfull-timeorpart-time,istobebypublicadvertisementandrecommendationtotheMinisterbyaselectionpanelcomprisingthefollowing:• theChairpersonoftheCommission• theDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure• anindependentpersonnominatedbytheChairperson(withtheconcurrenceoftheMinister).

9.EvenifanexistingCommissionerseeksreappointment,thepositionshouldusuallybesubjecttoacontestableadvertisingprocess.However,iftheChairpersonrecommendsthatadirectreappointmentshouldbemade,thentheMinistermayagreetothis.Full-timeCommissionersshouldholdappointmentforsevenyearsandbeeligibleforasecondtermonly.

10.Part-timeCommissionersaretobeappointedforuptothreeyearswithamaximumperiodofnineyears.

11.ThequalificationsofCommissionersshallremainasprovidedforinSchedule3ofthepresentplanninglegislation.

12.Commissioners(otherthantheChairperson)shouldnotbejudicialofficers.

13.ThenumberofpersonsabletobeappointedasCommissionersisnottobelimited.

14.ThepowertoappointcasualCommissioners,ifthereisaparticularworkloadissueoraneedforhighlyspecialisedexpertise,istoberetained.

15.WiththeconcurrenceoftheChiefJudgeandoftheChairperson,aCommissioneroftheLandandEnvironmentCourtistobeabletobeappointedtochairapanelortositonapanelofthePlanningCommission(ifitweretobechairedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission).

16.IfaCommissioneroftheCourtweretotakepartinaPlanningCommissiondeterminationprocess,thecostsoftheCommissioner’sparticipationistocomefromthebudgetofthePlanningCommission.

17.TheChairperson,anyactingChairpersonoranysecondedCommissioneroftheCourtisnottoperformroleofinvestigating,reviewingand/oradvisingtheMinisteronanymatterthattheMinistermighthavereferredtothePlanningCommission.

18.AllmatterstobedealtwithbythePlanningCommissionaretohaveaproperpublichearing.

19.Hearingsarenottobeheldincourtroomsandvenuesshouldbearrangedinasinformalafashionasispossible,consistentwiththescopeofthelikelyparticipationinandpublicattendanceatthehearing.

20.MattersthataretobeconsideredbytheCommissionaretobedealtwithbyapanelthatisselectedbytheChairpersonoftheCommission.


21.PriortoanypublichearingoftheCommissionwherethereislikelytobesignificantpublicparticipationorinvolvetechnicallycomplexmaterial,thereistobeapublicplanningdiscussionwellpriortothedateofthepublichearings.

22.ThepublichearingprocessfortheCommissionistooperateaccordingtopublishedguidelinesthatdonotimposemandatoryrestrictionsortimelimitsonthoseparticipatingbutcontrolofthehearingistoliewiththepanelconductingit.

23.ThePlanningCommissionActistoprovidethatthosetakingpartinapublichearingcanonlyberepresentedbyanexternallawyerorpaidagentwiththepermissionofthepanelhearingthematterif,andonlyif,thepanelissatisfiedthatthereissomepublicinterestreasonwhythisshouldbepermitted.

24.Companiesaretobeabletoberepresentedbydirectorsoremployeesofthecompany;theDepartmentbyitsemployees;councilsbycouncillorsorcouncilofficersandindividualsabletospeakontheirownbehalf.

25.Associationsandcommunitygroupsaretobeabletoappointoneoftheirmemberstospeakontheirbehalf.

26.ThePlanningCommission’sprocessesmustremaindistinctlydifferentfromthoseofaCourt:• Theprocessistobeinquisitorialratherthanadversarial.• Thereistobenocross-examinationprocesses(whetherbylawyersoragents–ifpermitted–orbyanyotherparticipants)ofthosepresentinginformationduringhearings.

• TheCommissionpanelmembersaretoundertakethequestioningofthoseparticipating.

• Therulesofevidencearenottoapply.• Thoseparticipatingarenottobeswornin.

Transcriptsarenotautomaticallytobetakenoftheproceedingsalthough,withpermissionofthepanel,recordingmaybeallowedifthereweresomespecialcircumstancedemonstratedwhythismightbewarranted–ifrecordingweretobepermitted,thecostsofdoingsoshouldbemetbythepersonorentityrequestingpermissionforthistooccur.

27.TheCommissionistogivereasonsforallitsdecisionsexplainingwhythedecisionhasbeenmade.Thedecisionsaretobemadepublicand,ifnotgivenattheendoftheCommissionhearing,aretobenotifiedtoallthosewhoparticipatedinthehearingandpublishedontheCommission’swebsite.

28.Allconcurrencefunctions,nomatterwhatthelegislativeprovisionthatmakestheapprovalnecessary,aretobevestedintheCommissionwhenmakingadecisionaboutadevelopmentproposal.



29.AppealsonquestionsoflawaretobeonthesamebasisasthatwhicharisesintheLandandEnvironmentCourt:

• againstdecisionsmadebyapanelofthePlanningCommissionpresidedoverbytheChairpersonshouldlietotheCourtofAppeal(thisbeingthepositionthatapplieswhenameritappealdeterminationismadebyaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt).

• againstdecisionsmadebyanyotherpanelofthePlanningCommissionshouldlietoaJudgeoftheLandandEnvironmentCourt(thisbeingthepositionthatappliesfordecisionsmadebyCommissionersoftheCourt)andthentotheCourtofAppeal.

30.TheCommissionistoprepareandpublishaplainEnglishstep-by-stepguidetoitsprocesses–fromhowamattercomesintoitsremittohowadecisionismade,publicisedanditseffect.

31.AllsecretariatsupportistocontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,butbeindependentoftheDepartmentandremaininaseparateoffice.

32.TheheadoftheCommission’ssecretariatistoberesponsibletotheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissionforhearingprocessmattersandtotherelevantseniorofficeroftheDepartmentforadministrativeandpersonnelmatters.

33.TheMinisterresponsiblefortheSustainablePlanningActistobetheMinisterresponsibleforthePlanningCommissionAct.

34.Generaladministrativesupportforaccounting,payrollandsimilarfunctionsaretocontinuetobeprovidedbytheDepartment.

35.TheGovernmentconsidertheearlyenactmentandcomingintoeffectofthePlanningCommissionActtoenablethestartofreformsthroughthePlanningCommissionprocessindeterminingwhetherornottoapprovemajordevelopmentproposals.


PART 2 – The Minister, Director-General and DepartmentThe role of the MinisterCurrently,theMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure(ortheMinister’sdelegates)actsinarangeofroleswithintheplanningsystem,theyare:

• toapproveLocalEnvironmentalPlansorchangestothem• tointervenein,removeormodifypowersofcouncilsregardingplanningmattersunderthepresentplanninglegislation

• toremoveparticulardevelopmentproposalsfromthejurisdictionofacouncilandreferthemforcentraldeterminationbecauseoftheirsignificancetotheState,whichresultsinthedecisionaboutsuchaprojectbeingmadecentrally

• togiveinstructionsforthepreparationofregulationsandtheircontent,togivedetailedeffecttothelegislation

• ancillarypowers(suchasreferringsomefisheriesprojectstothePlanningAssessmentCommissionforinvestigationandreport22).

Someoftheserolesmightberegardedasuncontroversial.Others,suchasthe‘callin’powerandthepowertoapprovemajorprojects,havedominatedpublicdebateabouttheplanningsysteminrecentyears.However,thisdebatewaslargelydefusedin2011bytherepealofPart3A23ofthepresentplanninglegislationandbythepresentMinisterreferringmatterstothePlanningAssessmentCommissionfordeterminationorreturningprojectstocouncilstodecide.

Recommendations36.TheMinisteristocontinuetoberesponsiblefortheformalmakingofLocalLand-Use

Plans(asdiscussedinVolume1).However,therewillbealessinterventionistrolefortheMinister(ortheMinister’sdelegates)inthepreparationofamendmentstosuchlocalplans,includingre-zonings.

37.TheMinisteristoretainthepowertoreferprojectsforStatelevelassessmentanddetermination.Themeritsofadecisiontoremoveaprojectfromacouncilwillnotbesubjecttoappeal.

38.WiththeexceptionofthoseprojectsthatweredeclaredbytheMinistertobeStatesignificantinfrastructure,theMinisterisnottomakeanydecisionsaboutwhetheranyprojectshouldbeapproved.DecisionmakingataStatelevelwouldbeundertakenbythePlanningCommission.

22 Indeed,thisparticularoneappearstonevertohavebeenused.

23 28September2011bythecommencementoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Act 2011

2 The Minister, Director-General and Department


39.IftherewerepublicobjectionsduringtheexhibitionstageofaStatesignificantinfrastructureproject,theconditionsproposedbytheMinisterforprojectapprovalareautomaticallytobereferredtothePlanningCommission.TheCommissionistodeterminewhatchanges,ifany,aretobemadetothoseconditions.TheCommissionisnottobepermittedtoconsiderwhethertheprojectshouldbeapproved,ortoimposesuchonerouschangestotheconditionsofapprovalsoastoconstituteconstructiverefusal.

40.TheMinister’sabilitytointervene,generally,intheplanningpowersofacouncilistoremain.

41.TheMinister’spresentpowerstoproposeappointmentstothePlanningCommissionandtheMinister’sroletonominatechairsandstatemembersofJointRegionalPlanningPanelsistoremain.

42.TheMinisteristoretainthepowertogivecouncilsdirectionswithrespecttoDevelopmentControlPlansandthepowertomake,amendorrevokeaDevelopmentControlPlanifthecouncildoesnotimplementtheMinister’sdirection24.

43.TheMinister’sgenerallegislativeandregulationmakingfunctionsareotherwisetoremainunchanged.

The role of the Director-GeneralTheDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureperformsthreeimportantfunctionsasthedelegateoftheMinister.TheseshouldbecarriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningAct:

• settingouttherequirementsforthepreparationofLocalEnvironmentalPlans(tobecalledLocalLand-UsePlans),includingfor‘gatewayproposals’torezoneland

• givingdirectionsandestablishingtheframeworkforpreparationofenvironmentalimpactstatements

• givingconcurrencetoanapplicationbyadevelopmentproponenttobeabletobreachadevelopmentstandard.

ThepowersoftheDirector-GeneralareabletobedelegatedtoofficersoftheDepartment.Withtheexceptionofthepower25toagreetoapproveapplicationsforzoneflexibilityinindustrialzones,wedonotproposeremovalofthepowertodelegatetoacouncilthegrantofconcurrencetoanapplicationtobreachadevelopmentstandardcontainedinthelocalplan.

The role of the Department DuringtheconsultationprocessandinsubmissionstotheIssuesPaper,twomajorthemesemergedthatwerecriticaloftheroleoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure:

24 Althoughweunderstandthatthispowerisinvokedrarely,itwasinvokedin2010byHon.TonyKellyMLC,thethenMinisterforPlanning,concerningtheCityofSydney’sLate-NightTradingDevelopmentControlPlan.WeareoftheviewthatthispowershouldberetainedandincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

25 SeeVolume1atpage55


• thefirstwasthattheDepartmentismetro-centric.Thiscriticismaroseonaregularbasisduringregionalcommunityconsultationforumsandinregionallybasedsubmissions.

• thesecond,broadercomplaint,wasthattheDepartmentfocusestoomuchonmicro-managementofdetailedplanningprocessesand,byextension,interferesincouncilautonomy.

OthersignificantfunctionsoftheDepartment,includingassessmentprocessesformajorprojects,wereonlysubjecttolimitedcriticisms.Theserelatedtoinformationavailabilityandopenness–anareawhereimprovementscanbeachievedwithlittledifficulty.Overall,therewasscantcriticismoftheprofessionalismorcompetenceofDepartmentalstaff.

Itiscleartousthattheconcernwithmicro-managementisgenuinelyandhonestlyheldonawidespreadbasis.However,thisconcernshouldberesolvedtoaconsiderableextentbyshiftingtheDepartment’sfocustostrategicplanning26.

The Department’s regional rolesTheDepartmentshouldhaveasignificantroleinbuildingplanningcapacitywithinregionalandrurallocalgovernment,intwodistinctways:

• throughsecondmentstoimprovethecapacityofcouncilswhoseownresourcesdonotpermitsufficientseniorstafftomeetpeakplanningdemands(particularlystrategicplanningdemands)

• establishingatrainingprogramforyoungerplanningprofessionalsthatembracescouncils,particularlythoseinruralorregionalareas.

Neitheroftheseprogramsneedstoencompasslargenumbersofeitherqualifiedortraineeplanners.Asaconsequence,thecostshouldbecomparativelymodest,eventakingintoaccountthefactthattherewillbetravelandlivingawayfromhomecostsassociatedwithitsimplementation.

GiventhatweproposeashiftinemphasisintheroleoftheDepartment,itisalsoappropriatetoexaminethespreadoftheDepartment’sregionalpresence.WedonotconsiderthatthereneedstobeamajorexpansioneitherinstaffingorlocationoftheDepartment’sregionaloffices.However,thesinglegapthatwehaveidentifiedthatwarrantsexpansionistheDepartment’spresentmethodforservicingthesouth-westoftheState.Thisshouldberemediedbyopeningasmalloffice(withamaximumoftwoprofessionalstaffandonesupportstaff)basedinWaggaWaggatoservicecouncilstothewestoftheACTandintotheRiverina.ThisofficeshouldbeasatelliteofeithertheDubboorWollongongregionaloffices.

Amatterofconcernisthepresentcosttocouncils,particularlyintheRiverina,totravelviaSydneytoattendmeetingsattheirregionalofficeinDubbo.Itwassuggestedtousthatinsufficientusewasmadeofalternativeweb-basedconferencingprocessesortheoptionofholdingmeetingsinSydney.Greaterutilisationoftelephoneandweb-basedconferencingtoolsinsteadoffacetofacemeetingsshouldassistincostreductions.

26 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter4frompage43

2 The Minister, Director-General and Department


Recommendations44.TheDepartmentistoestablishaprogrammeforstaffingexchangeswithlarger

regionalcitycouncils.

45.TheDepartmentistosecondstafftosmallerruralcouncilstoassistinstrategicplanningandforcapacitybuilding.

46.TheDepartmentistoestablishanewsub-regionalofficeinWaggaWagga.

47.TheDepartmentistoestablishasmall-scaletraineeplannercadetshipschemewithacycleoftraineeplacementswithregionalandruralcouncils.

48.TheDepartmentistoreviewthetiming,locationandcostsofmeetingsbetweenDepartmentalregionalstaffandstaffofregionalandruralcouncils.Thisexaminationistofocusonthenecessityforandaffordabilityofsuchmeetingsandtheuseofalternativeoptionstoeliminatetravelthatcanarisefromtechnologysuchaswebcameras.

The compliance role of the Department Currently,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurehasalimitedcompliancerole27–principallyconfinedtosmallteamslocatedinSydneyandSingleton(toservicetheUpperHunter–establishedrecentlyinresponsetoconcernsaboutthecumulativeimpactsfromopencutcoalmines28).

WeunderstandthattherationaleforthecomplianceactivityintheUpperHunterbeingundertakenbytheDepartment(ratherthanbycouncilsand/ortheEnvironmentProtectionAuthority)isthattheDepartmenthadundertakentheassessmentformanyoftheminesandthattheapprovalsgrantedandconditionsattachingtothemweremadebytheMinister,ratherthanbythelocalcouncil.

Wedonothaveaproperbasisuponwhichwecouldconclude,eitherasamatterofgeneralprincipleorforotherspecificreasons,thattheDepartmentshouldundertakeanexpandedcompliancerole.However,theremaybeanappropriatebasisforthis,particularlyasaconsequenceoffurtherintensificationofmajorprojectapprovalsinotherregions.Wearesatisfiedthatthisisamatterthatcanbeaddressedasamatterofpolicyasrequiredinthefuture.

Becauseofthis,itisdesirablethattheSustainablePlanningActpermittheimpositionofacompliancecostlevyonsuchprojects.Thiswillpermitfuturepolicyconsiderationastowhethertheprovisionshouldbetriggered,includingforthecostsofthepresentSingletonoperation.

27 Seehttp://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Development/Compliance/tabid/502/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

28 WeunderstandthatthiscompliancefunctionwastohavebeenfundedbycontributionsfromtheminingindustryinthisregionbutthatthishasnoteventuatedandthesestaffarefundedfromtheDepartment’sbudget.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Development/Compliance/tabid/502/language/en-AU/Default.aspx


Recommendation49.TheSustainablePlanningActistoincludeaprovisionpermittingtheimposition

ofchargesonprojectsapprovedbytheMinisterand/orthePlanningAssessmentCommissionand/orthePlanningCommissionforthepurposesoffundingDepartmentalcomplianceactivitiesdirectedatthoseclassesofproject.

3 Financial Matters


PART 3 – Financial MattersLocal infrastructure funding

Deriving local contributionsWeconsiderthatitisdesirabletoretainthethreepresentmethodsforderivingcontributionstoprovidelocalinfrastructure,asfollows: 1) PlanningAgreements(orVoluntaryPlanningAgreements)29

2) Localinfrastructurecontributions30

• thededicationoflandfreeofcostorthepaymentofamonetarycontribution(orboth)31

• afixeddevelopmentconsentlevy32

3) Specialinfrastructurecontributions33.

Recommendation50.TheSustainablePlanningActistoincludeprovisionsforthethreemethodsfor

derivinglocalinfrastructurecontributionscurrentlyprovidedforinthepresentplanninglegislation.

Accountability and planning agreementsDuringtheconsultationandsubmissionprocess,therewasadegreeofcynicism,expressedacrossthespectrum,aboutwhetherPlanningAgreementsaretruly‘voluntary’andthecostandtransparencyoftheprocessformakingthem.Amendmentstothepresentplanninglegislationin200834thathavenotcomeintoeffectincludedaSchedule35containingprovisionswhichremainanappropriateresponsetotheseconcerns.WerecommendthatthesebeincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.ThisissupportedbytheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption36.

Inaddition,weconsideritdesirabletorequireanassessingofficerconsideringwhethertorecommendacceptanceofthetermsofaplanningagreement,oranydecisionmakingbodythatisdeterminingwhetherornottoenterintosuchanagreement,toconsideranysubmissionsreceivedduringthenoticeperiodoftheproposedagreement.

29 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979,Part4,Division6,Subdivision2


31 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979,section94

32 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979,section94A


34 Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008

35 TheuncommencedEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008,Schedule1,Part3

36 IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption,Anti-corruption Safeguards and the NSW Planning System(February2012)atpage6(Recommendation4).Seehttp://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/4023

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/4023


Recommendations51.TheprovisionscontainedintheuncommencedSchedule1Part3tothepresent

planninglegislationrelatingtoPlanningAgreementsaretobeincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

52.Anyassessingofficerconsideringwhethertorecommendacceptanceofthetermsofavoluntaryplanningagreement,oranydecisionmakingbodydeterminingwhetherornottoenterintosuchanagreement,istoberequiredtoconsideranysubmissionsreceivedduringthenoticeperiodoftheproposedagreement.

Content of Local Infrastructure PlansAsdiscussedabove,sections94and94Aofthepresentplanninglegislationenablelocalcouncilsorotherconsentauthoritiestolevycontributionsforpublicamenitiesandpublicservicesrequiredasaconsequenceofdevelopment.TheSustainablePlanningActwillrenamethesecontributionplansasLocalInfrastructurePlanstoreflectmoreaccuratelytheirfunction.SuchplansmaybeinseveralParts(reflectingtheavailableoptionsforsuchfunding),butwillformanelementoftherelevantDevelopmentControlPlanintheunitaryplanningdocumentforthelocalgovernmentarea37(discussedbelow).

IntheirsubmissiontotheIssuesPaper,theIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunalproposedthatageneralreferencebegiventoitregardingtheprocessoflistingworksasnecessarylocalinfrastructureincontributionplans(tobecalledLocalInfrastructurePlans),fundedthroughthemechanismswehavedescribedinthisChapter.TheTribunalsaid38:

D96. Should IPART be given a reference to make recommendations about what should be the extent, standard and nature of community infrastructure works that should be included in contributions plans?

Yes, IPART supports the Government giving us a general reference to make recommendations about the extent and standards of community infrastructure that should be included in contributions plans.

The Department of Planning’s 2010 Practice Note specifies an Essential Works List. This list applies when the maximum contributions rate in a plan exceeds the applicable cap, and the council is seeking funding from the PIF or a special rate variation. There is no restriction on the type of facilities within a contributions plan if the contributions rate is below the applicable cap.

The Essential Works List appears to have been established with little discussion or debate. If IPART is given a general reference to make recommendations about the extent and standards of community infrastructure that should be included in contributions plans, our advice would be based on submissions from stakeholders and the general community. We consider this would be best done within the context of a broader review of infrastructure funding.

37 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter5atpage51andfurtherdiscussionlaterinthisPart

38 IndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunal,NSW Planning System Review – IPART Submission on Issues Paper (February2012)at19.Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lA08WgGSrpE%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lA08WgGSrpE%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lA08WgGSrpE%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

3 Financial Matters


TheTribunalundertookadetailedanalysisofthreesuchcontributionplanstoprovideasufficientplatformfortheir2011review.WeaccepttheTribunal’sviewthatitisnotappropriateforittoanalyse,onanongoingbasis,whetherornotitisreasonablefortheplanstoincorporateindividualitems.However,wearesatisfiedthatsomesupervisionisrequired.

Theadoptionofanew,broaderbasisofspreadingfundingofthelocalinfrastructureshortfallacrossthecommunity39meansthattherewillneedtobeadegreeofStatesupervisionofthecontentoftheseplans.TheprocessthatweproposewillrequirecouncilstosubmitdraftLocalInfrastructurePlanstotheDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureforreview.WedonotexpectthattheDepartmentwillundertakeadetailedreviewofeachplan,butwillundertakeasampledauditforreasonableness.IftheDirector-Generalconsidersthatanyplanshouldbemodified,thecouncilwhoseplanitismayrequesttheproposedmodificationbereferredtothePlanningCommissionfordetermination.

Recommendations53.CouncilsaretosubmitdraftLocalInfrastructurePlans(oramendmentstothem)to

theDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureforreview.

54.TheDirector-Generalmaymodifyanysuchplan.

55.IftheDirector-Generalmodifiesaplan,thecouncilmayrequesttheproposedmodificationbereferredtothePlanningCommissionfordetermination.

56.APlanningCommissiondeterminationonaLocalInfrastructurePlanistobetreatedaswouldanapplicationforaprojectdetermination.

Accumulated local infrastructure fundsAlthoughwearenotabletoprovideaprecisequantificationoftheextenttowhichcouncilsareholdingunspentmoniesfromraisedlocalinfrastructurecontributions,weunderstandanecdotallythatthisislikelytobeasignificantsum,possiblyinexcessof$800million.

Councilshaveadegreeofflexibilityaboutthesequencingofexpenditureandapplicationofmonies,providedthereisproperaccountingforthisacrosstherangeofprojectsforwhichthemoneyhasbeenraised.However,aspartofthereferencetotheTribunal,itshouldbeaskedwhatadditionalprocessesmightaccelerateexpenditureofthisaccumulatedmoney.Ifamoretimelymethodofexpenditureisavailabletobringforwardprojects,significantshorttermstimulustotheState’seconomymayresult.

ItmayalsobeappropriatetoinvolvetheAuditorGeneralinaselectiveprogrammeofexaminingthosecouncilswithsignificantaccumulatedreservescollectedforlocalinfrastructurefunding.ThepurposewouldbetoensurethatanyrecommendationsoftheTribunalaboutmoretimelyexpenditureofaccumulatedfundsarebeingimplementedappropriately.

39 SeeVolume1,PartEatpages117to119


Further,councilsshouldberequiredtopublishthefollowingaspartoftheirannualreporting:• asimplifiedanalysisofsuchmoniescollectedandexpended• infrastructureprovided• anticipatedtimetablingforfutureinfrastructuretobefundedfromtheseinfrastructurecharges.

TheTribunal’soverallconsiderationwillalsoneedtoconsidertheprocessesbywhichcapsaretobereviewed.Thiswouldbepartofwhatshouldbearegularreviewofthebasisforandamountofthebroadersocialchargetobeleviedtomeetthecostoftheinfrastructureshortfall.

Recommendations57.AreferenceistobegiventotheIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunal

todeterminehowtoacceleratetheexpenditureofaccumulatedfundsraisedbycouncilsfromlocalinfrastructurecontributions.

58.Councilsarerequiredtopublishthefollowingaspartoftheirannualreporting:• asimplifiedanalysisofsuchmoniescollectedandexpended• infrastructureprovided• anticipatedtimetablingforfutureinfrastructuretobefundedfromtheseinfrastructurecharges.

Contributions appeals to the Land and Environment CourtPresently,whenaconditionofdevelopmentconsentimposesadevelopercontribution,thereisarightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtforameritreview40inrelationtothefollowing:

• thereasonablenessofacontributionleviedonadevelopment• thereasonablenessofelementswithinthescheduleofidentifiedworksneededaslocalcommunityinfrastructure.

Recommendation59.TherightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtinitsClass1jurisdiction

againstthereasonablenessofconditionsimposingacontributionforlocalcommunityinfrastructureistoberetained.

Fitting a Local Infrastructure Plan into the unitary planning document frameworkItisnecessarytoconsiderwhereacouncil’sLocalInfrastructurePlanshouldbefittedwithinthethreeelementsoftheunitaryplanningdocumentthatwehaverecommendedtoestablishthecoherentsingleplanninginformationbaseforeachcouncilarea.

40 Rose Consulting Group v Baulkham Hills Shire Council[2003]NSWCA266

3 Financial Matters


WedonotproposethatallLocalInfrastructurePlansgothroughastatutoryadoptionprocess,butratherthattheyaresubjecttotheauditingprocessdiscussedabove.Forthisreason,itisnotappropriatethataLocalInfrastructurePlanformpartoftheLocalLand-UsePlan.However,wehaverecommendedinVolume141thattherebeastandardtemplatelayoutforDevelopmentControlPlansandthatthisstandardtemplatelayoutshouldincorporateachapterordivisiontoencompasstheprovisionsofaLocalInfrastructurePlan(thatwouldalsopermitadoptionofaregimeforfixeddevelopmentconsentleviespursuanttosection94Aofthepresentplanninglegislation,ifrequired).

Asaconsequence,notonlywilltheLocalInfrastructurePlanformpartoftheunitary,comprehensiveplanninginformationpackagebutitwillalsobeinacommonformattoassistinpublicaccesstoinformation.Therefore,thetransitiontoLocalInfrastructurePlanswilloccurintandemwiththeuptakeofthestandardtemplateforDevelopmentControlPlans.

Recommendations60.AlllocalinfrastructurecontributionsplansaretobeconsolidatedintoasingleLocal

InfrastructurePlanandincorporatedintotheDevelopmentControlPlanintheunitaryplanningdocumentforacouncil.

61.ThisconsolidationistotakeplacewhenthecounciltranslatesitsDevelopmentControlPlantothestandardtemplateforsuchplans.

Funding for the Department of Planning and InfrastructureToenableproperimplementationofthereforms,itisnecessarytoprovideanappropriatebudgetarybasefortheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureandfundimplementationofareformedelectronicplanningsystem(incorporatinge-planningandeasypublicaccesstoplanninginformation).For2010-11,theDepartment‘stotalexpenditurewas$130.6M(includinggrantsof$22.5M)leaving$108.1MfortheDepartment’soperatingcosts.

Currently,asignificantelementofthefundingoftheDepartmentcomesfromdevelopmentproposalapplicationfeespaidtotheDepartmentforassessmentofmajorprojectproposals.ThismoneyispaidtotheDepartmentandretainedbyittodefrayoperatingcosts.Thetotalsumreceivedin2010-11frommajorprojectapplicationfeeswas$20.4M.

ThesecondsignificantsourceoffundingfortheordinaryactivitiesoftheDepartmentcomesfromthePlanningReformFund–constitutingalevy42ondevelopmentapplicationswithacapitalinvestmentvalueof$50,000ormore.Themoneyiscollectedbycouncils/consentauthoritiesandremittedtotheDepartmentmonthly.In2010/11,theFundreceived$22.4M.Approximately5%isredistributedtocouncilsasgrantsforimprovingplanningprocesses.ThebalanceoftherevenueisusedforstrategicplanningactivitiesthroughouttheState,includingthecostsofregionalofficesandpreparationofStandardInstrumentLocal

41 AtRecommendation27

42 Thelevyiscurrently0.064%oftheestimatedcapitalinvestmentvalueoftheproject


EnvironmentalPlansandstrategicplans,suchastheMetropolitan Plan for Sydney 203643andregionalstrategies.

ThebalanceoftheDepartment’s2010/11fundingcamefromtheConsolidatedFund($84.3M)andarangeofother,lessersources($21.5M).Finally,theDepartmentreceived$4.5MindevelopercontributionstoberemittedtobodiessuchasRoadsandMaritimeServicesforworkstobeundertaken.Thesefundsareheldonaconstructivetrustfortherelevantentityandareremittedastheworksarecarriedout.

TheDepartment’srelianceontherevenuestreamfromthePlanningReformFundhasincreasedovertheyearsasaresultofincreasesinDepartmentalresponsibilities.Thereareseveralrisksthatarisefromthisarrangement:

• uncertaintyinbudgetpredictability• thenecessityforincreasingthenon-ConsolidatedFundrevenueinordertoprovideacceptableservicelevelsfromtheDepartment(necessarytofacilitatethegovernmentpolicyofpromotingacceptableeconomicgrowth)

• thepotentialpublicperceptionofconflictofinterestthattheDepartmentneedstopromotemajorprojectdevelopmentproposalsforassessmentpurelytoensureDepartmentalviability.Suchaperceptionwouldfosterpubliccynicismabouttheindependenceandintegrityofmajorprojectassessments,iflevelsofapplicationfeedrivenrevenueimpactonemploymentsecurityforstaffoftheDepartment.

ItisnotappropriateforustobesuggestingwhatshouldbesuitablefundingandstaffinglevelsfortheDepartment,butweconsideritisappropriatetocommentonthewaytheDepartment’sbudgetisderived.Thisisbecausebudgetaryprocessesformpartoftheframeworkthatinformsandinfluencespublicperceptionsoftheintegrityoftheplanningsystemandthusdofallwithinourtermsofreference.

Toprovideadditionalfundingtomeetthecostofthesereforms,weproposed,inVolume1,thatthePlanningReformLevybeincreasedfrom0.064%to0.10%ofthecapitalinvestmentvalueofprojectsandthattheexemptionofprojectswithacapitalinvestmentvalueoflessthan$50,000beremoved44.ThiswouldresultintheincometotheFundincreasingfrom$22.4Mto$35.3M(drawnfrom2010/2011figures).Further,removaloftheexemptionwouldhaveraisedanadditional$200,000in2010/11.

WeconsideritappropriatethattheentireDepartmentalbudgetbebroughtwithintheconventionalbudgetbiddingandsettingprocess.SuchachangewouldnecessarilybeaccompaniedbyarequirementthatdevelopmentapplicationassessmentfeesformajorprojectsandcontributionstothePlanningReformFundshouldbecomepartofthegeneralrevenueoftheStateratherthanbeingallocated,specifically,tosupporttheDepartment’soperations.Anynecessaryadjustment,upordown,intheDepartment’sbudgetwouldthenbecomepartoftheannualbudgetaryprocessforallocationsfromtheConsolidatedFund.Departmentalcostsandaprogramofgrantstocouncilsforplanningreformimplementation,includingelectronicplanning,shouldbedealtwithaspartofthebudgetcyclethroughConsolidatedFundallocation.

43 Seehttp://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/

44 SeeVolume1,PartEatpage116

http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/

3 Financial Matters


Recommendations62.Developmentapplicationassessmentfeesformajorprojectsandcontributionsto

thePlanningReformFundaretoberemittedtotheStateTreasury.

63.ThebudgetoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistobebroughtwithintheconventionalbudgetbiddingandsettingprocessoftheConsolidatedFund.

64.ThemoniesraisedasPlanningReformFundleviesaretobeappliedtothreepurposes:• meetingtheappropriateportionofthebudgetoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure(butexcludingassessmentcostsformajorprojectassessments).

• providingafundfromwhichtheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurecanmakegrantstocouncilstorolloutcomprehensiveuseofinformationtechnologytosupporte-planninganddataaccuracyandfuturecollection.

• meetingthecostsofthePlanningCommission.

Funding information technology in a reformed planning systemInordertoimplementthereformsthatwepropose,informationtechnologywillneedtobeintegratedcomprehensivelyintotheplanningsystem45.Thiswillinvolvetheintroductionofelectronicplanningforthelodgementandassessmentofapplicationsfordevelopmentandongoingdataqualityimprovementsothattheinformationcanbemadeaccessibletothepublicthroughacomprehensiveplanningportal.ThiswillconstituteasignificantadditionalcostfortheDepartmentandcouncilsoverthenextdecade.ItisunreasonabletoexpectthattheseDepartmentalandcouncilcostscouldbemetfromwithinpresentrevenuestreams.Asaconsequence,inadditiontoexaminingthewaytheDepartmentisfunded,itisimportanttoconsiderthewaysinwhichacomprehensiveelectronicplanningsystemcanbefunded.

Recommendations65.Inconsultationwithlocalgovernment,theDepartmentofPlanningand

Infrastructureistoestablishaframeworkforassessingcouncilgrantapplicationsforgrantsgiventocouncilstoimprovetheiruseofinformationtechnology,tosupporte-planning,electronicdataaccuracyandfuturecollection.

66.TheDepartment’sbudgetistoincludeanallocation(drawnfrommoniespaidintothePlanningReformFund)forthemakingofsuchgrants.

45 SeeVolume1,PartGandthisvolume,Part4


Funding the Planning CommissionIn2010/2011,thePlanningAssessmentCommission’srunningcostswereapproximately$2.9M.AnincreasedworkloadhasalreadyresultedfromthepolicydecisionofthepresentMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructuretodelegatedeterminationofmajorprojectmatterstoit.WeproposepublichearingswillberequiredaspartofallthePlanningCommission’sdeterminationprocesses.ThismeansthattherearelikelytobeincreasesinthecostsofrunningthePlanningCommission,comparedtothepresentPlanningAssessmentCommission.Inaddition,amodestincreaseinbudgetingwillberequiredforthePlanningCommissiontoprovideforafull-timeChairandthepossibilityofoneortwofull-timemembers,alongwiththepotentialneedtoexpandtheskillbaseofthepart-timeCommissioners.

Recommendation67.SufficientbudgetallocationistobemadeforthePlanningCommissiontoenableit

tofulfiltheexpandedroleintendedforit.

Legislative cost shifting – Planning Commission & Joint Regional Planning PanelsWhenthePlanningAssessmentCommissionandJointRegionalPlanningPanelswereincorporatedinthepresentplanninglegislation,aprovision46wasalsoinsertedinthelegislationthatmadetherelevantcouncilresponsibleforthecostoftheiractivities.However,thethengovernmentsubsequentlydecidedthattheStatewouldmeetthecostsofthePlanningAssessmentCommissionandofJointRegionalPlanningPanels.TherehavebeennoMinisterialexemptions47granted.Asaconsequence,technically,councilscurrentlyoweadebttotheStateforthecostsofaPanelortheCommissionactingastheconsentauthorityforanydevelopmentproposedforlandinthatcouncil’sarea.

WehavenoreasontobelievethatthepresentGovernmentproposestostopmeetingthesecosts.Section23OofthepresentplanninglegislationshouldnotbecarriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningAct.TheaccrueddebtsshouldbeforgivenbytheState.

Thesoleprovisioninsection23O48ofthepresentplanninglegislationthathasoperatedistherequirementthatacouncilmeetthecostsofrunninganylocalIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelappointedbyit.AprovisionrequiringcouncilsmeetingthecostsofIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanels,IndependentHearingandDeterminationPanelsorArchitectural,UrbanDesignand/orHeritageAssessmentPanelsshouldbeintheSustainablePlanningAct.

46 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23O

47 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23O(5)

48 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23O(3)

3 Financial Matters


Recommendations68.CostrecoveryfromcouncilsisnottobeincludedintheSustainablePlanningAct

wheneitherthePlanningCommissionorJointRegionalPlanningPanelsactasconsentauthoritiesfordevelopmentonlandinacouncil’sarea.

69.TheStateistoforgivedebtsthathaveaccrued(andwillcontinuetoaccrue)undersection23Oofthepresentplanninglegislationuntilitsrepealiseffected.

70.ThepresentprovisionrequiringacounciltomeetthecostofanyIndependentHearingAssessmentPanelthatitmightestablishistoberetained.

71.AsimilarprovisionistobeincorporatedforanyIndependentHearingandDeterminationPaneloranyArchitectural,Designand/orHeritageAssessmentPanel.

Development application fees

Adjustment of development application feesDevelopmentapplicationfeescalespayabletocouncilsaresetbyregulation49.Between2000and2010,somefeeswerenotadjusted,necessitatinganapproximate25percentincreaseinlate201050.Therewasacommoncomplaintfromcouncilsthatdevelopmentapplicationfeesdidnotcoverthecostsofthedevelopmentassessmentanddeterminationprocess,withtheshortfallcomingfromgeneralcouncilrevenue.

Weregardthisasunreasonable,asthesefeesaredesignedtobe‘user-pays’.Equally,wedonotconsiderthatthesefeesshouldbeunregulated,northatcontrolovertheirlevelsshouldberemovedfromtheStategovernment.

Toestablishwhetherthepresentfundingbaseisadequateforthetasksthatitisexpectedtosupport,itisappropriatethattherebeashort,limitedenquirybytheIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunalintothepresentfeescales.Thetermsofreferenceshouldbeconfinedtodeterminingwhetherornotthereneedstobeanimmediate,one-offadjustmenttothedevelopmentapplicationfeescaletoprovideaproperbasisforthecouncils’rolesinareformedplanningsystem.

Whileeverageneralratecappingpolicyremains,weconsideritappropriatethatthebaseadjustmentpercentageshouldalsobereflectedindevelopmentapplicationfeescales,asanautomaticpercentageadjustment.Ifthereweretobeachangeinthepresentratecappingadjustmentprocess,analternativemechanismtoprovideannualadjustmentstocouncildevelopmentapplicationfeescaleswouldalsoneedtobeestablished.

49 CurrentlysetbytheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,Part15

50 Environmental Planning and Assessment Further Amendment Regulation 2010.FordetailsontheofficialnotificationseeGovernment Gazette of the State of New South Wales(Friday31December2010)http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government_Gazette_31_December.pdf

ttp://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government_Gazette_31_December.pdf

ttp://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government_Gazette_31_December.pdf


Recommendations72.AreferenceistobegiventotheIndependentPricingandRegulatoryTribunalto

investigatewhetherdevelopmentapplicationfeescalesforcouncilsshouldbeincreasedtoensurethattheyreflectaproperuserpaysbasisfortheassessmentanddeterminationprocessesfordevelopmentapplications.

73.Theprocessforsettingcouncildevelopmentapplicationfeescalesistoprovidethatthesefeesareadjusted,automaticallyonanannualbasis,bythesamepercentageasthebaseannualincreasepercentageforordinarycouncilraterevenue.

Development contributions for universities Universitiesarenot-for-profitinstitutionsthatarefunded,inthemajority,bygovernment.Thelevyingofdevelopmentcontributionsbyconsentauthoritieswhenuniversitiesareundertakingdevelopmentforthepurposesofprovidingstudentaccommodation,teachingandresearchfacilitiesdivertsfundsfromprovidingneworupgradedfacilities.

Becauseofthis,developmentundertakenbyuniversitiesforstudentaccommodation,teachingandresearchfacilitiesshouldnotbesubjecttodevelopmentcontributions(otherthanfordrainageandtrafficmanagementatthedevelopmentsite’sentrance)asthosefundscouldbeusedtowardstheprovisionofnecessaryinfrastructuretoimproveeducationaloutcomes,attractqualitystudentsandstaffandallowAustralianuniversitiestocompeteintheinternationaleducationmarket.ThisisinlinewithboththeDepartment’sCircularD6of1995andtheDevelopmentContributionsPracticeNoticeof200551.

Recommendation72.Universitydevelopmentsforstudentaccommodation,teachingandresearch

facilitiesarenottobesubjecttodevelopmentcontributionsexceptfordrainageandtrafficmanagementworks(atthedevelopmentsite’sentrance).

51 DepartmentofInfrastructure,Planning&NaturalResources,Development Contributions Practice Notes – July 2005(2005).Seehttp://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/all_contribution_pns.pdf

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/all_contribution_pns.pdf

4 The Spatial Information Act


PART 4 – The Spatial Information Act IntroductionCurrently,nocoherentlegislativeframeworkexistsfor:

• thesharingofgovernment-heldspatialinformationbothbetweengovernmentagencies52andbetweenagencies,industryandthecommunity

• improvingthequalityofgovernment-heldspatialdata• reducingtheexistingduplicationassociatedwithmanagingspatialresources• facilitatingpublicaccesstoappropriateclassesofgovernment-heldspatialdata.

Reformoftheplanningsystemnowprovidesacatalystforenactmentoflegislation–theSpatialInformationAct–toresolvetheseproblems53.Oneofthemostimportantfeaturesofaccesstospatialdatadealtwithbythislegislationwillbethecreationofageoportal54wherekeygovernmentspatialdatasetscanbeaccessedbyothergovernmentagenciesandmembersofthepublic.

Legislative structureTheMinisterresponsibleforLandandPropertyInformationshouldberesponsiblefortheSpatialInformationAct.

TheSpatialInformationActneedstocoverthefollowingdefinedclassesofelectronicspatialinformationheldbyNewSouthWalesgovernmentagencies:

• Class1:land-usedata(includingthecadastre55,planningspatialdatasetsandfeaturesofinterest)

• Class2:socialdata(populationprofiles,demographicdata,dataaboutthetypeofgovernmentservicesavailable)

• Class3:economicdata(landandpropertyvaluations,employmentlevels,planningactivityandbuildingdata,licensingandregistrationdata)

• Class4:infrastructuredata(water,gas,electricity,telecommunicationsservices,transport).

• Class5:politicaldata(StateandFederalelectorates,localgovernmentareas)• Class6:environmentaldata(climate,bushfireandflood,threatenedspecies,vegetationcommunities,nationalandStateparkboundaries,riverandstreamclassificationsandheritage).

52 ’Governmentagencies’meanscouncils,stateownedcorporationsandotherbodiesfallingwithinthedefinitionof‘agency’underthe Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

53 SeeVolume1,PartG

54 SeeGlossary

55 SeeGlossary

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

All absolutely correct. Need and SDI, interoperability, standards.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

All supported by SIBA.


AsdiscussedinVolume156,a‘dutytocooperate’shallbeincludedintheSpatialInformationActtoensurethatdigitaldataheldorcreatedbycouncils,StateownedcorporationsandagenciesoftheState(tobedefinedbyregulation)isconsistent,particularlywithStrategicPlans.

Thesedatasetswillbelinkedtoapubliclyavailablegeoportal.Basicaccesswillbeprovidedfree-of-charge,withmorecomprehensiveaccessviasubscriptionoronauserpaysbasis(asdeterminedbytheMinister).Informationmaybeprovidedinaformatthatpreventsre-useforcommercialpurposes.Further,datasetsthatcontainsensitiveinformation(likethelocationofitemsofAboriginalculturalheritageandthreatenedspecies)willonlybeaccessibleviasubscriptionand/orlicenceagreement.

Non-governmentagencies(includingtheCommonwealthandutilities)thatholdspatialdatasetsfortheclassescoveredbytheSpatialInformationActandthatwishtolinkthemtothegeoportalwillbepermittedtodosowiththeMinister’sapproval.Agencieswillberequiredtomakespatialdatasetsandservicesavailabletootheragenciesforpublicfunctions–coveredbyadisclaimer,licenceagreementormemorandumofunderstanding,ifnecessary.

TheSpatialInformationActwillidentifywhichGovernmentagencywillbethecustodianofaparticularspatialdatasetandtheirduties–notrequirethecreationofnewdatasets.Thiswillincludedeterminingthecustodianshiparrangementsfortheelectronicregister(s)57ofdevelopmentconsents.Governmentagencieswill,however,berequiredtocreatemetadata58forspatialdatasetsandspatialdataservices59withintheircustodianship.

Toensuregovernment-heldspatialdatasetscanbesearchedandcombinedwithotherdatasets,theMinisterwillhavethecapacitytoestablishmetadatarequirementsforspatialdatasetsandspatialdataservicesandtoprescriberequirementsforinteroperabilityandharmonisation.

Implicationsforgovernmentliabilityinnegligenceassociatedwithmakinggovernment-heldspatialdatapubliclyavailableandanycopyrightimplicationsofmakingspatialdatapubliclyavailablewillalsobeconsideredduringthepreparationoftheBill.TheBillwillalsobedraftedtoensureitcomplementstherequirementsoftheGovernment Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

Co-ordinating committee for spatial informationTheSpatialInformationActwillestablishaco-ordinatingcommitteetosubmitrecommendationstotheMinisterforFinanceandServicesoninitiativestopromoteinfrastructureforspatialinformationinNewSouthWalesandtoassisttheMinisterwiththeimplementationanduseoftheseinitiatives.Itwillalsodeterminecustodianshiparrangementsforandthenumberofregister(s)ofdevelopmentconsents.

56 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter4atRecommendation9

57 Seethisvolume,Part6–‘Registerofconsents’

58 SeeGlossary

59 SeeGlossary

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Need to discuss with business user community.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Noty a good idea if the state wants to grow innovation.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Need this to be authorised by some over-arching agency such as LPI.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

All good but will the Minister really do this? What agency holds the authority?

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Good.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Need involvement from the private sector and user community - non-government.

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Need to follow OGC standards

4 The Spatial Information Act


Responsibility for preparation of the legislationThepreparationoftheSpatialInformationBillshouldbetheresponsibilityoftheDepartmentofFinanceandServicestoensurethattheSpatialInformationActisconsistentwiththeNSWgovernanceframeworkforSpatialDataInfrastructure.

Recommendations75.TheSpatialInformationActbeenactedcoveringcertainclassesofspatial

informationheldinelectronicformbygovernmentagenciesthatrelatetoNewSouthWales(includingthecoastalwatersoftheState).

76.DraftingoftheSpatialInformationActistoberesponsibilityoftheDepartmentofFinanceandServicesassistedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

David

Highlight


PART 5 – Integrity in the planning systemIntheintroductiontoVolume1,wenotedthebroadlackoftrustinthecommunityintheoperationandintegrityofthepresentplanningsystem.Wenotedthatwehadreceivedasubmission60bytheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruptioninresponsetotheIssuesPaperthatmadesixteenrecommendationsforimprovingtheintegrityofthesystem.Becauseoftheimportanceofrestoringpublicconfidenceintheplanningsystem,wesetoutbelowhowwehaverespondedtoeachoftheCommission’srecommendations:

ICAC Recommendation 1–ThattheNSWGovernmentensuresthatdiscretionaryplanningdecisionsaremadesubjecttomandatedsetsofcriteriathatarerobustandobjective.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Thepresentmandatoryconsiderationsfordecisionmakersbereviewedforclarityandrelevancy,includinganassessmentofcumulativeimpactsandpublicbenefits.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 9 – Recommendations 73 and 75

• AswellasgeneralobjectsfortheSustainablePlanningAct,therewillbeaseparatesetofprocessrelatedobjects.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 3 – Recommendation 7

ICAC Recommendation 2–ThattheNSWGovernmentmakesitmandatorythatmajorstrategicpolicydocumentsareconsideredduringthemakingofplanninginstruments.

NSW Planning System Review Response • LocalLand-UsePlansmustbeconsistentwithstrategicplansapplyingtothelandthatisthesubjectoftheLocalLand-UsePlan.Further,theseparateobjectsforthepreparationofLocalLand-UsePlansmustincludethattheplanmustimplementanystrategicplanadoptedcoveringthelocalgovernmentarea.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 4 – Recommendation 11

• InordertofacilitatetheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructuretoobtaina‘whole-of-government’approachtostrategicplanning,theSustainablePlanningActwillcontaina‘dutytocooperate’thatwillapplytoallcouncilsandagenciesoftheState(tobedefinedbyregulation)thatareinvolvedininfrastructure,resourcemanagementandserviceprovisionwithintherelevantboundariesoftheplan.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 4 – Recommendation 9

60 IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption,Anti-corruption Safeguards and the NSW Planning System(February2012)atpage6(Recommendation4).Seehttp://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/4023

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/4023

5 Integrity in the planning system


ICAC Recommendation 3–ThattheNSWGovernmentcontinuestoensurethatadequateoversightsafeguardsareinplacefortheassessmentanddeterminationofdevelopmentapplicationsthatproposeprohibiteduses.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Prohibiteduses’intheland-usetableofaLocalLand-UsePlanwillnotbeabletobeapprovedwithoutarezoningapplication–withtheexceptionofindustrialzones.TheprocessforspotrezoningapplicationswillreferthoseapplicationstothePlanningCommissionfordetermination.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 7 – Recommendation 41

• Prohibitedusesinindustrialzonesaretobeassessedontheirmeritswithapositiverequirementfortheproponenttodemonstrateapositive‘publicinterest’inpermittingsuchdevelopment.AnyapprovalpursuanttothislimitedexceptionistorequiretheconcurrenceoftheDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 5 – Recommendation 21

• Thedistinctionbetweena‘prohibition’anda‘developmentcontrol’willberemovedandasaresulttheonly‘prohibitions’willexistintheland-usetableinLocalLand-UsePlans.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 5 – Recommendation 22

• TheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructurewillnotmakeanymeritdecisionsregardingindividualdevelopmentproposals,exceptforStatesignificantinfrastructure.TheMinistermaydecidethatamattershouldbedeterminedbythePlanningCommissionbutthisisaprocess–notamerit–matter.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 10

ICAC Recommendation 4–ThattheNSWGovernmentintroduceschangestovoluntaryplanningagreementsthatareconsistentwiththoseproposedintheyet-to-commenceprovisionssetoutinSchedule3oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008.

NSW Planning System Review Response • TheSustainablePlanningActwillincorporatetheprovisionsintheyet-to-becommencedSchedule3Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008,relatingtovoluntaryplanningagreements.See Volume 2, Part 3

ICAC Recommendation 5–ThattheNSWGovernmentintroducesasystemofcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentforgovernmentplanningpractitioners.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Aschemeforcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentisproposedforallpersonsofanyprofessionaldisciplinecarryingoutplanningfunctionsandemployedbycouncils,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureandotherStateGovernmentdepartmentsandinstrumentalities.


• Aworkingpartywillbeestablished,ledbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,withmembersfromlocalgovernment,thePlanningInstituteofAustralia(NewSouthWales),thedevelopmentindustry,conservationgroupsandtertiaryeducationproviders,todesignaframeworkforandtheminimumannualrequirementtoundertakecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmenteducationforplanners.See Volume 1, Part I – Recommendations 143 – 147

ICAC Recommendation 6–ThattheNSWGovernmentensuresthatthenewplanninglegislationclearlyarticulatesitsobjectivesandprovidesguidanceonthepriority(ifany)tobegiventocompetingobjectives.

NSW Planning System Review Response • TheSustainablePlanningActwillincludeanoverarchingobjectaswellasprocessobjectivesandincorporateobjectsforstrategicplanningaswellasforthemakingforLocalLand-Useplans.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 3 – Recommendation 6

• WedonotproposeanyprioritiesfortherangeofobjectsforstrategicplanningorforthemakingforLocalLand-Useplans.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 4 – Recommendation 8

ICAC Recommendation 7–ThattheNSWGovernmentensuresthatitssystemforassessingandapprovingdevelopmentsofstatesignificanceprovidesadequateopportunitiesforcompetingpublicintereststobeconsidered.

NSW Planning System Review Response • AlldevelopmentproposalsforStatesignificantdevelopmentandPublicbenefitinfrastructurewillbedeterminedbythePlanningCommission–establishedunderthePlanningCommissionActtomandateproceduresensuringthatthereareadequateopportunitiesforcompetingintereststobeconsideredandforopenprocessesandgivingreasonsfordecisions.See Volume 1, Part F

• ThePlanningCommissionwillexercisedeterminativefunctionswithrespecttothefollowingrangeofmatters:

• Statesignificantdevelopment61

• Statesignificantinfrastructure(butlimitedtoconsiderationofconditionsofconsentforprojectsdeterminedbytheMinister)

• PublicbenefitinfrastructureprojectsreferredbytheMinistertotheCommissionfordetermination

• AnyotherdevelopmentproposalsreferredbytheMinistertotheCommissionfordetermination.

• See Volume 1, Part F

61 Inthiscontext,wenotethatwehaveearlierproposedthatresidentialdevelopmentproposals,whethergreenfieldorurbaninfill,thathaveaprojectedyieldof500ormoredwellingsshouldbeclassifiedasStatesignificantdevelopmentandthusfallwithinthedeterminedfunctionofthePlanningCommission.



ICAC Recommendation 8–ThattheNSWMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructureconsidersadoptingaprotocoltodealwithsituationswheretheMinisterdisagreeswithadepartmentalrecommendationconcerningaplanningmatter.TheprotocolshouldensurethatanydecisionbytheMinistertoadoptanalternativeapproach,andthereasonsforsuchadecision,areclearlydocumentedandmadepubliclyavailable.

NSW Planning System Review Response • ThereformedplanningsystemwillessentiallyremovealldecisionmakingaboutdevelopmentproposalsfromtheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructureandtransfersittoanindependent,openandparticipativeprocess–thePlanningCommission.TheexceptionisStatesignificantinfrastructure,buttheconditionsforanysuchprojectdeterminedbytheMinistermayhavetheirappropriatenessconsideredbythePlanningCommission.See Volume 1, Part F

• Asaconsequence,MinisterialdisagreementwiththeDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurewillbelimitedtopolicymattersordeterminationsaboutStatesignificantinfrastructure.Thequestionofwhetheraprotocolshouldbeadopted(assuggested),aspartofthesemorelimiteddecisionmakingrolesoftheMinister,isamatterforpoliticalconsiderationratherthanourrecommendation.However,weconsiderthatthereformedplanningsystemwehaveproposedlargelysatisfactorilyresolvestheCommission’sconcerns.See Volume 1, Part D and Volume 2, Part 2

ICAC Recommendation 9–ThattheNSWDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureproducesandmaintainsacommunityguidedealingwithdevelopmentprocesses.

NSW Planning System Review Response • TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inconjunctionwiththeLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation,prepareaplainEnglishguidetotheclassification,assessmentanddeterminationprocessesfordevelopmentproposalsundertheSustainablePlanningAct.PreparationoftheguideistobeunderthesupervisionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard.See Volume 1, Part H – Recommendation 141

• PlainEnglishexplanatorymaterials,suchasabestpracticeguidetoplanmakingandaguideforcouncillorsabouttheirdevelopmentdecisionmakingrole,willbeprepared.See Volume 2, Part 6 – Recommendation 89

ICAC Recommendation 10–ThattheNSWGovernmenttakesstepstoreducethecomplexityoftheplanningsystem,includingrationalisingthenumberofcontroldocumentsapplyingtoasingleparcelofland.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Allinformationconcerninganyparceloflandwillbeconsolidatedintoanelectronicallyaccessible,unitaryplanningdocument.

• AllStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicieswillbereviewedforrelevanceandthencollapsedintoone,well-indexeddocument(seeresponsetoRecommendation13below).See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 5 – Recommendation 14


• Electronicaccesstothewidestpossiblerangeofplanninginformation–particularlyasmappeddisplaysviaapubliclyavailablegeoportalwillbeavailable.See Volume 1, Part G and Volume 2, Part 4

ICAC Recommendation 11–ThattheNSWGovernmentrequirescommunityconsultationtobeundertakenandpublicsubmissionstobegivendueconsiderationbeforethereleaseofamajorstrategicplanningdocument.

NSW Planning System Review Response • CommunityconsultationforstrategicplanningwillbeundertakeninamannersimilartothatrecentlyundertakenintheNewEnglandNorthWestandtheUpperHunterregions,aspartofaStrategicRegionalLandUseplanningprocess.Weenvisagethattheinitialdevelopmentofstrategicplansbeundertakeninmodulestobuildtheoverallplan.Acommunityandstakeholderconsultationprocesswillthenfollowtodevelopeachmoduleasabuildingblockfortheoverallplan.Thisshouldbefollowedbyseekingresponsestotheaggregateddraftoutcomesfromtheinitialprocess.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 4

• Therewillbethemaximumuseofelectronicmediatoenablethewidestandearliestopportunitiesforpublicandotherstakeholderengagementwiththenewplanningsystem(includingfacilitatingpublicengagementinstrategicplandevelopment).See Volume 1, Part H

ICAC Recommendation 12–ThattheNSWGovernmentmandatesthatpublicsubmissionsaretobeconsideredbyaplanningauthorityfollowingtheexhibitionofadraftvoluntaryplanningagreement.

NSW Planning System Review Response • InadditiontothepresentlegislativerequirementthataPlanningAgreementbesubjecttoa28daynoticeperiod,anysubmissionsreceivedduringthatnoticeperiodwillberequiredtobeconsideredbyanyassessingofficerconsideringwhethertorecommendacceptanceofthetermsofthePlanningAgreementoranydecisionmakingbodydeterminingwhetherornottoenterintosuchanagreement.See Volume 2, Part 3 – Recommendation 52

ICAC Recommendation 13–ThattheNSWGovernmentrequiresplanninginstrumentsofstatesignificancetobesubjecttocommunityconsultation,exceptwherethereareadverseenvironmental,socialoreconomicimpactsandwheretheseadverseimpactsoutweighthebenefitsofcommunityconsultation.Wherecommunityconsultationhasnotbeenundertaken,thenthespecificreasonsfornotundertakingcommunityconsultationshouldbemadepubliclyavailablewhentheplanninginstrumentismade.

NSW Planning System Review Response • EachcurrentlyoperableStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicyistobereviewedtodeterminewhetheritneedstoberetainedand,ifso,whetherthepolicyapproachneedsrevision.Wehaverecommendedthat,oncecompleted,allremainingStateEnvironmentalPlanningPoliciesarecollapsedintoasingle,well-indexeddocumenttobeknownastheStatecontrols–formingpartofaunitaryplanninginstrumentforeachlocalgovernmentarea.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 5 – Recommendation 15



• TheintroductionofnewStatecontrolsoramendmentstoStatecontrolswillbesubjecttoacompulsorypublicconsultationprocess.TheonlyexceptiontothisisforchangestotheStatecontrolswhichareofanadministrativeorminornature.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 5

• TheMinisterwillhavetheopportunitytorefernewStatecontrolsoramendmentstoStatecontrolstothePlanningAdvisoryBoardforcomment–whichmayalsocommentonnewStatecontrolsoramendmentstoStatecontrolssubjecttopublicconsultation.See Volume 1, Part K

ICAC Recommendation 14–Thatthestandardcommunityconsultationrequirementsfordraftlocalenvironmentalplansbegivenstatutorybacking.

NSW Planning System Review Response • TheprocessesformakingchangestoLocalLand-UsePlans(otherthanthedevelopmentofanewplanoraregular,statutorilyrequiredreview)shouldbedividedintotwoseparatestreams:onefordealingwithrezoningproposals,theotherdealingwithproposedchanges(otherthanminorclericalordraftingcorrections).See Volume 2, Part 6 – Recommendations 96 and 97

• Proposalsdealingwiththere-zoningoflandareablebeconsideredbytheJointRegionalPlanningPanelorthePlanningCommission(dependingonscaleoftheproposedchangeorthestageoftheprocessbeingundertaken)whichwillbeatransparentprocess,includingcommunityconsultationandarighttobeheard.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 7 – Recommendations 40 and 41 and Volume 2, Part 6

• Proposalsfornon-rezoningchangestoLocalLand-UsePlansofasubstantialnaturewillbedealtwiththroughaprocessthatincorporatespublicnotificationandconsultationpriortoanyadoptionofsuchachange.See Volume 2, Part 6 – Recommendation 97

ICAC Recommendation 15–ThattheNSWGovernmentensuresthatplanningauthoritiesarerequiredtoprovideregularinformationandupdatestothepublicaboutdevelopmentapplicationsunderassessment,includinganysignificantchangesmadetoanapplication.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Wehavemadeaseriesofrecommendationsfortheprocedureforconsultationforamendmentstodevelopmentapplicationsasfollows:

• Forcodeassessabledevelopment,unlessitistheopinionoftheassessingcertifierthattheamendmentsareminorortheassessingcertifierissatisfiedthattheamendmentsarebeingmadeafterconsultationwiththeneighbouringownerand/oroccupierandagreedtobythem,anyamendmentswillonlyrequireacopyoftheamendmentstobeprovidedtotheoccupantsofneighbouringproperties(therebeingnorightofobjectionforcodeassessabledevelopment).


• Formeritassessableandimpactassessabledevelopment,iftheamendmentsarenotminoramendmentsintheopinionoftheassessingofficer,theamendmentsaretobesubjecttoafurthernotificationperiodorextensionofthenotificationperiodiftheamendmentsaremadeduringtheoriginalnotificationperiod.Amendmentsmayonlybepermittediftheprojectwillremainsubstantiallythesameasthatforwhichtheapplicationwasoriginallymade.

• Formeritassessabledevelopment,theadditionalnotificationperiodwillbeoneweekwhilstforimpactassessabledevelopmentitwillbetwoweeks.Ifextensionsaremadetothenotificationperiod,asimilarextensionistobeappliedautomaticallytothemandatedperiodfordetermination.

• Anyamendmentsaretobenotifiedontheassessingbody’swebsitetogetherwithelectronicnotificationtoanypersonswhohavenotifiedtheassessingbodythattheywishedtobeinformedofanyamendments.See Volume 2, Part 6 – Recommendations 80 – 86

• IfaChristmas/NewYearholidayperiodfallswithintheassessment/determinationperiods(discussedabove),anadditional10 working daysistobeadded.Similarly,iftheEasterholidayperiodfallswithintheassessment/determinationperiod,anadditional5 working daysistobeadded.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 9 – Recommendation 64

• Publiccommunicationofprocessesforproposeddevelopmentscannotbelefttomethodsusingestablishedmedia,suchaspublicnoticesanddisplayincouncilchambersorpubliclibraries.Eventhetraditionalmediumofsendinglettersis,formany,nowanoutmodedmethodofcommunication.TheabilitytoaccessemailsorTwitter®feedsonmobiledatadevices–coupledwiththeabilitytoopenalinktodataalmostinstantaneously–needstobeembracedasasignificantand,potentiallyovertime,dominantmethodofcommunicatingaboutplanningmatters.See Volume 1, Part H

• TheDepartment’swebsitewillincludeaninteractivemaptofacilitateaccesstoinformationaboutmajorprojectsbeingassessedbytheDepartment.See Volume 2, Part 12 – Recommendation 210



ICAC Recommendation 15–ThattheNSWGovernmentconsidersexpandingthecategoriesofdevelopmentsubjecttothirdpartymeritappealstoincludeprivatesectordevelopmentthat: • issignificantandcontroversial, • representsasignificantdeparturefromexistingdevelopmentstandards,and • isthesubjectofavoluntaryplanningagreement.

NSW Planning System Review Response • Wehaverejectedopenstandingmeritappealrightsforthirdparties.WeareawarethatthebroadthirdpartymeritappealrightswhichareavailableundertheQueenslandplanningsystemhasleadtocommerciallybasedlitigationbetweencompetitors.WearenotpreparedtoopenthisavenueforcostlylitigationinNSW.However,wehaverecommendedthatathirdpartymeritappealrightshouldexistforanobjectorwhocandemonstrateadirectadverseeffectbythegrantingofadispensationfromanexistingdevelopmentstandard.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 12

• Theopenstandingprovisionsofsection123ofthepresentplanninglegislationwillbemaintained.See Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 13 – Recommendation 120

• PublicparticipationandtherighttobeheardaretobeestablishedformallyintheJointRegionalPlanningPanelandPlanningCommissionprocesses–toensurethattheconcernsofthirdpartiesareconsideredinthedeterminationofdevelopment.See Volume 2, Part 1 and Part 6

• JointRegionalPlanningPanelswillberequiredtogivereasonsfordecisionsthatdisagreewiththerecommendationofanassessmentreport.ThePlanningCommissionwillberequiredtogiveandpublishreasonsforitsdecisions.See Volume 2, Part 1 – Recommendation 27 and Volume 2, Part 6 – Recommendation 135

Thesemeasures,inouropinion,provideappropriateprotectionfortherightsofthirdparties.WeconsiderthatgoingfurthermerelyrunsthesignificantriskofcostlylitigationintheCourtwithoutsufficientbenefitstocounterbalancethis.


PART 6 – The Sustainable Planning Act – additional matters IntroductionInVolume1,wesetoutthebroadframeworkfortheSustainablePlanningAct.Thefollowingsetsoutfurthermattersthatrelatetothelegislation.

Alternative community consultation processesItisimportantthatthoseundertakingbothstrategicanddetailedland-useplanningseektoengagethecommunityinthedevelopmentofplans,ratherthanmerelyconsultingthemaboutadraftplanoralimitedrangeofoptionsforaplan.Arangeoffurtherpossiblemethodscanbeusedduringconsultationprocessesbothforthedevelopmentofplansandforseekingpublicresponsetodraftsofthem.Potentialoptionstogobeyondmostcommonlyusedcurrentconsultationmeasuresincludetechniquessuchas:

• charettes(acollaborativeapproachtodesigningdrafts)• citizenjuries• professionallyconductedfocusgroups(usingpropersamplingtechniques).

Recommendation77.Thebestpracticeguidelines62forplanmaking(strategicplanningandlocalland-use

planning)aretoincludeexplanationsofhowalternativecommunityconsultationprocessesmightbeutilisedinplandevelopment.

Alternative decision-making processesInthecontextofdevelopmentproposalassessmentanddetermination,wehaverecommendedarangeofprocessesthatwouldpermitlocalconsentauthoritiestodelegatesomeoralldecisionmakingpowerstoalocalexpertpanel63.Werecommended,inVolume164,thatcouncilshavetherighttobeabletorefercontentiousmatterstoaJointRegionalPlanningPanelfordetermination.Ithasalsobeenproposedtousthatalternativedecision-makingprocesses,suchascitizenjuries,mighthavearoleindevelopmentdeterminationprocesses.Inthiscontext,wehaveconsideredwhethertheremightbeaplaceforsuchmoreexperimentaldecision-makingprocessesintheSustainablePlanningAct.Weareoftheopinionthatcouncilswishingtoexperimentwithalternativedecision-makingmodelsshouldhavetheabilitytodoso.

62 See‘Bestpracticeguidelinesforplandevelopment’inthisvolumeatPart6

63 SeePart6ofthisvolume

64 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter10atpage97

6 The Sustainable Planning Act – additional matters


Useofdifferentdecision-makingprocessesmay,overtime,improvepublicconfidenceintheintegrityofdevelopmentdecision-making.However,althoughweconsiderthattheabilitytobroadendecision-makingshouldbepermitted,ifused,itmustbesubjecttoreview.Thisshouldapplybothtothedecision-makingprocessproposedandtheprojectunderconsideration.

TheSustainablePlanningActshouldmakeprovisiontoallowalternativedecision-makingprocessestobeproposedbyacouncil.However,theconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructureshouldberequired,atleastuntilthereisabodyofpracticalexperience(andpositiveoutcomes)withinthenewplanningsystemwithsuchalternatives.ThecouncilshouldadvisetheMinisterofwhatprocessisproposedtobeadoptedandthenatureoftheproject.AnysuchapplicationtotheMinistershallincludetheapplicant’sviewsontheproposalthatthisistooccur.

Recommendation78.TheSustainablePlanningActistopermitacounciltoadoptanalternativedecision

makingprocess,outsidethescopeofthemandatoryrangeofprocessesprovidedfor,butonlywiththeconcurrenceoftheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

Amendments to development proposals during assessment processesClearly,itisdesirablethatadevelopmentproposalisabletobeamendedduringtheassessmentprocessinordertorespondtomattersofconcern.Wehaveproposedthe‘amberlightapproach’toencouragethoseundertakingassessmentstosuggestamendmentsthatwouldrenderaproposalacceptable65.However,thenature,extentandtimingofamendmentsareofconsiderableimportancefordevelopmentthatfallswithinmeritorimpactassessabledevelopment.Toalesserextent,amendmentstocodeassessabledevelopmentrequireconsideration,asdiscussedbelow.

Thepresentplanningsystemimposessomerestrictionsonthescopeofamendmentsthatarepermissible.TheSustainablePlanningActshouldcontainprovisionstoclarifytheamendmentprocess–thetestbeingthatwhichcurrentlyappliestoapplicationstomodifyanexistingdevelopmentconsent66.

Recommendation79.TheSustainablePlanningActistomakeitclearthatanyamendmentsmadetoa

proposedprojectduringtheassessmentprocesscannotaltertheproposalinsuchamajorwaythatitisnolongersubstantiallythesameprojectasthatintheoriginalapplication.


66 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,sections96and96AA


Amendments to code assessable developmentForcodeassessabledevelopment,wehaverecommendedthattheapplicationmustbeprovidedtoneighbouringpropertyownerand/oroccupierspriortotheapplicationbeingmade.Asaconsequence,anyamendmentstoacodeassessableapplicationwillrequireacopyoftheamendmentstobeprovidedtotheoccupantsofneighbouringpropertiesunless:

• intheopinionoftheassessingcertifier,theamendmentsareminor,or• theassessingcertifierissatisfiedthattheamendmentsarebeingmadeafterconsultingwiththeownersand/oroccupiersofneighbouringpropertiesandobtainingtheiragreement.

Amendments to merit assessable and impact assessable developmentFormeritassessableandimpactassessabledevelopmentproposals,thedegreeofamendmentwillalsoinfluencetheprocess.Theamendmentsmaynotbeminoramendmentsintheopinionoftheassessingofficer.Inthiscase,theywillberequiredtobesubjecttoafurthernotificationperiod(oranextensiontothenotificationperiodiftheamendmentsaremadeduringtheoriginalnotificationperiod)topermitpublicparticipationwithrespecttothoseamendments.

Astheextentoftheamendmentsthatareabletobemadeislimitedbythetestthatwehaverecommendedabove,wedonotconsiderthattheoriginalnotificationprocesswillneedtoberepeated,requiringextensiveadditionaltime.Formeritassessabledevelopment,weconsiderthatanadditional5 working dayswouldbeappropriatewhilst,forimpactassessabledevelopment,anadditional10 working dayswouldbeappropriateeachtimeamendmentsareproposed.

Whereamendmentsresultinextensionstothenotificationperiod,asimilarextensionshouldautomaticallybeapplytothemandatedperiodfordetermination.

Recommendations80.Amendmentstocodeassessabledevelopmentaretobepermittedpriorto

determinationoftheapplication.

81.Unless,intheopinionoftheassessingcertifier,theamendmentsareminor,ortheassessingcertifierissatisfiedthattheamendmentsarebeingmadeafterconsultationwiththeownersandoccupiersofallneighbouringpropertiesandareagreedtobythoseowners,anyamendmentstocodeassessableapplicationswillrequirethecounciltoprovideacopyoftheamendmentstotheownersoftheneighbouringpropertieswhoseownershavenotagreedtotheamendments.

82.Formeritandimpactassessabledevelopment,iftheamendmentsarenotminorintheopinionoftheassessingofficer,theamendmentsaretohaveafurthernotificationperiod,orextensionofthenotificationperiodiftheamendmentsaremadeduringtheoriginalnotificationperiod.



83.Formeritassessabledevelopment,theadditionalnotificationperiodistobe5 working days,whilstforimpactassessabledevelopmentitistobe10 working dayseachtimeamendmentsareproposed.

84.Ifextensionsaremadetothenotificationperiod,asimilarextensionistobeappliedautomaticallytothemandatedperiodfordetermination.

85.Anyamendmentsaretobenotifiedontheassessingbody’swebsite.

86.Formeritandimpactassessabledevelopment,thereistobeelectronicnotificationtoanypersonswhohavenotifiedtheassessingbodythattheywishedtobeinformedofanyamendmentsorwhohavealreadylodgedasubmission.

Architectural review and design panelsThepresentplanninglegislationpermitstheestablishmentofanIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelconstitutedbyarchitecture,heritageorurbandesignexperts.However,thereisnospecificprovisioninthepresentplanninglegislationpermittingestablishmentofanyadvisorybodiestoconsiderbroaderpolicymattersofthisnature.Thereshouldbetheabilityforacounciltoestablishsuchbroader-scopedadvisorybodies.

Recommendation87.Councilsaretobeabletoestablishspecialistlocaladvisorypanelstodealsolelywith

architectural,urbandesignand/orheritagematters.

Assessing development proposed by public authorities Areformedplanningsystemneedstoensurethatdevelopmentundertakenbyoronbehalfofapublicauthorityforpublicpurposesisappropriatelyassessedanddetermined.

Currently,aseparatePart67ofthepresentplanninglegislationappliestosomedevelopmentundertakenbypublicauthorities.ThesebodiesincludeStategovernmentdepartmentsandinstrumentalities,localgovernment,Stateownedcorporationsorotherstatutorilycreatedbodiessuchasuniversities.ThisPartallowsthesebodiestoundertakeself-assessmentanddeterminationofproposeddevelopments.Thishasmeantthat,inpractice,theseactivitieshavebeenlargelyoutsidethescrutinyofdevelopmentproposalassessmentanddeterminationrequirementsofPart4ofthepresentplanninglegislation.Therangeofdevelopmentsundertakenbypublicauthoritiesisverywide.Itrangesfrommaintenanceactivitiesforexistingfacilitiesthroughtolargescaleprojectssuchasnewhospitals,schoolsandroadprojects.

Forsmallerscaleprojects,thepresentprocesshasgenerallybeenuncontroversial.Forlargerscaleprojects,however,councilsandcommunityorganisationshaveargued

67 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,Part5


thatseparateassessmentanddeterminationhasmeantthatdifferent(andlesser)standardshavebeenappliedtosomeprojects,suchasparkingspacesforpublicauthorityprojectsbeingsignificantlyfewerthanwouldhavebeenrequiredhadthedevelopmentbeenundertakenprivately.

However,publicauthoritiesthatcurrentlybenefitfromtheseexistingprovisionsstronglysupportcontinuingself-assessmentanddeterminationforpublicprojects.Indeed,itwassuggestedtousbyonesuchauthoritythatthatbodyshouldbegivenadditionalpowerstoactastheassessingandconsentauthorityforprivatedevelopmentproposedtobeundertakenonlanditownedorcontrolled.

Weproposethatassessmentanddeterminationofallpermitteddevelopmentshouldfallwithinourfourrecommendedcategories68fordevelopment.Thereisnoreasonwhydevelopmentproposedtobeundertakenbyoronbehalfofapublicauthorityshouldbeexemptfrombeingcategorisedinthesamefashionasprivatedevelopment.Thecriticalquestionforsuchdevelopmentistowhatextentshouldthisdevelopmentbesubjecttoaself-assessmentprocess?

Atheoreticallypuremodelmightrequireidenticalprocessestoapplytopublicauthorityandprivatedevelopment.However,thehistoryandlackofcontroversyforsmallerscalepublicdevelopmentspersuadesusthat,forthemostpart,itisappropriatetoretainaself-assessmentprocess.

WeproposethatalldevelopmentproposedbyapublicauthorityexceptdevelopmentwithinthescopeofStatesignificantinfrastructureandPublicbenefitinfrastructureistobeassessedbythepublicauthority.Further,developmentswhichfallwithinStatesignificantinfrastructureorPublicbenefitinfrastructureistobeassessedthoughanindependentprocesswithintheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

Recommendation88.Assessmentprocessesforpublicauthorityprojectsaretobeassetoutbelow:

Development Track Assessment Body



Codeassessment Publicauthority

Meritassessment Publicauthority

Impactassessment PublicauthorityorDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure

68 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter6



Assisting elected councillors in development decision makingItisessentialthatcouncillorsunderstandtheirpolicy-settingrole.Itisarolethatcanreflectphilosophicandideologicalmattersrelatingtodevelopmentpatternswithintheirlocalgovernmentarea,providedtheyareconsistentwithstrategicplans,StatecontrolsandtheLocalLand-UsePlan.Decisionsaboutindividualdevelopmentproposalsmustbemadeinaproperfashionwithinthatframeworkandnotonapurelypopulistorpoliticalbasis,unsupportedbysuchaframework.

Three‘NIM’factorshavebeendescribedashavingapervasivelynegativeculturalimpactonlocaldecisions.Theyare:

• NIMBY–‘notinmybackyard’• NIMCA–‘notinmycouncilarea’,and• NIMTOO–‘notinmytermofoffice’

–namesgivenfortherejectionofproposeddevelopmentswithoutproperplanningreasonsfordoingso.

Decisionsmadewithoutaproperplanningfoundationhavethreesignificantnegativeimpacts:• ItisoftenclearthataprojectwillbeappealedtotheCourtandinevitablethatitwillbeapprovedonappeal.TheeffectisexpensiveblameshiftingtotheCourt.Thisexposesthecouncilanditsratepayerstosignificantlegalcostsdefendingthecouncildecision.Indeed,insomecases,acostsordermaybemadeinfavourofasuccessfulproponent.Theremayalsobeasignificantadditionalcostincurredforanexternalconsultantplanner(andpossiblyotherexperts)whoarepreparedtoprovideevidenceinsupportoftheelectedcouncil’spositionwhereitiscontrarytothepositiontakenbythecouncil’sprofessionalstaff.

• Itcanhaveasignificantimpactonthecultureoftheplanningstaffofthecouncil.Itmaycausecouncilstafftofeelasenseoffrustrationthattheirprofessionalrecommendationsarerejected.Equallydamaging,itmayencouragestafftowriteassessmentreportstojustifytheanticipateddesiredpoliticaloutcome,ratherthantakeaproperplanningapproachtotheproposeddevelopment.

• Themorefrequentlythatelectedcouncilsdepartfromproperplanningdecisionmaking,themorelikelyitistobecomeaself-reinforcingprocess.Anexpectationiscreatedinthecouncil’sconstituencythatdecisionsoncontroversialmatterswillbemadeinresponsetocommunitysentimentratherthanonaproperplanningbasis.

Itisnotonlyratepayerswhoareexposedtosignificantlegalexpenseinthesesituations.Developmentproponentsareexposed,notonlytothesignificantexpensesoflitigation,butalsotothelikelihoodofadditionalholdingcostsoccasionedbythedelay.Thesecostsactasasignificanteconomicdragontheconstructionanddevelopmentindustry.

Althoughtherearerisksingivingelectedcouncillorstherighttochoosetobeinvolvedindevelopmentdecision-making,wehaveconcluded,onbalance,thatitisnotappropriatetoremovethatrole.However,itisessentialthatcouncillorshaveaproperunderstandingofthelegislativeframeworkoftheplanningsystem.Itisalsovitalthattheyareawareoftheconfinedandappropriatebasesonwhichtheyareentitledtomakedecisionsaboutdevelopmentproposals.


Trainingmaterialsareneededinordertoexplaintocouncillorswhatistheirproperroleindeterminingdevelopmentproposals.Thesematerialsshouldbeincorporatedintoinductionprocessesfornewlyelectedcouncillors,andshouldbemadeavailabletocouncillorselectedatby-electionsduringtheelectioncycle.Thematerialshouldnotonlyencompassdecision-makingaboutdevelopmentproposals,butshouldalsoencompasstheirbroaderrolesinthedevelopmentoftheplanningframework.

ThequestionofwhetherthereshouldbesomeformofmandatoryinductioncourseforelectedcouncillorsisfarbroaderthanthemattersthatweneedtotraverseinthisReviewPaper.However,thepreparationofmaterialwerecommendaboutthereformedplanningsystemwouldbeavailableforcouncillorinductionifthatweretoarisefromtheseparatereviewbeingundertakenoftheLocal Government Act 1993.

Recommendation89.Theworkinggroupestablishedtocreateaprofessionaldevelopmentprogram

forcouncilandStateGovernmentplannersisalsotoconsiderwaystodevelopanddelivertrainingmaterialsforelectedcouncillorsonplanningpolicyanddevelopmentdecisionmaking.

Availability of assessment reportsCurrently,thepracticeofcouncilsmakingavailableassessmentreportsondevelopmentproposalsvarieswidely.Theonlystatutoryrequirementisthatsuchreportshavetobeavailableonrequest70.Weconsiderthatthisisanunsatisfactoryposition.

Weareawareofthepossibilitythatimposingamandatorytimeperiodformakingsuchreportsavailablemayextenddecision-makingtimesbut,wheretherehavebeenpublicsubmissionsobjectingtothedevelopmentproposal,wethinkthatthisisnotunreasonable.

Weconsideritappropriatethat,iftherehavebeenpublicobjectionslodgedtoameritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopmentproposal,theassessingbodyshouldbeobligedtomaketheassessmentreportavailableonitswebsiteatleastoneweekpriortoanydeterminationbeingmadeabouttheproposal.Ifsubmittershaveregisteredane-mailaddressforelectroniccontact,theassessingauthorityshouldbeobligedtoe-mailthemadvisingthatthereportisavailable.

69 SeeVolume1,PartIatRecommendation143

70 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009,section8orPart3



Recommendations90.Anyassessmentreportformeritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopment

proposalsistobemadeavailableonthewebsiteoftheassessingbody,atleastoneweekpriortoanydeterminationbeingmadeoranyhearingplanningmeetingofthePlanningCommission.

91.Ifthesubmittershaveregisteredane-mailaddress,theassessingauthorityistoe-mailadvisingoftheavailabilityoftheassessmentreportontheassessingauthority’swebsite.

Best practice guidelines for plan developmentAwide-spreadcommunitycomplaintwasthatpastandcurrentplandevelopmentprocesseswereusually“topdown”.AsweobservedintheprologuetoVolume171,strategicplanningistobea“bottomup”process.AsimilarpositionmustalsoapplytodevelopmentofLocalLand-UsePlansandDevelopmentControlPlans.Topromotethissignificantshiftinemphasis,guidanceonwhatarethebestpracticeoptionsforcommunityengagementattheearliestopportunityintheplandevelopmentprocess(ofwhatevertypeofplan)isessential.

Recommendations92.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroup

drawnfrompropertyindustryinterests;localgovernment;therelevantprofessions(planning,architecture,urbandesign,heritageandlaw);andconservationandcommunitygroups[reflectingthecompositionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard]todevelopdraftguidelinesonbestpracticeoptionsforcommunityengagementintheplandevelopmentprocess.

93.TheguidelinesaretobeconsideredbythePlanningAdvisoryBoardpriortoadoptionbytheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure.

Certification of code assessable development proposalsAprivatecertifiercangrantconsenttoacodeassessabledevelopmentproposal,subjecttodesignatedconditions.Oneofthemajorcriticismsoftheprivatecertificationprocessarisingduringthecommunityforumswasthattherewasanincentiveforaprivatecertifiertoapprovesuchanapplicationbecauseofthebenefitsthatwouldflowfromundertakingsubsequentcertificationinspections.Weareoftheviewthatthereisasignificantriskofagenuineperceivedconflictofinterest(orapprehensionofbias)72inthiscircumstance.Topreventthis,aprivatecertifier(whograntssuchaconsent)shouldbeprohibitedfrom

71 SeeVolume1,Prologueatpage7

72 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy[2000]HCA63;205CLR337;176ALR644;75ALJR277


beingthecertifierforsubsequentsiteinspections.Suchaprohibitionshouldextendtocertifierpartnershipsorincorporatedentitiessothatapprovalandinspectionprocessesareseparated.

Thisprohibitionisnotnecessarywhencertificationandinspectionactivitiesareundertakenbyacouncilastherenoperceptionofanypecuniaryinterestarisingfromthetworoles.However,forequallyobviousperceptionreasons,wedonotconsideritappropriatethatacouncilofficerwhograntsconsenttoacodeassessabledevelopmentshouldalsoactastheofficerundertakinginspectionsifthecouncilisalsoappointedasthePrincipalCertifyingAuthorityforthedevelopment.

Weappreciatethatitispossiblethatinsomeruralareasthismaycausedifficulties,giventhecomparativelysmallstaffinglevelsinsomecouncils.Asaconsequence,wealsoconsideritappropriatethat,insuchcircumstances,theMinistershouldbegivenauthoritytograntanexemptionfromthisrequirementtosuchacouncil.

Recommendations94.Privatecertifiers(includingpartnersinoremployeesofthesameentity)andcouncil

staffarenottobepermittedtoinspectdevelopmentsthattheyhaveapproved.

95.Councilsaretobeabletoseekanexemption,fromtheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure,tothisprohibition.

Changes to Local Land-Use PlansCurrently,allproposedchangestolocalplansareknownas‘planningproposals’–whethertheyrelatetochangesinzoningoflandorchangestootherdetailsoflocalplans(suchasamendingcontrolsintheplanorlistinganewitemoflocalheritagesignificance).Itisnecessarythatstatutoryimplementationofasimplifiedsystemforrezoning73shouldbeseparatedfromotherprocessesforchanginglocalplans.Therezoningprocess,particularlysite-specificrezoningprocesseswhichmayresultinanintensificationofdevelopment,aresignificantlydifferentfromproposalsthatchangeotherdetailsinalocalplan.OurrezoningprocesswillencompassaJointRegionalPlanningPanelprocessandmakeprovisionforpublicinvolvementinandarighttobeheardonanysuchproposal.

Otherchangesshouldbeseparatedfromthisrezoningprocess.Whilstitshouldbepossibleforcouncilstoinitiateminornon-rezoningchangestolocalplansthroughasimplifiedprocess,thisalsoneedstoembodyarightforthelocalcommunitytobeheardontheproposedchanges(exceptthosethatarepurelyclericalorcorrectiveofdraftingdefects74).


74 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section73A



Recommendations96.TheprocessesformakingchangestoLocalLand-UsePlans(otherthanthe

developmentofanewplanoraregular,statutorilyrequiredreview)aretobedividedintoseparatestreams,onetodealwithrezoningandonetodealwithotherproposedchanges.

97.Proposalsfornon-rezoningchangestoLocalLand-UsePlans(otherthanminorclericalordraftingcorrectingchanges)aretoincorporatepublicnotificationandconsultationpriortoadoptionofsuchachange.

Conditions of development consent

Categorising the elements of a development consentSomeconditionsapplyingtodevelopmentconsentsrelatetorightsandobligationsthatareenduring.Some,however,imposetemporaryobligationsthatonlyapplyduringconstructionfortheproposeddevelopment.Conditionsgenerallyfallintothreecategories:

• conditionsthatapproveuseofland• conditionsthatregulateconstructionorpreparationactivitiesthatarenecessarytopermittheusetobeundertaken

• conditionsnecessarytoregulateongoingactivitiesassociatedwiththepermitteduse.

Wehaverecommendedestablishmentofanonlineregisterofdevelopmentconsents75.Thiswillmeanthat,overtime,adevelopmenthistorycanaccrueforaparcelofland.Toassistthis,thereneedstobeastandardlayoutforgroupingconditionsofdevelopmentconsentintothesethreecategories.

Recommendation98.Developmentconsentsaretoberequiredtohavetheirconditionsdividedinto:

• thosethatdefineandauthoriseapermitteduseoftheapproveddevelopment• thosethatdefinetheconditionsthatregulateandcontrolthedevelopmentthatisnecessarytoallowthepermittedusetooperate

• thoseconditionsthathaveanongoingbasisinregulatinghowthepermitteduseoperatesintothefuture.

75 See‘Registerofconsents’inthisPartbelow


The use of template or default conditions of development consentDevelopingtemplateormodelconditionsofconsentmeansthattheycanbeadaptedtoapplytoarangeofdevelopmentclasses,asfollows:

• conditionsofconsentforcodeassessabledevelopment• minimumordefaultconditionsforwhenadevelopmentproposalisreferredtoaconcurrenceauthorityforcommentsand/ordraftconditionsofconsentandatimelyresponseisnotprovided

• conditionsformajorprojectsthatcanbeadaptedtothecircumstancesoftheindividualproject.

WeareawarethattheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurehasrecentlypublishedsomedraftmodelconditionsforprojectsfallinginthefinalcategoryabove.

Recommendation99.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroupwith

representativesfromlocalgovernment,thedevelopmentindustryandcommunityandenvironmentalnetworkstoidentifydevelopmenttypeswheretemplateormodelconditionsofconsentwouldbedesirable(includingdevelopmenttypeswhereconcurrenceauthoritydelaysarecommon)andtodeveloptemplateormodelconditionsofconsentforthosedevelopmenttypes.

Trial periods for development consentsCurrently,itisnotunusual(particularlyforlicensedpremisesand/orentertainmentvenues)tohaveatrialperiodimposedasaconditionofconsent.Thisisnotgenerallycontroversial,ifmatterssuchasthelocationorcurrentamenityimpactsmakeitdesirable.Thetrialmayrelatetotheusegenerallyortoaparticularaspect,suchashoursofoperation.However,someplans76appeartoenvisageanopenendedrollingseriesoftrialperiods,withoutafinaldeterminationbeingmadeabouttheappropriatenessoftheapplicationorthetrialledaspectsofit,iftheapplicationrelatestotradinghoursorthelike.

Weconsideritappropriatethatapointoffinalityshouldbereachedintheconsiderationofanydevelopment.Developmentapprovalsareimportantpropertyrightsthatrunwiththelandandanapplicantisentitled,eventually,tohaveafinaldeterminationmadeaboutaproposeddevelopment.Althoughthereshouldbethepossibilityofanumberofextensionstotrialperiods(totakeintoaccountcircumstancesthataroseduringthecourseoftheoriginaltrial)thenumberofoccasionsforwhichthiscanberequiredandthemaximumperiodoftimeforwhichtrialperiodscanberequiredshouldbefixed.Aftertheexpiryofthatmaximumperiod,theconsentauthorityshouldmakeafinaldeterminationthatis,ifnecessary,abletobeappealedintheLandandEnvironmentCourt.

76 Forexample,asappearstobeenvisagedbytheDraftSydneyDevelopmentControlPlan2010at2.16–LateNightTradingManagement



Recommendation100.TheSustainablePlanningActistomakeitclearthattrialperiodsfordevelopment

proposalsaretobepermittedbutthatamaximumofthreetrialperiodsencompassingatotalmaximumperiodoffiveyearsistoapply,beforeafinaldetermination(togivepermanentapprovalortorefuseapproval)ismadeontheproposal.

Requiring security bonds as a condition of consentThepresentplanninglegislationpermitsconsentauthoritiestorequiresecuritybondstoensurethatanydamagecausedtopublicinfrastructureasaresultofdevelopmentwillbepaidforbythedevelopmentproponent.TheLandandEnvironmentCourthasheld77thataconsentauthoritymaynotrequireasecuritybondforanyotherpurpose.

However,inourview,itisdesirableforconsentauthoritiestobeabletoimposesecuritybondsforotherpurposes.Similarbondsareimposedinspheresofdevelopmentactivitythatareregulatedbyotherlegislation,forexample,undertheMining Act 1992securitybondscanbeimposedforrehabilitationcosts.

Anextendedabilitytoimposebondsshouldnotbepermittedforcodeassessabledevelopmentorforotherminordevelopments.Ifconditionsaretobeimposedthatrequiresecuritytobeprovided,thepowerneedstobeclearlydefinedandlimited.Weenvisagethatthispowerwouldonlybepermittedwherefailingtocomplywithdevelopmentconsentwouldresultinapublicauthorityoraneighbouringlandholderhavingtopayforrectification/remediationcosts.Theconsentauthoritymustbeabletodemonstratethatthereisarealandsubstantialriskofnon-compliancebeforeitwouldbepossibletoimposesuchacondition.

Recommendation101.ConditionsrequiringsecuritybondsaretobepermittedbytheSustainable

PlanningActformeritandimpactassessabledevelopmentformattersbroaderthandamagetopublicinfrastructure,butonlytotheextentwhereitcanbedemonstratedthattherewasarealandsubstantialriskofnon-compliancewiththeconditionsofadevelopmentconsentandthatsuchnon-compliancewouldresultinapublicauthorityoraneighbouringlandholderhavingtopayrectification/remediationcoststoremedytheconsequencesofthebreach.

77 Forexample,thedecisionofLloyd J in Charalambous v Ku-ring-gai Council(2007)155LGERA352;[2007]NSWLEC510whereheconfirmedthatthescopeofsection80limitedthepowerofaconsentauthoritytoimposefinancialsuretiesanddidnotpermitfinancialsuretiestobeimposedforotherpurposes,suchaslandscapemaintenanceasrequiredbytheconditionsofadevelopmentconsent.


Public interest conditionsWesetoutinVolume178thethreetests(knownastheNewburytest)thatapplytodeterminewhetheraproposedconditionofconsentcanvalidlybeappliedtoaproposeddevelopment.Thesecondtestrequiresthattherebeanexusbetweenthedevelopmentandthecondition.

InourIssuesPaper,wecanvassedthepossibilitythattheremightbeaneedforbroaderpublicinterestconditionsimposedonaparticulardevelopmentdespitethesecondNewburytestnexusrequirement.Anexampleofthismight(andweonlypostulatemight)betheimpositionofaconditionofconsentonawindfarmthatrequiresacommunitycompensationschemetoprovidefacilitiesforabroader(butstilllocal)community.Weareawareofanumberofcaseswheresuchaconditionhasbeenacceptedbythewindfarmprojectproponent.

Inordertoremoveanypossibilityofdoubtthatsuchconditionscanbeimposed,weconsiderthatitisdesirabletoprovidealegislativebasistomakesuchpublicinterestconditionspermissible.Whilstweexpectthattherangeofmatterswhereitwouldbeappropriatetoimposesuchaconditionwillbesmall(andwewouldexpectthattheappropriatenessofdoingsowouldbeself-evident).Providingforthisisasmallbutdesirablereform.

Recommendation102.Thereistobeaspecificstatutoryprovisionthatpermitsaconsentauthorityto

imposeaconditionofdevelopmentconsentfoundedonthepublicinterest,evenifthereisnoimmediatenexusorconnectionwiththeproposeddevelopmentbutwherethenatureoftheconditioncanbeseenasreasonableandasasufficientlygeographicallyproximateresponsetotheproposeddevelopment.

Definitions in the Sustainable Planning Act

IntroductionOneoftheaspectsoftheStandardTemplateinstrumentprocessthatwasthesubjectofwide,favourablecommentduringthecommunityconsultationprocesswastheuseofadictionarywithuniformlydefinedterms.This,itwasfelt,hadthepotentialtolimitopportunitiesforlitigationonsuchissues.Further,littlecomplaintwasmadeinsubmissionsinresponsetotheIssuesPaperexpressingdissatisfactionwiththedefinitionsinthepresentplanninglegislation.

78 SeeVolume1,PartC,IntroductiontoChapter11



InVolume179,wesetouttheninemattersaboutdefinitionsthatwefeltrequiredconsideration.Two80majoronesweredealtwithinVolume1.TheremainderweredeferredtothisVolume.Theyare: 1. Shouldtherebeadefinitionof‘thepublicinterest’? 2. Shouldtherebeadefinitionof‘sustainabledevelopment’? 3. Doesthedefinitionof‘development’inthepresentplanninglegislationneed

toberevised? 4. Shouldtherebeadefinitionof‘affordablehousing’andwhetherstudenthousing

shouldbeincluded 5. Theneedtodefineeachofthenewclassificationsintowhichadevelopment

proposalmightfall 6. Thebringingtogetherofalldefinitionsintoadictionary 7. Theneedforcross-referencingofdefinitionscontainedinotherpiecesoflegislation.

‘The public interest’AsaconsequenceofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealinTerrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council81,therangeofmattersthatmaybetakenintoaccountinconsidering‘thepublicinterest’whenassessingordeterminingadevelopmentproposalisverywide.However,itisalsoclearthatthescopeofmattersthatmaybetakenintoaccountinconsidering‘thepublicinterest’isbroadbutisstillnotentirelyunconfined–inthattherewouldhavetobeprovidedaproperlyenunciatedbasisuponwhichaparticularfactorwastakenintoaccount.

Weareoftheviewthattoattempttodefine‘thepublicinterest’inafashionthatsoughttocodifytherangeofsourcesortypesofdocumentsabletobeconsideredwouldbetoimposeanirresponsiblerestrictiononanassessingordeterminingauthority.Bywayofexample,anydefinitionof‘thepublicinterest’draftedinthe1950’s(butstillapplicable30yearslater–thatbeingthelifespanofthepresentplanninglegislation)mightwellhaveexcludedasbestos-relatedimpactsbecausethestateofknowledgeinthe1950’s.Asimilarpositionmightwellhaveariseninthe1970’saboutthepublichealthimpactsofpassiveinhalationoftobaccosmoke.

Itisinevitablethatsimilarcircumstancesarelikelytoariseinthefutureifweattempttocodifywhatconstitutes‘thepublicinterest’forassessingordeterminingadevelopmentproposal.Asaconsequence,wehavedecidedthatitisnotappropriatetodoso,astheassessingbodyneedstoconsiderthisissueagainstthethencurrentsocietalnormsandthestateofscientificknowledgeattherelevanttime.

‘Sustainable development’Therehasbeenabroadbutnotuniversalconsensusthatareformedplanningsystemshouldincorporateproperregardfortheprinciplesof‘sustainabledevelopment’.Inthiscontext,therehasalsobeensignificantsupportforincorporatingadefinitionof‘sustainable

79 Volume1,PartC,Chapter14

80 Shouldtherebedefinitionsof‘minor’andof‘physicalcommencement’

81 Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2003]NSWCA289;(2003)129LGERA195perMasonPatpara81


development’inthereforminglegislation.Whilewehaverecommended82thatthesingleoverarchingobjectfortheSustainablePlanningActshouldreflectthedesirabilityof‘triplebottomline’83outcomes,nonethelesstheconceptof‘sustainabledevelopment’isonetowhichitisappropriatetohaveregardinthestrategicplanning,localland-useplanninganddevelopmentassessmentprocesses.Asaconsequence,wearesatisfiedthatthetermshouldbedefinedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

Itisdesirablethataconsistentapproachbetakentothedefinitionof‘sustainabledevelopment’.Asaresult,thedefinitionadoptedinthepresentplanninglegislationshouldberetained,asthesamedefinitionisusedintheProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1995.Wewouldalsoobserve,however,thatifthereweretobeanyrevisionofthatdefinition,asimilarrevisionshouldbemadetothedefinitioncontainedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

‘Development’Thepresentplanninglegislationcontainsadefinitionof‘development’84.Thisdefinitionhasbeenbroadlysupportedinthesubmissionsandweseenoreasontoalterit.

‘Affordable housing’Theplanningsystemneedstorecogniseproperlythedesirabilityofprovidingaffordablehousingasitisanimportantpartofthesocialaspectofatriplebottomlineoutcome.ThiswasreflectedinanumberofsubmissionsinboththeconsultationprocessandtotheIssuesPaper.Consequently,‘affordablehousing’mustbedefinedtoreflectthecontextinwhichitisprovidedandreflectavarietyofhousingtypessothatthewidespectrumofneedsforsuchaccommodationcanalsobeconsidered.

‘Student accommodation’AspecificquestionwasraisedbytheViceChancellors’Committee85astowhetherornotcampusservingand/orcampus-basedstudentaccommodationfortertiaryeducationinstitutionsshouldberegardedas‘affordablehousing’.Thissubmissionsuggestedthatitbeacknowledgedassuchbecauseoftheimportantcontributionthatitmakestotheaffordabilityofeducation.Italsosuggestedthatthepotentialimpactsofsuchhousingonmattersofdevelopmentassessmentconcerns(suchasparkingdemand)waslikelytobecomparabletothatofconventionalaffordablehousing,becauseoftherestrictedeconomiccircumstancesofthoseresidinginsuchaccommodation.

Wearealsopersuadedthat,becauseofthesignificantvalueofthehumancapitalforoursocietythatisproducedbytheeducationprocessandthesignificanteconomicbenefitstotheStateeconomyofinboundoverseasstudents,suchaccommodationshouldbedefinedas‘affordablehousing’.Inaddition,recognisingstudentaccommodationas‘affordablehousing’mayresultinlessdemandbystudentsforaccommodationincomplexesthatareunapprovedmultipleoccupancies.


83 Triplebottomlineoutcomesarethosewhichareecologically,economicallyandsociallysustainable

84 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section4

85 NewSouthWalesVice-Chancellors’Committee,Submission in Response to the Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review(29February2012).Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6947tSfH2As%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6947tSfH2As%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6947tSfH2As%3d&tabid=119&mid=569



Defining development classificationsTheadoptionofamodifiedversionoftheDevelopmentAssessmentForummodel86ofclassificationsofdevelopmentmeansthatthesedevelopmenttypeswillneedtobedefinedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

A dictionary in the new legislationThepresentplanninglegislationincorporatesmoststatutorydefinitionsinaclauseatthebeginningofthelegislation87;however,otherdefinitionsarescatteredthroughoutit.Contemporarydraftingpracticeplacesalldefinitionsinadictionaryattheendoflegislation.ThisisasensibleapproachandshouldbeadoptedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

Cross-referencing definitions contained in other pieces of legislationAnumberofthedefinitionsinthepresentplanninglegislationmerelyadoptdefinitionsthatarefoundinotherActs.Forexample,thedefinitionof‘owner’istobefoundbyreferencingthedefinitionof‘owner’containedintheLocal Government Act 1993.IfthedefinitioninthisActischanged,thedefinitioninthepresentplanninglegislationalsochanges.

Currently,electroniccross-referencingfromthedefinitionof‘owner’inthepresentplanninglegislationmerelytakesthereadertothecontentspageoftheLocal Government Act 1993.Thereaderisthenlefttonavigatearoundthatlegislation;findthedictionarywhichislocatedattheendofthatAct;andthenfindthedefinitionof‘owner’inthatdictionary.Thisisnotauser-friendlymethod.Giventheadventofmoderntechnology,changingadefinitionsharedbymorethanonepieceoflegislation,ifreproducedinfullineachenactment(ratherthanbycross-referencing),isnotadifficultprocess.

AsthemajorityofuseoftheSustainablePlanningActislikelytobeelectronic,thereisnoreasonwhyalldefinitionscontainedinthedictionarytothenewlegislationshouldnotbespeltoutinfull.Ifany“parent”definitionwerechanged,thiscouldautomaticallybemadeintheSustainablePlanningAct.

Recommendations103.AlldefinitionsintheSustainablePlanningActaretobelocatedinadictionaryatthe

endofthatActandnotlocatedwithinthebodyofthelegislation.

104.Adefinitionof‘affordablehousing’istobeincludedinthedictionaryintheSustainablePlanningAct.

105.Studentaccommodationistobeincludedinthedefinitionof‘affordablehousing’.

106.AlldefinitionsthatarepresentlyderivedbyreferencingthetermsofadefinitioncontainedinanotherstatutearetobespeltoutinfullinthedictionarytotheSustainablePlanningAct.


87 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section4


107.Adefinitionof‘sustainabledevelopment’istobeincorporatedinthesametermsastheProtection of Environment Operations Act 1995.

108.Existingdefinitionscontainedinthepresentplanninglegislationaretobebroughtacross,totheextentnecessary,buttheirlanguageistobereviewedtoseeifanyrevisionofanytermisrequired.

109.DefinitionsintheSustainablePlanningActaretoreflectthecategoriesofdevelopmentsetoutinthemodifiedDevelopmentAssessmentForummodeldescribedinVolume1,PartCChapter6.

Demolition – limitations on development approvalsDuringthecommunityforumsandinsubmissionstotheIssuesPaper,concernswereraisedabouttheextentofdemolitionpermittedunderwhatiscurrentlycomplyingdevelopment.Weconsiderthatmostmattersofwhatshouldbeincludedasexemptorcomplyingdevelopmentshouldbedealtwithaspartoftherecommendedbroadreview88ofexemptorcomplyingdevelopment.However,wedoproposetwospecificchanges:

• Currently,clause136Eoftheregulation89tothepresentplanninglegislationincludemandatoryconditionsforbondedandfriableasbestosremoval,whichrequiresitssafehandlingandremovalbyalicensedcontractorundertheOccupation Health and Safety Regulation 2001andinaccordancewiththeapplicableAustralianStandard.ThisshouldbecarriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningAct.However,oftenpeoplewiththebenefitofanapprovalunderwhatiscurrentlycomplyingdevelopmentdonotknowoftheexistenceofasbestosuntildemolitioncommences.Becauseofthis,weproposethatanoticebeincludedinallcodeassessabledevelopmentapprovals,preparedbytheDepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanninginconsultationwithrelevantauthorities,thatinformsaboutbondedandfriableasbestos,howtohavesuspectmaterialtestedandthepersonalandcommunityhealthimplicationsfrominhalation.

• Demolitionofitemsbeingassessedbycouncilforlocalheritagesignificancearetobemeritassessable,iftheowneroftheitemhasbeengivenwrittennoticeoftheinvestigation.

88 SeeRecommendationsbelow

89 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clause136E



Recommendations110.Clause136EoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 istobe

carriedoverintotheSustainablePlanningActforcodeassessabledevelopmentandanoticebeincludedincodeassessableapprovals,preparedbytheDepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanninginconsultationwithrelevantauthorities,thatinformsaboutbondedandfriableasbestos,howtohavesuspectmaterialtestedandthepersonalandcommunityhealthimplicationsfrominhalation.

111.Demolitionofanyitembeinginvestigatedbyacouncilforpossiblelistingasanitemoflocalheritageistobeexcludedfrombeingexemptorcodeassessabledevelopment,iftheowneroftheitemhasbeengivennoticeoftheinvestigation.

112.Thereistobealimitof28daysafterlodgementofanapplicationtodemolishwithinwhichaheritageinvestigationistobefinalised(andtheowneroftheitemtobenotifiedoftheoutcome)astowhetherthecouncilshouldconsiderseekinganamendmenttotheLocalLand-UsePlantolisttheitemasoneoflocalheritagesignificance.

113.Iftheinvestigationprocessrecommendslocallisting,theapplicationistobemeritassessableonthisbasis.

114.Iftheinvestigationdoesnotrecommendlocallistingoriftheinvestigationisnotcompletedandtheownernotifiedoftheoutcomewithintherequired28days,thedemolitionapplicationshallbedeemedtobeapproved.

Determining development proposed by public authorities

Smaller scale developments Smallerscalecodeassessabledevelopmentistobeself-determinedbyapublicauthority.Nothird-partymeritreviewrightsaretoapply.Anyapprovalofthistypewillberequiredtobeincludedintheregisterofdevelopmentconsents.

Small-scalemeritassessabledevelopmentthatrequiresdispensationfromadevelopmentstandardshouldbedeterminedbyaJointRegionalPlanningPanel.Thesamelimitedthirdpartyappealrightswouldapplyasforanyotherdispensationtoadevelopmentstandard.

Intermediate scale public authority projects NodistinctionbetweenapublicauthorityandtheprivatesectorshouldapplytodevelopmentdeterminedbyaJointRegionalPlanningPanel.

However,forsuchintermediatescaleprojects:• thenotification,displayandassessmentprocessesshouldremaininthehandsoftheproposingentity

• conditionsofapprovalshouldbedrafted,butnotdeterminedbyinternalprocesses.


Wearesatisfiedthatthisstrikesanappropriatebalancebetweenthedesirabilityofprovidingpublicinfrastructureontheonehand,andensuringpublicconfidenceindevelopmentdecision-makingontheother.

Intermediate scale public authority projects crossing council boundariesIfintermediatescaleprojectscrosslocalconsentauthorityboundaries,then:

• localrepresentationonanyJointRegionalPlanningPanelmustincluderepresentativesfrombothcouncils(iftwoareinvolved)orrepresentativesfromdifferentcouncilssettledbyallcouncilsinvolved(iftherearemorethantwo)

• ifthereisdisagreement,allthecouncilsshouldberequiredtonominatetheirproposedparticipantfortheconveningofsuchapanel.TheMinisterforPlanningshouldselectthetwowhoaretoformthelocalrepresentativecomponentonthepanel.

Large scale public authority projects Somedevelopmentproposedbypublicauthoritieswillappropriatelybecategorisedasimpactassessabledevelopment.Modestly90scaleddevelopmentofthisnatureshouldremainwiththepublicauthorityforassessment.However,itshouldbesubjecttothesamepublicnotificationandcommentprocessthatwouldapplytoprivatedevelopment.Theseprojectsare,however,tobedeterminedthroughtheJointRegionalPlanningPanelprocess.

Projectsofamajorscaleshouldbesubjecttothesameindependentscrutinyasprivatedevelopmentsofasimilarscale.Anypublicproject91thatfallswithinStatesignificantinfrastructurewillbeassessedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureanddeterminedbytheMinister.However,theseprojectswillthenbereferredtothePlanningCommissionfortheirconditionsofconsenttobereviewed.

Finally,theremaybeproposalsbysuchentitieswheretheMinisterconsidersthattheprojectisofsufficientsignificancethatbroaderStatemattersneedtobeconsidered.Insuchcircumstances,theMinisterwillbeabletorefersuchprojectstothePlanningCommissionfordetermination.

Internal approvals and the register of consentsWheredevelopmentapprovalisinternallydetermined,theapprovalandconditionsattachingtosuchdevelopmentshouldbetreatedasadevelopmentconsentinordertoensurethatitisavailablepubliclyonaregisterofdevelopmentconsents92.Inaddition,therelevantlocalconsentauthority(ies)istobenotifiedthattheconsenthasbeenplacedontheelectronicregister.

90 HowthisissetistobedeterminedbyconsultationbetweentheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureandsuchpublicbodiesandprescribedinaregulation

91 Inthiscontext,‘publicproject’includespublic/privatepartnerships,BOOT(build,own,operate,transferprojects)andothermodelsforfinancingordeliveringpublicinfrastructureprojects

92 Seerecommendationsconcerning‘Registerofconsents’below



Recommendation115.Determinationprocessesforpublicauthorityprojectsaretobeassetoutbelow:

Development Track Decision Maker



Codeassessable Publicauthority

Meritassessable PublicauthorityorJointRegionalPlanningPanel(dependingonscale).JointRegionalPlanningPanelifadispensationfromadevelopmentstandardisrequired.

Impactassessable PlanningCommissionorJointRegionalPlanningPaneldependingonscale

Development applications with minor code non-compliances Therearelikelytobeinstanceswhenadevelopmentproposalhassomeminoraspectsofnon-compliancewithacodethatwillnotpermitittobedealtwithascodeassessable.Insuchcases,iftheassessingofficerconsidersthatthedeparturesareminor,themattercanbeexpeditedbybeingdealtwithinoneoftwoways(asconsideredappropriatebytheassessingofficer):

• first,ifthenon-complianceisreadilyabletoberemediedbyaminoramendmentthatwouldrendertheproposalabletobecodeassessed,theassessingofficershouldcontacttheproponentandsuggestamendmentoftheproposalinafashiontomakeitcompliant.

• second,theassessingofficershouldsimplyconsidertheacceptabilityorotherwiseoftheelementthatisnon-compliant,ratherthanassessingtheoverallnatureoftheproposal.

Recommendations116.Ifaminornon-compliancecausesanapplicationtobemeritassessablerather

thancodeassessableandtheassessingofficerconsidersthataminoramendmentwouldrendertheapplicationtotallycodeassessable,theassessingofficeristocontacttheproponentandsuggestthattheproponentmaketheminoramendmenttotheproposal.

117.Ifsuchanamendmentismadebytheproponent,theapplicationwillbedealtwithascodeassessable.


118.Inthealternative,iftheassessingofficerconsidersthatthenon-complianceisminor,theassessingofficercanelecttoconsidertheacceptabilityorotherwiseofthenon-compliantelementwithoutundertakingafullassessmentoftheoverallproject.

Development to fit the exempt and code assessable classificationsCurrently,‘simplestream’developmentproposalsareclassifiedas‘exempt’or‘complying’development.ThetypesofdevelopmentthatarecontainedineachcategoryaresetoutinseveralStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicies.Simplifyingthelistofexemptandcomplyingdevelopmentandpermittinglocalvariationstoitisdesirable.Itwillbenecessarytodevelopaconsolidatedlistofsuchdevelopmenttypesbycategorisingthemintothetwoclassesofexemptandcodeassessabledevelopmenttypesinthenewdevelopmentclassificationmodelthatwehaverecommended.WerecommendthisbeachievedbyareviewundertakenbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurewithrepresentationfromlocalgovernmentacrosstherangeoftypesofcouncilsin(urban,semi-urban,ruralandwesternNewSouthWales).DevelopmentinthesecategoriesistobelistedasanappendixtotherelevantLocalLand-UsePlan.Localvariationstoclassificationsasexemptorcodeassessabledevelopmentaretobepermitted.

Recommendations119.Alldevelopmentnowclassifiedasexemptorcomplyingistobecategorisedas

exemptorcodeassessabledevelopment.

120.AsinglesimplifiedlistofthesecategoriesofdevelopmentistobecompiledbyareviewledbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurewithrepresentationfromlocalgovernmentacrosstherangeoftypesofcouncilsin(urban,semi-urban,ruralandwesternNewSouthWales).

121.TheMinisteristoestablishanongoingprocessforconsiderationoflocalvariationproposalstoclassifydevelopmentasexemptorcodeassessabledevelopmentwithinalocalgovernmentarea.

Existing uses: Changes, expansion or intensificationUsesoflandcanbenon-conforming,eitherforhistoricalreasonsorbecauseofchangesinzoning,and,therefore,relyonexistinguserightsfortheircontinuation.Thissectiondealswith:

• whetherchangesshouldbepermittedtothenatureofanexistinguse• whetherthereshouldbearighttointensifyanexistingusewithinitsfootprint• whetheritshouldbepossibletoexpandanexistinguserightbeyonditsfootprint.



Changes to the permitted nature of an existing use rightBroadly,wedonotbelievethatthereshouldbeanabilitytochangeoneexistingnon-conformingusetoanothernon-conforminguse.Thesoleexceptionconcernsthesignificantareasoflandwhicharetobe(orhavebeen)rezonedfromanagriculturalzonetoanenvironmentalzone,particularlyontheNorthandSouthCoasts.Theprecisenatureoftheexistingagriculturalusesshouldbedefinedwithprecisioninanydeclaration93ofexistinguserights.Wheretherehasbeenadeclarationforagriculturallandsthathavebeensorezonedtoanenvironmentalzone,thereshouldbea10yearperiodaftertheSustainablePlanningActcomesintoeffect,duringwhichitshouldbepossibletoapplytoeither:

• changeoneagriculturaluseforanother,or• addanagriculturalusetobeincorporatedwithintheexistingagriculturaluse,asanexpandednon-conforminguse.

Fortheselimitedclassesoflands,itwouldbeappropriatetopermitmultipleapplicationstobemadeduringthistenyearperiod.However,ifanapplicationhadnotbeenmadebytheendofthatperiod,thereshouldbenofurtheropportunitytodoso.Applicationsofthistypearegenerallytobemeritassessable.However,wealsonotethattheremaybecircumstancesinwhichanapplicationmightberegardedasimpactassessable,suchassomeintensivelivestockproposals.

Intensifying development within an existing footprint Weconsiderthatitshouldbepossibletomakeanapplicationtointensifyanexistingnon-conformingusewithinitspresentfootprint.Thisintensifieduseshouldbeclassifiedasmeritorimpactassessabledevelopment,asappropriate,unlessitfallsexpresslywithinaclassofcodeassessabledevelopment.However,itisintendedthatthemajorityofapplicationsforanintensificationofanexistingusewillbeclassifiedasmeritorimpactassessabledevelopment.

Expanding an existing use beyond its current footprint Wenowturntothequestionofwhetherexistinguserightsshouldbepermittedtoexpandbeyondtheirpresentfootprint.Theremaybecircumstancesinwhichitwouldbeacceptabletopermitsuchanexpansion.However,anyapplicationseekingtodososhouldnotbetreatedasaconventionalone,butshouldhaveahigherassessmentthreshold–namely,thatthereisnoadverseimpactonothersurroundinguses.WeconsiderthatanyapplicationofthisnatureshouldbedealtwithbytheJointRegionalPlanningPanel,unlessthescopeoftheapplicationissuchthatitwarrantsreferraltoanddeterminationbythePlanningCommission.Inaddition,thegeneralpoweroftheMinistertorefermatterstothePlanningCommissionwouldalsoapplytoanyproposalofthisnature.



Recommendations122.Onlylandthatissubjecttoachangeofzoningfromanagriculturalzonetoan

environmentalzone,asaconsequenceofthemakingofanewlocalplanpursuanttotheStandardInstrumenttemplate,shallhavearightattachedtoittomakeanapplicationtochangeaspecificanddeclaredexistingnon-conformingagriculturalusetoanewspecificnon-conformingagriculturaluseortoaddanewspecificnon-conformingagriculturalusetothedeclarednon-conformingagriculturaluse.

123.Thisrightistobeavailablefora10yearperiodafterthecommencementoftheSustainablePlanningActoraftersuchachangeofzoningiseffectedbythecomingintooperationofanewlocalplanbasedontheStandardInstrumenttemplate,whicheveristhelaterdate.

124.Therearetobenofurtheropportunitiespermittedtochangeonenon-conformingusetoanothernon-conforminguseafterthe10yearperiodexpires.

125.Applicationstopermitexpansionofanexistingnon-conformingusebeyonditspresentfootprintmaybeapprovedifthereisnoadverseimpactasaconsequenceoftheexpansion.

126.Applicationstointensifyanexistingnon-conformingusearetobepermittedbutaretobemeritassessableorimpactassessable,unlessthatintensificationfallswithinaclassofcodeassessabledevelopment.

127.Applicationsforexpansionofanexistingnon-conformingusearetobepermittedifthereisnoadverseimpactonothersurroundingusesandaretobedeterminedbyeitheraJointRegionalPlanningPanelorthePlanningCommission.

Incomplete applications OneofthemattersraisedduringourconsultationprocessanddiscussedinseveralsubmissionstotheIssuesPaperistherejectionbyaconsentauthority,primarilybyacouncil,ofadevelopmentapplicationbecauseinadequatedocumentationhasbeensupplied.

Somehavesuggestedthatincompleteapplicationsshouldbeautomaticallyrejected,whilstothershavesuggestedthatsuchapplicationsbeaccepted,butwithapracticeadoptedthattheinadequaciesbeidentifiedandtheapplicantgiventheopportunitytorectifythedeficiency.

Wenotethatamendments94tothepresentplanninglegislationprovidedarightofreviewofadecisiontorejectanapplication.WeconsideritappropriatethatthisrightofreviewbeintheSustainablePlanningAct.However,ifanapplicationisforeithermeritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopment,itisinappropriateforanapplicationtobeacceptedwheretheconsentauthorityknowsthatthedocumentationprovidedisincomplete.

94 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section82B–thatcameintoeffectinearly2011



Wereachedthisconclusionfortworeasons:• First,weareconfidentthat,overtime,thereislikelytobeagreateradherencetothebenchmarktimesforassessmentanddeterminationofproperlycompleteapplicationsthanispresentlythecase.Weconsiderthatthisislikelyformeritassessableandimpactaccessibledevelopmentbecauseoftheseparationoutofsimplerformsofdevelopment.

• Second,asthesetwoclassesofdevelopmentproposalarethosethatwillbesubjecttonotificationandpublicsubmissions,itisnotappropriatethatanapplicationthatisinadequate(inanymaterialrespect)shouldbeexhibitedforpubliccommentinaccordwithstatutorytimeframeswhenfullinformationwasnotavailable.Thisisfundamentallycontrarytothebroad‘righttoknow’positionthatwehaveadoptedthroughouttherecommendationsthatwehavemade.

Asaconsequence,weareoftheviewthatitshouldbemandatoryforaconsentauthoritytorejectanyapplicationformeritassessableorimpactaccessibledevelopmentthatisdeficientinanymaterialrespect.Wearealsooftheviewthat,ifsuchaninadequateapplicationisacceptedandgoesthroughapublicnotificationperiodwhilstdeficient,thenthelegislationshouldmakeitexpresslyclearthatanysuchpurportedapplicationisvoid,notmerelyvoidableasamatterofdiscretion.However,iftherearedeficienciesinanapplicationasoriginallypresented,anapplicantshouldbeabletorectifythosedeficienciesupto,butnolaterthan,thedayuponwhichtheapplicationismadeavailable(physicallyorelectronically)forpubliccomment.

Recommendation128.Applicationsthatarenotcompletepriortothedayuponwhichtheapplicationis

scheduledtobemadeavailable,physicallyorelectronically,forpubliccommentshallberejectedandshallberegardedasnothavingbeenlodged.

Independent Hearing and Assessment PanelsUnderthepresentplanninglegislation,councilsmaychoosetoestablishapanelofexpertsknownasanIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanel95.Thispanelmayassessadevelopmentapplicationoranyotherplanningmatter,withtheexceptionofmattersthatwouldfallwithinthefunctionsofaJointRegionalPlanningPanel.Therangeofareasofexpertisefromwhichmembersofthepanelaretobedrawnissetoutinthepresentplanninglegislation96.Theroleofapanelistosubmitareporttothecouncilwithinatimespecifiedbythecouncil.Thepresentplanninglegislationdoesnotexpresslygivethesepanelsaroleindeterminingdevelopmentproposalsthatarewithinthecouncil’scompetence.Nosignificantcriticismhasbeenlevelledattheroleofsuchpanels,andthepresentprovisionsaretobeincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.WeconsiderthatthestatutoryrangeofmembershipshouldhaveAboriginalculturalheritageaddedasitisappropriatethatthisareaofexpertiseisavailable,ifrequired.

95 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23I

96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23I(3)


Recommendations129.IndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelsaretobeprovidedforinthe

SustainablePlanningAct.

130.ThepresentqualificationsforIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelsaretoberetainedwiththeadditionofAboriginalculturalheritageasanareaofexpertise.

Independent Hearing and Determination PanelsIthasbeensuggestedthatitshouldbepossibletodelegatedecision-makingpowersaboutspecificdevelopmentproposals(orclassesofdevelopmentproposal)topanelsbasedontheIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelmodel97.WerecommendthattheSustainablePlanningActexpresslypermitIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanelstohavedeterminativefunctions.Inthiscase,theywouldbeknownasIndependentHearingandDeterminationPanels.

Currently,asweunderstandit,somecouncilsusegeneralpowerstodelegateundersections355and377oftheLocal Government Act 199398toprovideanIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanel(establishedunderthepresentplanninglegislation)withdeterminativefunctions.However,thepresentplanninglegislationappearstoimplythattheyonlyhaveassessmentfunctions99.IfthereareanyconcernsthatsuchdeterminativedelegationsmadeundertheLocal Government Act 1993areinvalid(becauseofthelackofexpressdeterminativepowersforthemunderthepresentplanninglegislation)thentheyshouldberetrospectivelyvalidated.

Recommendation131.IndependentHearingandDeterminationPanelsaretobeprovidedforinthe

SustainablePlanningAct(withthesamerangeofmembershipqualificationsasrecommendedforIndependentHearingandAssessmentPanels),withcouncilstobeabletodelegatedevelopmentdecisionmakingtosuchaPanel.

Joint Regional Planning PanelsInVolume1,wesetoutwhyJointRegionalPlanningPanelsshouldberetained.However,thereareanumberofdesirable,minorchangestotheoperationofPanelsfortheirincorporationintotheSustainablePlanningActto:

• increasepublicconfidenceindecision-makingprocesses• giveanelectedcounciltheabilitytoputitsviewstothePanel,independentlyoftheopinionofthecouncil’sstaffassessmentreport.

97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23I

98 Local Government Act 1993,sections355and357

99 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section23I(1)and(2)



Wealsonotethat,atthetimeofwritingthisReviewPaper,therearereviseddraftOperationalProcedures,CodeofConductandComplaintsHandlingPolicyonexhibition100forJointRegionalPlanningPanels.Ifadopted,thesechangeswillimprovetheprocessesofthesePanels.

Guarding against conflicts of interestJointRegionalPlanningPanelsaresubjecttoaCodeofConduct101requiringthatamembershouldnottakepartinanyprocesswherethereisanactualorperceivedconflictofinterest.CompliancewiththeCodeistheresponsibilityofeachPanelmember.TheissueofPanelmembersdeterminingmattersinthelocalgovernmentareaswheretheyresidewasspecificallyraised–particularlyinregionalandruralareas–asthereisagreaterlikelihoodthattherewouldbeaperceivedconflictofinterest102.Becauseofthis,itisnotdesirablethatStatePanelmembersbeinvolvedindecidingapplicationsintheirownlocalgovernmentarea.ThisconclusionisdrawnknowingthatalternatemembersareavailableforStateparticipantsinaPanel.

Transparency in decision makingWeconsiderthatthereshouldbeastatutoryobligationonaPaneltogivereasonsforitsdecisionwhenitrejectsconclusionsoforvariesrecommendationscontainedintheassessmentreport,includingvariationstoconditionsthatmightbeproposedforadevelopmentproposal.Givingreasons,inthesecases,willincreasepublicconfidenceinthedecision-makingprocess.

Jurisdiction issue – uncontroversial applicationsIntheIssuesPaper,wenotedthatsomedevelopmentproposalswithinthejurisdictionofaJointRegionalPlanningPanelwerereturnedtothecouncilfordeterminationbecausetherewasnothingtobedetermined–theassessmentreportrecommendedapproval,theproposalwasuncontroversialandnoobjectionswerereceived.MandatoryreferraltothePanel,insuchcircumstances,causedunnecessarydelay.ItisthereforedesirabletoremovePanelsincaseswhereaprojectisassessedaswarrantingapprovalandwheretherearenoobjections.

Jurisdiction issue – aggregation of projectsInoneinstanceofwhichweareaware,anapplicantwaspermittedtoaggregateseveralseparatedevelopmentproposals,atdifferentsitesownedbythesameproponent,tobringthetotalvalueoftheaggregatedprojectswithinthejurisdictionofaPanel.Asweunderstandtheposition,therewasnocommonimpactonthesurroundinglocalityand,apartfromjointownership,theproposalsweredistinctlydifferent.Suchaggregationshouldnotbepermitted.

100 Seehttp://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/tabid/205/ctl/View/mid/1081/ID/67/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

101 Seehttp://jrpp.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AXEQtH35je4%3d&tabid=90&mid=453&language=en-AU

102Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy[2000]HCA63;205CLR337;176ALR644;75ALJR277

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/tabid/205/ctl/View/mid/1081/ID/67/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

http://jrpp.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AXEQtH35je4%3d&tabid=90&mid=453&language=en-AU


Public participation and a right to be heardEnshriningarightforthepublictobeinvolvedinandheardduringproceedingsoftheJointRegionalPlanningPanelsisnecessaryintheSustainablePlanningActasitconstitutesarelevantelementofour‘righttoknow’approach103.Assuch,thisrightshouldextendtofacilitatingtheinvolvementoftheproponentandthosepotentiallyaffectedbyorinterestedinadecision,includingtheabilityforanelectedcouncillortoputforwardaviewtothePanelindependentlyoftheopinionofthecouncil’sstaffassessmentreport.SucharightwillincreasepublicconfidenceintheJointRegionalPlanningPanelsdecision-makingprocesses.

The Central Sydney Planning CommitteeAuniquequestionarisesconcerningthestatusoftheCentralSydneyPlanningCommittee,whichiseffectivelyavariantonaJointRegionalPlanningPanel.ItwasestablishedundertheCity of Sydney Act 1988,althoughitsfunctionsareentirelyrelatedtothoserequiredtobeexercisedunderplanninglegislation.

InourconsultationwiththeLordMayorandseniorstaffoftheCounciloftheCityofSydney,thepositionwasadvanced(andreflectedinthecity’ssubsequentsubmission104)thattheCentralSydneyPlanningCommitteeshouldbeestablishedunderplanninglegislationandcreatedasaspecial,uniqueversionofaJointRegionalPlanningPanel.WeconsiderthatthisisanentirelyreasonablepropositionthatshouldbeincorporatedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

Recommendations132.AlloralsubmissionstoJointRegionalPlanningPanelsaretobeinpublic.

133.AllJointRegionalPlanningPanelprocessesaretoincorporatetheopportunityfortheproponentandsupportersofandobjectorstoaproposaltobeheardbythePanel(withthePaneltosettherulesforsuchpresentations).

134.StatePanelmembersarenottodeterminemattersinthelocalgovernmentareawheretheyreside.

135.WhenaPanelrejectsconclusionsoforvariesrecommendationsintheassessmentreport,thePanelistogivereasonsfordoingso.

136.Wheretheassessmentreportrecommendsapprovalandtherehavebeennosubmissionsopposingthedevelopment,thecouncilistoremaintheconsentauthority.

137.InvokingthejurisdictionofaPanelbyaggregationofprojectsondifferentsitesincommonownershipistobeprohibited.

138.TheCentralSydneyPlanningCommitteeistobebroughtwithinthescopeoftheSustainablePlanningActthroughaseparateprovisioninthatportionofthelegislationdealingwithJointRegionalPlanningPanels.

103 SimilartothatprovidedbytheLocal Government Act 1993,Chapter4,Part1–regardingpublicaccesstomeetingsandinformation

104 Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kcu3h438Gmg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kcu3h438Gmg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569



Land owner’s consent Currently,althoughdeterminationofanapplicationforapprovalofadevelopmentcannotresultindevelopmentconsentbeinggivenunlesstheconsentofallthelandholdersinvolvedhasbeenprovidedinwriting,assessmentcanbeundertakenprovidedowners’consentisreceivedbytheconsentauthoritypriortodeterminationoftheapplication105.ThispracticecausesparticularproblemsforthoseadministeringCrownLands,astherearecertainrequiredprocessestofollowwhenconsideringwhetherornottogivelandowners’consent.Developmentproposalsthatpresumethegrantingofowners’consentcreateproblemsforthoseadministeringsuchlands.Thefollowingsubmission,inresponsetotheIssuesPaper,onthistopicbyNSWTrade&Investment106said:

‘Strengthened legal provisions requiring the written consent of the land owner prior to lodgement of a development application should be introduced. Development applications should not be able to be accepted without evidence of the written consent of the land owner. Presently cl50(1)(a) of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires that a development application must contain the information listed at Schedule 1 which includes evidence of the consent of the land owner to the proposed development, however case law has in practice defined this to mean that a development application may not be determined but can be accepted and assessed without the written consent of the land owner. This anomaly is a significant issue for the DPI in its capacity as land owner of Crown land. Many situations have arisen where an applicant has gone to considerable expense to prepare a development application involving Crown land and significant time has elapsed in assessment of that development application by a consent authority without first ascertaining and confirming whether occupation of the Crown land for that development will be permitted. The resulting situation is that the DPI is involved at the final stage of the process, and faces significant pressure to give a speedy and favourable response to the applicants request for land owners consent so that an application can be determined. However, processes under the Crown Lands Act can be lengthy (land status checks, resolution of any Aboriginal Land Claims, land assessment requirements etc) and the proposal may not be acceptable on Crown land even if it has been assessed favourably against the planning controls.

A legal requirement that development applications cannot be accepted without evidence of the consent of the land owner would circumvent this situation, and force applicants of proposed developments to liaise early with the DPI to prevent unrealistic expectations and wasted resources.’

WearesatisfiedthatthereshouldbearequirementforthewrittenconsentofanyNSWCrownentitylandholdertoadevelopmentapplicationasanessentialprerequisitetoitsacceptanceforlodgementbytherelevantconsentauthority.

Weconsiderthat,inanyothercircumstances,anydevelopmentapplicationthatisnotaccompaniedbythewrittenconsentofallrelevantlandholdersshouldbetreatedasanapplicationwithacurabledefect.Inthiscase,theapplicationshouldbeacceptedontheunderstandingthatiftheproposeddevelopmentislikelytobeapproved,allrelevantlandholders’consentmustbeprovidedpriortodeterminationoftheapplication.ItshouldbemandatoryforaconsentauthoritytorejectanypurportedapplicationthatisnotaccompaniedbyanyCrownlandholders’consentforrelevantparcelsoflandencompassedbytheapplicationandownedbyanyNSWCrownentity.

105 Botany Bay Council v Remath Investments No 6 Pty Ltd[2000]NSWCA364;(2000)50NSWLR312;(2000)111LGERA446perSteinJAatpara7

106 NSWTrade&Investment(4March2012)atp16http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4mEnABIN21Q%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4mEnABIN21Q%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4mEnABIN21Q%3d&tabid=119&mid=569


Recommendation139.AnydevelopmentapplicationinvolvinganylandownedbyanyNSWCrownentity

shallnotbeacceptedbyaconsentauthorityunlessaccompaniedbythewrittenconsentofthelandowningNSWCrownentity.

Model delegations for development decision making in local councilsItisdesirable,inourview,topromoteconsistencyinthedelegationofdevelopmentdecisionstotheprofessionalstaffofcouncils.Wehadsomereservationsaboutcanvassingthistopicbecausethescaleandnatureofdevelopmentdeterminationvarieswidelyacrossaspectrum–fromsmallerruralcouncilstolargermetropolitanones.Certainly,mandatorydelegationswouldbecontrarytothe‘onesizedoesnotfitall’sentimentoftenputtousduringthecommunityforums.However,theDepartmentmightprovideguidancebyatemplatesetofdelegationsthatcouncillorscouldadopt,whetherinmodifiedformornot.

Recommendations140.TheDepartmentistoconsultwiththeLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation

todevelopasetofmodeldelegationsfordeterminationbyCouncilstaffofdevelopmentproposals.

141.Thesemodeldelegationsarenottobemandatoryand,ifadoptedingeneralterms,maybemodifiedtoreflectlocalcircumstances.

Modifications to existing approved developmentThepresentplanninglegislation107permitsapplicationstobemadetomodifyanapproveddevelopment.Currently,an‘applicationtomodify’canbemadetoseekretrospectiveapprovalforunapprovedbutcompletedmodification108.Thiswasamatterofsomeconcernduringthecommunityforumsasmanyopposedgivingretrospectiveapprovalforworksdonecontrarytoanapproval.

Whileweacknowledgetheethicaluneasethatunderliesthesecomments,wedonotseethatthereisanyotherpracticalalternativetoretainingthepresentmodificationprocess.Thisincludesretainingthe‘substantiallythesamedevelopmentaswasoriginallyapproved’testandthelineofdecisionsintheLandandEnvironmentCourtastohowthattestshouldbeapplied.Presently,iftherearemultipleapplicationstomodifyanapprovedproject,theaccumulationofthosemodificationsmustnotpermitthemodifiedprojecttocrossthatlimit.ItisdesirablethatthestatutoryprovisionintheSustainablePlanningActmakesthisexpresslyclear.

107Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,sections96and96AA

108Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2000]NSWLEC240



Allmodificationapplicationsconcerningmeritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopment,otherthanminormodifications,aretobesubjecttothesamenotificationandassessmentprocessasforanoriginalapplicationforsuchdevelopment.Minormodificationapplicationsshouldbeabletobedealtwithonacodeassessablebasis(butonlyifthereisanapplicablecode),eventhoughtheoriginalapplicationwasforeithermeritassessableorimpactassessabledevelopment.

However,beforesucharelaxationshouldbepermitted,themodificationproponentshouldberequiredtoprovideastatementsettingoutwhytheproposedmodificationisminorandwouldnothaveanyimpactoutsidethesiteoftheproposeddevelopmentandhowtheproposedmodificationcomplieswiththerelevantcode.Theconsentauthoritymustbesatisfiedthatthisiscorrectbeforesuchamodificationapplicationcanbetreatedascodeassessable.

Recommendation142.Themodificationprocessinthepresentplanninglegislationistobecarriedover

totheSustainablePlanningAct,withminormodificationstobecodeassessable(ifthereisanapplicablecode)eventhoughtheoriginalapplicationwasmeritassessableorimpactassessable.

Names for applications to reflect purposeThepresenttitlesof‘developmentapplication’and‘constructioncertificateapplication’donotappropriatelyreflectthenatureoftheseapplications–nameswhichbetterreflecttheirrealpurposeshouldbeused.Asaconsequence,weconsiderthatthefirststageapplicationshouldbeknownasan‘applicationfordevelopmentapproval’;whilethesecondstageapplicationshouldbeknownasan‘applicationforconstructionapproval’.Theplansthatareapprovedatthe‘applicationforconstructionapproval’stageshouldbeknownasthe‘approvedconstructionplans’,ratherthan‘constructioncertificateplans’,astheyarenowknown.

Recommendation143.Applicationsfordevelopmentandforapprovalofconstructionplansareto

beknownas‘applicationfordevelopmentapproval’and‘applicationforconstructionapproval’.

Plain English guide to the classification of development Aspartofthesuiteofmeasuresdesignedtopromotepublicinformationaboutandengagementwithareformedplanningsystem,itisessentialthattherebeplainEnglishmaterialpreparedthatexplainsthenewclassificationsystem109fordevelopmentproposals.



Preparationandwidedisseminationofsuchaguide,inhardcopyandelectronically,isanimportantelementincommunityengagementandtherestorationofpublictrustintheState’splanningsystem.

Recommendations144.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inconjunctionwiththeLocal

GovernmentandShiresAssociation,istoprepareaplainEnglishguidetothedevelopmentclassification,assessmentanddeterminationprocessesundertheSustainablePlanningAct.

145.PreparationoftheguideistobeunderthesupervisionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoard.

Potential cross border impactsManydevelopmentproposalshavethepotentialtoimpactacrosslocalgovernmentboundariesoracrossthebordersoftheState.Inthislatterinstance,therehasrecentlybeenlitigationconcerningthepotentialcrossborderimpactsofaresidentialdevelopmentinNewSouthWalesonthefutureoptionsforCanberraairport110.Whilecross-stateborderimpactsarelikelytooccurwithfarlessfrequencythanthosepotentiallyimpactingacrosscouncilboundaries,commonconcernsarisetoensurethatsuchimpactsareproperlyconsidered.Itisdesirabletoensurethattheneighbouringcouncilorland-useauthorityacrosstheStateborderisprovidedwithanopportunitytocommentbeforeanysuchpotentiallyimpactingdevelopmentproposalisapproved.Sucharegimewouldrequirethattheconsentauthorityfortheproposeddevelopmenthaveregardtoanycommentsthatmightbeoffered.Wedonotproposethattherebemandatorytimesforresponseoranyabilitytodelaytheprocess.Ifcommentswerenotreceivedfromtheadjacentcouncil/land-useauthoritywithintheordinarystatutorytimeframefordeterminingadevelopmentproposal,itshouldsimplybedeterminedbytheconsentauthority.

Recommendations146.Whenaconsentauthorityconsidersthatadevelopmentproposalhasthepotential

tocauseimpactsacrossaStateborderorinanadjoininglocalgovernmentareatothelocalgovernmentareawheretheproposeddevelopmentistobelocated,theconsentauthorityistonotifytherelevantland-useauthorityacrosstheStateborderortheadjoiningcouncil(s)oftheproposeddevelopmentandinvitecommentsonit.

147.Theconsentauthorityfortheproposeddevelopmentistoconsiderandhaveregardtoanycommentsreceivedinresponsetosucharequest.

110Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd v Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning(No2)[2011]NSWLEC83



Preamble to the Sustainable Planning Act?InVolume1111,wenotedthatseveralsubmissionssuggestedthatanynewlegislationshouldcontainapreambleorbroadphilosophicalstatementofpurposethatdidnotformpartofanystatutoryobjectsofit.ThepresentplanninglegislationinQueensland(knownastheSustainable Planning Act 2009)containsthreeprovisions112settingoutthepurposesofthelegislation.Theseprovisions,however,arewhatwouldberegardedastheobjectsoftheseActswhencomparedtothestructureofourEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Weobservethat,ifthereweretobesuchapreambleorstatement,itshouldmakeclearthereasonsforthelegislationanditspurpose,butnotcompromisetheoverarchingobjectwehaveproposedfortheSustainablePlanningAct113.Wemakenorecommendationastowhetherornotthereshouldbesuchapreamble–thatisamattermoreappropriatetobeconsideredbytheGovernment.However,basedonthebroadsentimentsoflastyear’sconsultationprocess,wehavedraftedanexamplebelowofhowsuchapreamblemightread:

The land and waters that comprise the State of New South Wales have had Aboriginal peoples and, more recently, people from diverse cultural backgrounds as the custodians.

The land and waters incorporate a rich diversity of landforms and plant and animal life. The landscapes are diverse and beautiful and include landscapes of cultural significance to Aboriginal peoples. The land and waters have provided food, shelter and other material support to their custodians throughout human occupation. That occupation and use has modified and had an impact on a wide range of those natural values.

Population density has increased the potential for those impacts. In recent times, laws have been put in place to regulate and control human impacts on the State’s natural values. These laws have sought to regulate, amongst other purposes, the planning for and control of land-use across the State. Past legislation had become complex and unwieldy – not appropriately performing the roles that were necessary.

A new planning system is needed to ensure that the impact of humans on the land and waters of New South Wales and on the health and general well-being of its people is regulated. This will ensure that permitted development is planned for, as well as being sustainable, in the following ways:

• ecologically sustainable – in its impacts on the people, animals, plants, air, water and soils of the State

• economically sustainable, providing the facilities and services to support responsible economic growth

• socially sustainable, to ensure the health, amenity and general well-being of its citizens.

This planning system should promote transparent, simple and efficient processes while encouraging cultural change by planners and engagement by the people of the State in the planning for and regulation of development. It is for these purposes that this legislation has been enacted.

111 PartC,Chapter2

112Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (QLD),sections3,4and5



Recommendation148.TheGovernmentconsiderifthereshouldbeapreambletotheSustainable

PlanningAct.

Register of consentsItisimportantinanelectronicallyintegratedandaccessibleplanningsystemtobeabletoaccessthedevelopmenthistoryofasite,includingitsexistingandpastdevelopmentconsentsand,particularly,anyongoingconditions.Whilstitwillnotbepractical,forreasonsoftimeandcost,tomandatedigitalbackcaptureofanysignificancefrompaperrecords,itisnonethelessessentialthatdevelopmentconsentsarekeptelectronicallyinanongoing,easilysearchablefashion.Thiswillreplacekeepingaphysical,accessiblepaperregisterofdevelopmentconsents,asiscurrentlyrequiredofeachcouncil114.Theabilitytosearchforparticulardevelopmentconsentsandtermswithinthoseconsentsviatheplanningportalisessential.Electronicrecordsofconsentstoreplacepaperregisterscanbekeptfromacommencementdateagreedwithlocalgovernment.

Establishingelectronicregistrationwillmeanthataprivatecertifierapprovingcodeassessabledevelopmentwillneedtoprovideanelectroniccopyoftheconsentanditsconditionsforuploadingtotheregister.Thosegovernmententitieswhicharepermittedtoundertakeselfassessmentanddeterminationprocesseswillalsoberequiredtoprovideanelectroniccopyoftheconsentanditsconditionsforuploadingtotheregister.Electroniccopies(ornotification–dependingonwhetherornotthereisasingle,centralregisterandwhatuploadingarrangementsareset115)willneedtobeprovidedtotherelevantcouncilforitsrecords.

Twoothersourcesofdevelopmentconsentrequireconsiderationintheestablishmentoftheregister.TheseareconsentsgrantedthroughordersmadeinLandandEnvironmentCourtproceedingsandthosegivenasaconsequenceofdeterminationsofthePlanningCommission.ForconsentsgivenasaconsequenceofordersmadeinLandandEnvironmentCourtproceedings,theconsentauthoritywhoserolehasbeenassumedbytheCourtshouldberesponsibleforputtinganyconsentontheregister.Inthelatterinstance,theassessmentoftheproposalwillhavebeenundertakenbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureandtheDepartmentshouldberesponsibleforputtinganyconsentontheregister.

Overtime,comprehensiveelectronicavailabilityofdevelopmentconsentswillevolve.Whilesomecouncilsmaywishtocompletedigitalbackcapture(andthestatutoryprovisionsshouldfacilitatethis),backcaptureshouldnotbemandatory.However,ifbackcaptureweretobeundertaken,physicalrecordswouldnotneedtobeheld,asthestatutoryprovisionswillrendertheelectronicallyregisteredconsentastheauthoritativerecordofthedevelopmentanditsconditions.

114Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clause264

115DatacustodianshiparrangementsaretobedeterminedasdiscussedinPart4ofthisvolume.Thiswillincludedeterminingwhetherthereshouldbeacentralregisterorseparateregistersforeachcouncil.



Recommendations149.TheSustainablePlanningActistorequireelectronicregistrationoffuture

developmentconsentsandpermit(butnotmandate)thedigitalbackcaptureofexistingdevelopmentconsents.

150.Allconsentauthorities(otherthantheLandandEnvironmentCourtandthePlanningCommission)aretoberequiredtoensurethatanyconsentissuediselectronicallyregistered.

151.ForconsentsgivenasaconsequenceofdeterminationsofthePlanningCommission,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoberesponsibleforelectronicregistration.

152.ForconsentsgivenasaconsequenceofordersmadeinLandandEnvironmentCourtproceedings,theconsentauthoritywhoserolehasbeenassumedbytheCourtistoberesponsibleforelectronicregistration.

153.Anypersonorentity(otherthanacouncil)istoberequiredtonotifytherelevantcouncil(s)thataconsenthasbeenelectronicallyregistered.

154.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inco-operationwiththeOfficeofLocalGovernment,istodiscusswiththeLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationacommencementdateforelectronicregistrationofconsents.

155.Theregisteristobetheauthoritativerepositoryofalldevelopmentconsentsissuedonoraftertheoperativedateofelectronicregistration.

156.Foranybackcaptureofconsents,theconsentauthorityistoberelievedoftherequirementtomaintainphysicalrecordsafterpublicationonanelectronicregister.

157.Datacustodianshiparrangements,includingdeterminationofwhetherthereshouldbeacentralregisterorseparateregistersforeachcouncil,istobeundertakenbytheCo-ordinatingcommitteeforspatialinformation.

Removing “consistency” as a design criterion in assessmentsWeareawareofsomelocalcontrolsthatrequireadevelopmentproposaltobeconsistentwiththestreetscapeordevelopmentpatterninthelocalityoftheproposeddevelopment.Sometimesthetestisputasa‘notinconsistentwith’testratherthanoneof‘consistency’.

SucharequirementisentirelyindependentofconventionalnumericalcontrolsinaDevelopmentControlPlanorthematicdesignprinciplesdepictedindiagramsorsketches.Wedonotbelievethatbroaderconsistencytypetestsofthisnaturecanco-existwithacodeassessmentprocess.Asaconsequence,‘consistency’or‘non-inconsistency’testsarenotappropriatetoberetainedforcodeassessabledevelopment,exceptwheretheproposeddevelopmentisinanidentifiedlocalheritageconservationareaorisintheimmediatevicinityofaStateorlocallyidentifiedheritageobjectorgroupofobjects.


Recommendation158.‘Consistency’or‘non-inconsistency’testsarenottobepermittedforcodeassessable

development,unlesstheproposeddevelopmentthatwouldotherwisebecodeassessableisinanidentifiedlocalheritageconservationareaorintheimmediatevicinityofaStateorlocallyidentifiedheritageobjectorgroupofobjects.

‘Stop the Clock’ ProvisionsTheSustainablePlanningActmustbalancetheneedforaproperandthoroughbuttimelyassessmentofapplications.Currently,assessmentperiods,beingthetimewithinwhichadevelopmentapplicationmustbeassessed,aresetbyregulation116.Thecommencementoftheassessmentperiodistwodaysafterthedevelopmentapplicationislodged117.Applicationsaretakentoberefusedifaconsentauthorityhasnotdeterminedtheapplicationwithintheassessmentperiod118.Afterthattime,theapplicantmayappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtonthebasisofa‘deemedrefusal’119.TheCourtthenundertakesameritassessmentanddeterminestheapplication.However,incertaincircumstances,aconsentorconcurrenceauthoritymayrequestadditionalinformationfromtheapplicantand,duringthisphase,theassessmentperiodistakentohavestopped120.

Allowingthe‘clock’tobestoppedbyaconsentauthoritywhenundertakingassessmentofmeritandimpactassessableproposalstopermitarequestforfurtherinformationprovidesforproperdecisionmaking,whilenotundulyholdingupthedecisionmakingperiod.Provisionstopermitthisshouldbecontinued,butlimitedtoonerequestonly.

Theassessmentperiod‘clocks’shouldberestartediftheapplicantprovidestheinformationtotheconsentauthority,notifiestheconsentauthoritythattheinformationwillnotbeprovidedorfailstoprovidetheinformationwithinareasonabletimeperiod.Thedevelopmentapplicationshouldbetakentoberefused,ifaconsentauthorityhasnotdeterminedtheapplicationwithintheextendedassessmentperiod.

Inaddition,theassessmentperiodshouldbeabletobestoppedattheapplicant’srequestforthepurposeofprovidingfurtherinformationtotheconsentorconcurrenceauthorityortomakerepresentationstoaconsentorconcurrenceauthorityatanytimebeforethedecisionismade.

116 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clause113–40daysforgeneraldevelopment,60daysfordesignateddevelopmentandintegrateddevelopmentor90daysforStatesignificantdevelopment

117Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clause107

118Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section82

119Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section97(1)

120Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clauses54,60and112



Recommendations159.Theconsentorconcurrenceauthority,whenundertakingassessmentofmeritand

impactassessableproposals,istobepermittedoneopportunitytorequestfurtherinformationfromtheapplicant,coupledwiththeabilitytonotifytheapplicantthattheassessmentperiodhasstopped.

160.Theassessmentperiod‘clock’istoberestartedonthedateofreceiptiftheapplicantprovidestheinformationtotheconsentorconcurrenceauthorityornotifiestheconsentorconcurrenceauthority(inwriting)thattheinformationwillnotbeprovidedorfailstoprovidetheinformationwithinareasonabletimeperiod.

161.Theapplicantisalsotobepermittedtheabilitytohaltthedecisionmakingperioduponwrittenrequest(thatcanbewithdrawn)inordertoprovidefurtherinformationortomakerepresentationstotheconsentauthorityoraboutaconcurrenceauthority’sresponse.

Verification of the stated development application valuesDuringcommunityforums,councilstaffinformedustheysuspectedthatthedeclaredprojectvalueindevelopmentapplicationswasoftenunderstatedtoreducetheapplicationfeepayable,particularlyforlargerscaledevelopments.Becauseofthis,aquantitysurveyor’scostcertificateshouldberequiredfordevelopmentwithaprojectvalueabovethejurisdictionthresholdofJointRegionalPlanningPanelsiftheassessingauthoritydisputestheprojectvalueestimate.

Recommendations162.ForprojectsfallingunderthejurisdictionthresholdofaJointRegionalPlanning

Panel,noquantitysurveyor’scertificaterelatingtoprojectvalueistoberequired.

163.ForprojectsabovetheJointRegionalPlanningPaneljurisdictionthreshold,theproponentistoberequiredtoprovideaquantitysurveyor’scostcertificate,iftheassessingauthoritydisputestheaccuracyofthestatedprojectvalue.

164.Ifthecertificateendorsestheapplicationvalue,thequantitysurveyor’sfeeistobedeductedfromtheapplicationfee.

165.Ifthecertificateshowsanapplication’svaluetobeunderstated,thecorrectfeeshallbepayableandthequantitysurveyor’sfeeisnottobeoffset.

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

API? Or is this just a cost issue?


PART 7 – The Land and Environment Court – additional mattersHearing from objectors during conciliation processes Duringtheconciliationphaseofthepresentconciliation/arbitrationmodel121,thereisnoentitlementforsubmitterstobeabletoexplaintheirposition.Theconciliationphaseshouldincorporatearightforthosewhomightobjectto(orsupport)aproposeddevelopmenttoexplaintheirreasons,ifrelevant,totheCommissionerduringtheconciliationprocess.Otherthanthisexplanatoryopportunity,objectorsorsupportersshouldnothaveanyrighttoparticipatein(butmayobserve)theconciliationphase.

Recommendation166.Duringtheconciliationphaseofconciliation/arbitrationproceedings,submittersare

tobeabletoexplaintheirpositionbutnottakeanyotherpartinthisphase.

Requiring concurrence authorities to defend their delay or refusalDuringthecourseofthecommunityforums,weweretoldonseveraloccasionsofinstanceswhereacouncilwishedtogivetimelyapprovaltoaproposeddevelopmentbutwasunabletodosobecauseofaninordinatedelayinreceivingcommentsand/orconditionsfromaconcurrenceauthority.Inanumberofinstancescited,thecouncilwasthenlefttodefendadeemedrefusalappealintheCourt.Insomeinstances,littleornoassistancewasprovidedbytheconcurrenceauthority,apartfromwhateveradvicehadbeengiven(iftherewasanactualrejectionoftheproposal).Inthesecases,thecouncilswereobligedtomeetanycostsofdefendingtheappeal,evenifonlythroughtheinitialproceduralstages.

Wherethenecessitytoincurlegalexpensesindefendingadeemedrefusalarisesfromeitherinactionbyaconcurrenceauthorityoritsdecisionnottograntaconcurrence,thereisjustificationforenablingtheconsentauthoritytoapplytotheCourttohavetherecalcitrantconcurrenceauthorityjoinedasarespondenttotheproceedings.Iftheconcurrenceauthorityweretobejoined,theconsentauthoritywouldbefreetodecidewhetheritwishedtocontestthesubstantiveissues.Joinderwouldleaveopportunitiesopen,ifappropriate,foreithertheapplicantortheconsentauthoritytoseekcostsordersiftheythoughtthatanyofthetestsenunciatedbyPrestonCJinKiama Council v Grant122weresatisfied,sothatitwasfairandreasonablefortheCourttomakesuchacostsorder.

Itisourviewthatthisprocesswouldbelocated,appropriately,intheLand and Environment Court Act 1979ratherthanintheSustainablePlanningAct.

121 Land and Environment Court Act 1979,section34AA

122Kiama Council v Grant (2006)143LGERA441

7 The Land and Environment Court – additional matters


Recommendation167.TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istoprovidespecificallythataconsent

authoritymayapplytotheCourttohaveaconcurrenceauthorityjoinedasarespondenttoameritappeal.

Costs orders – application amendment during the appeal process Currently,ifaproponentwhohascommencedameritappealintheCourtseekstoamendtheirapplication,theCourtisrequired123tomakeacostsorder(infavouroftheconsentauthority)iftheamendmentsareotherthanminoramendments.Theorderistocompensatetheconsentauthorityfortheadditionalcoststhatare“thrownaway”bypermittingtheproposedamendments.

Priortoearly2011,amoreonerousmandatorycostsorderwasrequired–thatallcostsoftheconsentauthoritybepaiduptothetimeofgrantingleavetoamend.Thecurrentformoforderprovidesabalancedapproachtodealingwiththesematters–essentiallyreplicatingtheformerpracticeoftheCourttograntleavetoamendonlyifanundertakingwasgivenbytheapplicantthattheadditionalcostsoftheconsentauthorityinrespondingtotheamendmentswouldbemetbytheapplicant(eitheronanopenbasisorintermsofanagreedsum).Weconsiderthatthepresentcostsorderprovisionshouldberetained,withtheCourttodetermineonlyiftheamendmentsare‘minor’.

Recommendation168.Thecostsprovisionsofsection97Bofthepresentplanninglegislationaretobe

retainedbutincorporatedintheLand and Environment Court Act 1979.

Extension of orders able to be made in ‘remedy or restrain’ mattersCurrently,whentheLandandEnvironmentCourtissatisfiedthatabreachofthepresentplanninglegislationhasorwillbecommitted,thentheCourthasthepower124tomakeorderstoremedyorrestrainthebreach.IntheSustainablePlanningAct,theCourtshouldalsobegiventheexpresspowertomakeordersrequiring‘nameandshame’notificationsofthetypeprovidedforintheProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1997125.

123Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section97B

124Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section124

125Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997,section250(1)(a)and(b)


Recommendation169.TheSustainablePlanningActistogivetheLandandEnvironmentCourt,incivil

enforcementmatters,powertoenableittoorderpublicationnotificationsofthetypeprovidedinthe Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Commissioners assisting Judges in Class 4 mattersCurrently,aJudgewhoishearingamatterinClasses1,2or3oftheCourt’sjurisdictioncanbeassistedbyaCommissionertoprovidetechnicaladvicetotheJudge,ifrequested.TheCommissionerperformsnoadjudicativefunction.SuchadvicemayalsobeusefultoaJudgedealingwithplanningmattersinClass4oftheCourt’sjurisdiction.TheChiefJudgeshouldbeabletoallocateaCommissionertoundertakethisroleinClass4mattersinvolvingtheSustainablePlanningAct.Further,thisreformmaybedesirableacrossallClass4matters.

Recommendations170.TheLand and Environment Court Act 1979istobeamendedsothat,inClass4

mattersinvolvingtheSustainablePlanningAct,CommissionersareabletositwithandassistJudges.

171.ConsiderationbegiventoextendingthistoallmattersinClass4oftheCourt’sjurisdiction.

Class 4 matters and related common law issues Arecentcase126intheLandandEnvironmentCourtinvolvedacombinationofissuesrelatingtothesamefactsandcircumstances.Theyconcernedbothsitecontaminationandcommonlawissues127.TheprimarymattersfellwithintheCourt’sClass1jurisdiction;however,itwasappropriateforaJudgeoftheCourttobeabletodealwiththeassociatedcommonlawissuesifitwererequired.Todothis,itwasnecessarytocommenceproceedingsintheSupremeCourtandtransferthemtotheLandandEnvironmentCourt.Althoughthesecircumstancesarerare,itisnotimpossiblethattheywillariseinthefutureinaplanningcontext.Inourview,ancillarycommonlawmattersrelatingtoplanningmattersintheCourt’sjurisdictionshouldbecommenceddirectlyintheLandandEnvironmentCourt.

ThiswouldavoidtheexpenseandcomplexityofcommencingcommonlawactionintheSupremeCourtandthentransferringittotheLandandEnvironmentCourttobringallrelevantmatterswithinonesetofproceedings.Ifthisrecommendationisacceptedforplanningmatters,itwouldalsoseemsensibletoconsideritsadoptionacrosstheCourt’sjurisdictiongenerally.

126 Jeffman Pty Ltd and Lawrence Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority of NSW, Sydney Water Corporation and Douglas and Hilary Hutchinson[2011]NSWLEC89atpara40

127 Forexample,anallegationofnuisance



Recommendations172.TheLandandEnvironmentCourtAct1979istobeamendedsothat,inmatters

arisingintheCourt’sjurisdictionfromtheSustainablePlanningAct,ancillarycommonlawmattersareabletobecommencedintheLandandEnvironmentCourtandbroughtwithintheplanningproceedings.

173.ConsiderationbegiventoextendingthispositiontoallmattersintheCourt’sciviljurisdiction.

Revocation of development consentsCurrently,developmentconsentcanberevokedonalimitedrangeofgrounds,suchascorruptionoranapplicationtotheDirector-Generaldemonstratinggoodreasonwhytheconsentshouldnotbepermittedtocontinueinoperation128.Theyhavebeenrarelyinvokedandtherewerenoproposalsofsubstanceadvocatingthatthesepresentprovisionsberemoved.

However,itwassuggestedthatcouncilsshouldhaveanunlimitedrighttorevokeadevelopmentconsent,providedthatappropriatecompensationwaspaidtoreflectthelossoftheconsent.Thissuggestionaroseasaconsequenceofconcernthatacouncilshouldbeabletochangeitsmindabouttheacceptabilityorotherwiseofadevelopmentproposal–notjustonthebasisofsomeirregularity.Thus,itwouldactasanopportunityforthecounciltoreconsiderwhetherornotitwishedtoapprovetheparticulardevelopment,andallowittorescind(takeback)theapproval.

Toadoptsuchanopen-endedpropositionwouldimposeasignificantandunacceptableadditionaluncertaintyforlandwithadevelopmentconsent.Itwouldbecontrarytotheprincipleoffinalityindecisionmakingand,forthisreason,werejectit.

Althoughwedoconsiderthatitisappropriate,inextremecircumstances,fortheLandandEnvironmentCourttobeabletorevokeadevelopmentconsentasapenaltyarisingfromaprosecutionforaTier1offence.

Furthertotheabove,animportantelementofsentencingtheoryisthatitshouldprovidethewidestpossibleappropriaterangeofmethodsfordeterringunlawfulconduct.Whilstweacknowledgethatadevelopmentconsentrunswiththeland,inextremecircumstances,theCourtshouldhavearighttorevokeit.Weareoftheviewthatthisshouldonlyapplytoauseoftheland,ratherthanrevokingthelawfulnessofanystructuralworksthatmayhavebeenconstructedaccordingtothedevelopmentconsent.

Anexampleofcircumstancesthatmightgiverisetosucharevocationwouldbeiftherewereaconsenttousepremisesforthepurposesoftherapeuticmassageand,inthecourseofaprosecution,itwasestablishedthattheywerebeingusedhabituallyasabrothel,contrarytoconditionsofconsentforbiddingsuchause.Revocationofthedevelopmentconsentfortheusemightwellbeanappropriatedeterrentmessagetobesentinsuchcircumstances.

128Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section96A


Recommendation174.TheLandandEnvironmentCourtistobegiventheabilitytorevokeadevelopment

consentforuseoflandasadeterrentsentencingoptioninaprosecutionforaTier1offenceforabreachoftheSustainablePlanningActoranyregulationsmadeunderit.

Challenges to validity of development consentsThepresentplanninglegislationstatesthatachallengetothevalidityofdevelopmentconsentmustcommencebeforetheexpirationof3monthsfromthedateonwhichpublicnoticewasgiveninaccordancewiththeregulations129.However,itisestablishedthatthestructureofsection101ofthepresentplanninglegislationwillnotexcludeallchallengesafterthreemonths.Examplesarewhereproceedingstochallengeadevelopmentconsentoutsidethethreemonthtimelimitinclude,butarenotlimitedto,whereadecisionmakerhasexceededitsjurisdiction130orwheretherehasbeenadenialofproceduralfairness131.However,theLandandEnvironmentCourthaswidediscretion132astowhat(ifanything)shouldflowfromasuccessfulchallenge.

Recommendation175.Therighttochallengethevalidityofaconsentistoberetained(withretentionof

thepresenttimelimitandnotificationrequirements).

Costs orders in civil enforcement casesCurrently,theordinary‘costsfollowtheevent’ruleapplieswhenconsideringcosts,incasestakeninClass4oftheCourt’sjurisdiction133.ThisruleappliesunlesstheCourtissatisfiedthatthelitigationshouldbeconsidered‘publicinterest’litigation134,andisimportantenoughtowarrantavariationtotheordinaryrule.Conservationstakeholdershavesuggestedtousthatweshouldalterthebasisuponwhichcostsareconsideredinthesecases.

ThepresentChiefJudgeoftheCourthassetout135athreesteptestforconsideringwhethertheordinaryruleoncostsshouldbesetasideforthistypeoflitigation,andwhetheralessonerousornocostsordershouldbemade.

129 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section101andHoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council[2011]NSWCA349;(2011)184LGERA104

130 R v Hickman; Ex Parte Fox(1945)70CLR589;Association for Berowra Creek Inc v The Minister for Planning & Anor [2003]NSWLEC38

131 Lesnewski v Mosman Municipal Council [2005]NSWCA99

132 Land and Environment Court Act 1979,section25B

133 Atpresent,costsareconsideredpursuanttotheopenstandingprovisionsinthepresentplanninglegislation(whichwehaverecommendedshouldberetained–seeVolume1atpage108).

134 Oshlack v Richmond River (1998)193CLR72

135 Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Limited and Minister for Mineral Resources (No 3)[2010]NSWLEC59;(2010)173LGERA280



Wedonotseeanynecessitytomandatechangetowhatis,inourview,anappropriatediscretionbeingconsideredinaproperlystructuredfashion,astheChiefJudgehasdescribed.Forthisreason,wedonotproposetorecommendanyalterationtothisposition.

Compliance costs/expensesCompliancecostsandexpensesareoneareathatwasofconcerntocouncils.Specifically,theyexpressedconcernaboutthecostsofundertakingcomplianceactivitieswherenofeeshadbeenpaidtofundsuchactivitiesandthattherewasnorecoveryavailabletothem.

ItispossiblefortheLandandEnvironmentCourttoorderwiderfinancialreimbursementthanmerelylegalcostsundertheprovisionsoftheProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1995whentherehasbeensuccessfulcomplianceactiontakenunderthatAct.TheCourtispermittedtomakeacosts/expensesorder136,infavouroftheenforcingbody,tocoverinvestigation/complianceexpensesincurredpriortotheinitiationoftheCourtaction.

Weconsiderthatthisbroaderscopetoorderreimbursementofcompliancecosts/expensesshouldbeprovidedforintheSustainablePlanningActforbothcivilandcriminalenforcement.TheavailabilityofthispowerwouldgivetherelevantCourtabroaderdiscretiontocompensatetheenforcementbodyforthefullrangeofcosts/expensesincurredbyit.

Recommendation176.Abroadercosts/expensesreimbursementordermakingpowershouldbeavailable

incivilandcriminalenforcementproceedingsbroughtundertheSustainablePlanningActtoenableorderstobemadetorequirethecompliance/investigationcosts/expensesoftheenforcingbodytobereimbursed.

136Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997,section248


PART 8 – Councils – additional mattersCouncil Order making generallyCurrently,councilshavethepowerunderthepresentplanninglegislationtoissuearangeofordersforcomplianceorcommunityprotection.Inordertodoso,thecouncilmustgivenoticeoftheintentiontoissueanorderandofthetermsoftheproposedorder.

Apersonorentityreceivingthisnotificationhastherighttomakesubmissionstothecouncilabout:

• whytheordershouldnotbemade• why,iftheorderismade,itshouldbemadeindifferenttermstothoseproposed.

Ifthecouncilthenmakesanorder,thereisarightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtwhichhaswidediscretionarypowerstoconfirmorvarytheorderortodischargeit.

Ingeneralterms,wedonotconsiderthatthereisanyneedtodepartfromthismodel.However,wemakethefollowingcomments:

• First,alltheordermakingprocessiscurrentlysetoutwithinthepresentplanninglegislation.Therefore,tomodifyoraddtotherangeofordersitisnecessarytoamendthelegislation–atimeconsumingprocess.TheneedforthiscouldbeavoidedifthetableoforderswerecontainedinregulationstotheSustainablePlanningAct(writteninaplaindrafting,narrativeform),whichwouldnotremoveParliamentaryscrutinyorpublicaccountability.OnlynecessaryelementsoftheordermakingpowershouldbeintheActitself,alsoinplaindrafting,narrativeform.

• Second,anumberofsuggestionsweremadeaboutadditionalordersthatshouldbeavailable.Someproposalswouldinvolvesignificantphilosophicshifts,suchasanabilitytoordercompletionofadevelopmentwhenitappearedtothecouncilthattherewasnoreasonableprobabilitythatthiswouldotherwiseoccur.Givingacouncilthepowertodosowouldbearadicalshiftandwedonotconsideritappropriate.Thisisbecausewehaveproposedachangetothetestfordeterminingwhetherornotadevelopmentconsenthaslapsedaftertheexpiryofsevenyears137whichprovidesasufficientresponsetothedesiretoensurethatdevelopment,oncecommenced,iscompleted.

• Third,othersuggestionsmerelyrecommendedchangesintheemphasisormodestexpansionofthescopeofthepresentorders–forexample,abroaderpowertoorderthecleanupofunsightlyproperty.Wedonotproposetocanvassthesesuggestionsindetail;however,itisdesirablethattherebeafocusedanddetailedreviewofalloftheorderscontainedinthepresentplanninglegislationtoensurethatthelanguageremainsrelevantandthatnoadditionalordersshouldbeadded.Thisreviewmustinvolvelocalgovernment,industryandthecommunity,butnotneedtobecompletedpriortothecomingintoeffectoftheSustainablePlanningActanditssupportingregulations(giventhelikelyheavyworkloadoftheDepartmenttoimplementtheplanningreform)asthepresenttablecanbeusedintheinterim.


8 Councils – additional matters


Recommendations177.Theessentialelementsforcouncilordermakingpowerscontainedinthepresent

planninglegislationistobecarriedintotheSustainablePlanningAct.Theremainderoftheordermaking,reviewandappealprocessesaretobecontainedinregulations.

178.TheregulationssupportingtheSustainablePlanningActaretoincludethepresenttableoforders(asaninterimmeasure)pendingtherecommendedreview.

179.Consistentwiththerecommendationsconcerningurgentapplicationstoshutdownunapprovedactivities,anadditionalorderistobeincludedinthetablepermittingthemakingoforderstorequiretheimmediatecessationofanyunapprovedactivitywherethereisademonstratedsignificantimpact(orpotentialimpact)onpublicamenity,healthorsafety.

180.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureinconjunctionwithrepresentativesoflocalgovernment,thedevelopmentindustryandcommunityandenvironmentalnetworksaretoreviewtherangeoforderscontainedinthepresentorderstableandrecommendanychangesthatmightbemadetothatexistingtableoforders.

Drafting precision for ordersAfurthermatterthataroseduringtheconsultationprocessrelatedtothetechnicalaspectsofdraftingorders.Itwassuggestedtous,onanumberofoccasions,thatcouncilsfeltthenecessitytoconsulttheirsolicitorsonthedraftingofanorderpriortoissuingit.Evenso,whensuchcheckinghadoccurred,councilsstillfacedlegalchallenges.Itwassuggestedtousthatnewlegislationshouldmakespecificprovisionforanordertobevalidprovideditsintentionwasclear.Thiswouldensurethatchallengestoordersweredealtwithonthesubstantivemerits,ratherthanontechnicalitiesofdrafting.Althoughsuchaprovisionmightbeoflimitedutility,ifithadsomeeffectinreducinglitigationandlegalism,thiswouldbeadesirableoutcome.WethereforeproposethatsuchaprovisionbeincludedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

Recommendation181.TheSustainablePlanningActistoprovidethatanordershallnotbeinvalidif,

despiteanydefectsinitsdrafting,theintentionoftheorderisclearfromitsterms.



Strict liability penalty notice offence – false or misleading informationThepresentplanninglegislationincludesoffencesthatarisewhereapersonknowinglyprovidesfalseormisleadinginformation139ormakesfalseormisleadingstatements140.Suchoffencesrequirethattherequisitestateofmindmustbeprovedmakingasuccessfulprosecutiondifficult.

WeconsiderthattheseoffencesshouldremainasoffencesundertheSustainablePlanningActandshouldbecapable,inextremecases,ofbeingdealtwithasTier1offencesintheprosecutionregimewehaverecommended141.

However,wealsoconsideritappropriatethattherebealesserpenaltyabletobeimposedfortheprovisionoffalseorinaccurateinformationviaastrictliabilitypenaltynoticeoffencewithanappropriatepenalty.

Wedonotconsiderthatthereshouldbesuchastrictliabilitypenaltynoticeoffenceformisleadinginformation,aswhatmayormaynotbemisleadingcanbeasubjectivequestion,whereasaccuracyisdeterminedbyanempiricaltrue/falseanalyticalprocess.

Recommendations182.Anewpenaltynoticeoffenceistobecreatedfortheprovisionoffalseor

inaccurateinformation.

183.ThecircumstancesunderwhichsuchpenaltynoticesmaybeissuedaretobesetoutbytheDepartmentandcouncilsintheircomplianceandenforcementpolicies.

139Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section118N(1)(c)

140Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,section122T(2)

141 SeeVolume1,PartC,Chapter13–Recommendation122

9 Enforcement policies


PART 9 – Enforcement policiesItisinevitablethatthoseresponsibleforenforcementundertheSustainablePlanningAct,whetheratthelocalorStatelevel,willneedtomakedecisionsaboutwhetherornotenforcementactionshouldbetaken.Thosedecisionswillreflectdaytodaydiscretions,atacomparativelylowlevel(bycouncilorDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructurecomplianceofficers)throughtomoresignificantdecisionsofwhetherornottocommenceaprosecutionineithertheLocalCourtortheLandandEnvironmentCourt.

ParticularlywithrespecttoprosecutionsintheLandandEnvironmentCourt,decisionsastowhetherornottoinitiateaprosecutionareofpotentialsignificancenotonlytothepotentialdefendantbutalsotothecommunity.Giventhattherewillalwaysbediscretionsexercisedindecisionsastowhetherornottoprosecuteorwhetherornottoundertakeenforcementbytheissuingofaninfringementnotice,itisdesirablethatthisprocessbepredictableandtransparent.TheonlywaythatthiscanoccurisifthereareclearandpubliclyavailableguidelinesthatsetparametersforexercisingenforcementdiscretionsthatcoverthespectrumfromwhetherapenaltynoticeshouldbeissuedthroughtowhetheraprosecutionforaTier1offenceshouldbecommenced.

Therefore,councilsandtheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureshouldberequiredtoreviseexistingordevelopnewcompliance/enforcementpolicieswithamandatorypubliccommentperiodonthese.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure’srevisedcompliance/enforcementpoliciesaretobesubjecttoMinisterialapprovalafteradviceisprovidedbythePlanningAdvisoryBoardontheirproposedterms.

Itislikely,forcouncils,thattherewouldbelocalvariationsinenforcementpolicies.However,itisdesirablefortheretobeasetofmodelguidelinesthatcouncilscouldconsiderandadapt.Inthisregard,theenforcementroleofcouncilsgoesbeyondmattersintheSustainablePlanningActandanyregulationsmadepursuanttoit.

Therefore,weproposethattheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructurewritetotheMinisterforLocalGovernmentaskingthatthepanelreviewingtheLocal Government Act 1993 considerthatcouncilsmightdevelopacomprehensiveenforcementpolicycoveringthetotalityoftheirenforcementactivitiesratherthanmerelyrelatingtotheSustainablePlanningAct.Ifthisweretobethecase,itwouldbedesirablethatanymodelpolicyonthistopicbedevelopedonaco-operativebasisbetweentheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,theDivisionofLocalGovernmentandtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationwithcommentstobesoughtfromappropriateindustryandconservationinterestsand,whenadraftwasavailable,fromthePlanningAdvisoryBoard.


Recommendations184.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure’scomplianceandenforcement

policiesberevisedafterpassageoftheSustainablePlanningAct.

185.TherevisionistobeundertakenunderthesupervisionofthePlanningAdvisoryBoardwithimplementationtotakeplaceaftertheMinisterhasconsideredtheBoard’sadviceontheproposedrevisedpolicies.

186.TheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructurewritetotheMinisterforLocalGovernmentaskingthatMinistertorequestthepanelreviewingtheLocal Government Act 1993toconsiderwhethercouncilsshoulddeveloporrevisecomplianceandenforcementofpoliciesofacomprehensivenature(notmerelyformattersarisingundertheSustainablePlanningAct).

10 Environmental Impact Statements


PART 10 – Environmental Impact StatementsIntroductionAnumberofparticipantsintheconsultationprocessexpressedconcernthatEnvironmentalImpactStatementsarepreparedbyconsultantswhoareselected,retainedandpaidbydevelopmentproponents.Assuch,itwassaidthatconsultantsactas‘hiredguns’andarenotindependent.

TheIssuesPapersetoutanumberofproposalsadvancedforaddressingtheseconcernsincluding:

• establishinganaccreditationsystemforconsultants• requiringafundingsystemtopermitcouncilsorcommunitygroupstoengageanexpertreviewer

• stipulatingthattheconsentauthoritymustengagetheconsultants,ratherthantheapplicant

• stipulatingthatallreportsmustbepeerreviewedbyexternallynominatedreviewers.

InsubmissionsrespondingtotheIssuesPaper,thosewhowere(orwerelikelytobe)proponentsofdevelopmentthatwouldrequireanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(ororganisationsrepresentingthem)resistedanychangetothepresentsystem.ThispositionwasalsotakenbythosewhoundertakethepreparationofexpertreportsforEnvironmentalImpactStatements.Thiswasnotonlybasedonunnecessaryadditionalcostanddelay,butalsoonwhatwassaidtobeanunjustifiedcriticismoftheprofessionalismandindependenceofthoseundertakingsuchinvestigationandreportingactivities.Unsurprisingly,councilandcommunityperspectivesreflectedadegreeofcynicismabouttheindependenceofandadequacyofworkdonebysuchconsultants.

Atpresent,ifitappearssufficientlyserioustowarrantsodoing,anassessingbody,whetheraCouncilortheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureorsomeotherinstrumentality,cancommissionandpayfortheirownstudies.Exercisingthisoptionhappensonamodestlyfrequent,butbynomeansuniversalbasis.Muchmorerarely,butstilloccasionally,acommunitygroupwillengageanexperttoexaminesomeaspectofanEnvironmentalImpactStatementofconcerntothatgroup.Nothinginthenewlegislativeframeworkshouldrestricttheseoptions.

Requiringthattheconsentauthorityengagetheconsultantsornominatewhowouldbeacceptableconsultants,inourview,fundamentallymisunderstandsthenatureoftheprocessbeingundertaken.ItmaywellbethatanEnvironmentalImpactStatementprocesscouldleadtoadecisionnottomakeanapplication.Similarly,theprojectmaybesignificantlymodifiedasaconsequenceofstudiesbeingundertakenpriortothefinalisationoftheEnvironmentalImpactStatementprocess.Veryrealissuesofcommercialconfidentialityalsoariseifthefirstofthesecircumstancesoccursandnoprojectapplicationisactuallylodged.

Wearealsonotattractedtoestablishingafundingpoolcreatedbyalevyonprojectproponentstofundexternalexpertreviewersengagedbytheconsentauthorityor


communitygroups.Thereareinherentdifficultiesinestablishingsuchaschemewithsufficientfundingorestablishinganopenandtransparentprocessforselectingwhowouldhaveaccesstothatfundingpool.WearealsopersuadedthatthesignificantcostofpreparinganEnvironmentalImpactStatementforamajorproject(costthathasincreasedsignificantlysincethepresentplanninglegislationcameintoeffect,largelyasaresultofbetterscientificknowledgeofpotentialissuesthatrequireaddressing),wouldmakesuchalevyaneconomicdisincentivetoprojectproposals.Havingmadealloftheseessentiallynegativecomments,weshouldmakeitclearthatsomeimprovementonthepresentprocessisbothnecessaryanddesirableinordertoassistrestorepublicconfidenceinassessingmajorprojects.

Accreditation for those preparing an EIS or supporting studiesWehavereceivedawiderangeofsubmissionsproposingamandatoryaccreditationorcertificationsystemforconsultantspreparingEnvironmentalImpactStatements.Submissionsalsoopposedtotheintroductionofsuchasystem.Inthiscontext,weparticularlynotethecommentscontainedinthesubmissionfromtheNSWTreasury142onthistopic:

Section 3.2.9 Environmental Impact Statements

Environmental Impact Statements give consent authorities information and evidence on the environmental implications of a development. Information provided in the Statements includes impacts on water, threatened species, heritage and bushfires.

Information requirements should be streamlined where possible to minimise the regulatory burden on applicants. To improve the confidence of the system, planning reports should be provided by consultants or bodies that are pre-approved or certified by the Government.

Recommendation Seventeen: Consultants that provide Environmental Impact Statements should be chosen from an accredited panel, and required to meet certain standards regarding the impartiality and quality of their work.

Althoughthereareattractionstoit,suchanaccreditationsystemwouldhaveconsequenceswellbeyondmerelytheplanningsystem.Aswiththebuildingindustry143,itisbeyondthescopeofthisReviewtosuggestthenatureofsuchanaccreditationscheme(ifitweretobeestablished);whatbodyshouldundertaketheaccreditationprocess;andhowshouldthesystembemaintained(includingissuessuchasprofessionalindemnityinsurance,mandatorycontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentprograms,disciplinaryproceduresandthelike).

However,thesupportgiventoaccreditationbytheNSWTreasuryrendersitanideaworthyoffurtherexploration.Becauseofthis,wehaveconcludedthatitisappropriatetorecommendareferencebemadetotheLegislativeCouncilStandingCommitteeonStateDevelopmenttoinvestigatethismatter.

142 Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=s0S5qGGKwiM%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

143 SeeVolume1,PartN

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=s0S5qGGKwiM%3d&tabid=119&mid=569



Recommendation187.AreferenceistobegiventotheLegislativeCouncilStandingCommitteeonState

Developmenttoinvestigatewhetheranaccreditationsystemshouldbeadoptedforconsultantspreparingenvironmentalstudies(includingthosethatsupportEnvironmentalImpactStatements).

Carbon accountingIntheIssuesPaper,weasked144whethercarbonaccountingshouldhavearoleintheassessmentrequirementsfordevelopmentproposals.WehaveconcludedthatitisnotappropriatetospecifywhencarbonaccountingneedstobeaddressedinanEnvironmentalImpactStatement.Clearly,sucharequirementshouldonlybeincorporatediftherearesignificantpotentialgreenhousegasemissionissuesarisingfromtheprojectactivities(bothScope1and2),ratherthanfromjustdownstreamimpacts(Scope3)145.Wehavealsoconsideredwhetheritwouldbepossibletoprovidesomeguidanceonwhatmightbesucharequirement,butitisclearfromtheinformationavailablefromtheAustralianDepartmentofClimateChangeandEnergyEfficiencythatthecomplexityoftheprocessinvolvedisnotamenabletosimpleexplanation.Wehave,therefore,notattemptedtoprovideadefinitionbutsimplynotethatsucharequirementmay,fromtimetotime,beincorporatedinEnvironmentImpactStatementrequirementssetbytheDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureforaproposedproject.

Director-General’s requirements for Environmental Impact StatementsCurrently,theDirector-GeneraloftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureissuesrequirementsforEnvironmentalImpactStatements.Ourrecommendeddevelopmentclassifications146meansthattheDirector-Generalwillneedtocontinuetoissuerequirementsforthepreparationofsuchstatementsforall‘impactassessable’developmentproposals.

Asweunderstandit,thereisasignificantdegreeofcommonalityinthestructureandcontentofsuchrequirements(althoughtherequirementsmayincorporatespecificmattersrelatingtotheproposal).ItisthereforepossibletopublishontheDepartment’swebsiteabroadtemplateofthosemattersoflikelystandardEnvironmentalImpactStatementelementsforvariousclassesofdevelopment.

Althoughweaccept,asdiscussedabove,thatitisnotappropriatetoremoveresponsibilityforthepreparationofEnvironmentalImpactStatementsfromprojectproponents(inpartforreasonsofcommercialconfidentiality),wedonotconsiderthattheissuingofDirector-General’srequirementsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStatementraises

144QuestionD45atpage67

145 Seehttp://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/understanding-nger-data.aspx


http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/understanding-nger-data.aspx

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/understanding-nger-data.aspx

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

John Sheehan to review.


thesameconfidentialityissues.Asaconsequence,whentheDirector-GeneralissuesrequirementsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStatement,thoserequirementsshouldbemadepublic.Thisconstitutesarelevantelementofour‘righttoknow’approach.

Finally,weconsiderthatthereshouldbearightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtagainsttheserequirements,ifthepotentialdevelopmentapplicantconsidersthattheyareinappropriate.

Recommendations188.IssuingofDirector-General’srequirementsforpreparationofEnvironmentalImpact

StatementsistoberetainedintheSustainablePlanningAct.

189.Totheextentthatitispossible,theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistopublishonitswebsiteatemplateoftheDirector-General’srequirementsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStatementfordevelopmentproposals.

190.AnyDirector-General’srequirementsissuedforapossibledevelopmentaretobemadepubliclyavailableontheDepartment’swebsitetogetherwithidentificationoftheareaencompassedbythepossibledevelopment.

191.ThereistobearightofappealtotheLandandEnvironmentCourtbyapotentialprojectproponenttochallengetheDirector-General’srequirements.

Reviews of Environment Impact StatementsWeconsideritappropriatethattherebeanopportunityforanauthorityassessinganEnvironmentalImpactStatementtorequireapeerreviewofanyfacetofthesubmittedmaterial,attheproponent’sexpense.Theprocessfornominatingwhoistoconductthepeerreviewistobebytheassessingauthoritynominatingapanelofthreepeerreviewers,andtheproponentacceptingoneofthose.Thepeerreviewingroleistobeanalogoustotheroleofasingleparty’sexpertinCourtproceedings,whereallcommunicationwiththepeerreviewerbyeithertheassessingbodyortheproponentistobedisclosedtotheother.Thepeerreviewer’sreportistobeavailabletobothandpublishedontheassessingbody’swebsite.

Thisprocessshouldnotbeestablishedasanopen-endedonetopermitassessingauthoritiesautomaticallyrequiringeveryreporttobepeerreviewedand,ineffect,obtainingasecondopinionabouteverything.Toprovidepropercontrol,theDirector-General’sconsentistoberequired.AnyproposalforapeerreviewduringanyDepartmentalassessmentistobereferredtotheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissiontobeconsideredonthepapers.

Wedonotenvisagethatanypeerreviewwillinvolveadditionalfieldwork.Itistobeconfined,simply,toareviewofthedocumentation,withthepeerrevieweraccessingoriginalfielddataifnecessary.

Wedonotconsiderthatanysignificantextensionshouldbemadetothepermittedassessmentperiodsfordevelopmentswherethisprovisionmightbetriggered,butanadditionalperiodof five working daysshouldbeadded.Peerreviewingshouldonlybeabletobeinvokedonce(althoughmaybeabletobeinvokedconcerningmorethanoneaspectoftheapplicationoritssupportingmaterial)sothatthereisonlyasingleextensionoftimetotheassessmentperiod.



Wearealsomindfulofthefactthatthisisanentirelynewstepintheprocessesthatwillbeavailable,formally,withintheassessmentprocessformajorprojects.Asaconsequence,weconsiderthatthisreformneedstobeapproachedwithsomecautiontoensurethatitisnotoverusedandcausessignificantunnecessaryworkorexpenseforproponents.Asaconsequence,thisreformistobeimplementedbyregulation,reviewedafter12monthsandfinetuned,ifrequired.

Recommendations192.Assessingauthoritiesaretobepermittedtorequirepeerreviewingofreportsor

informationprovidedinsupportofanEnvironmentalImpactStatement.

193.Peerreviewingcanonlyberequestedononeoccasionbutmayberequestedonmorethanoneaspectoftheproposal.

194.ForproposalsbyassessingauthorityotherthantheDepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanningforpeerreviewing,theconcurrenceoftheDirector-Generalistobeobtained.

195.WhentheassessingauthorityistheDepartment,suchrequestshallbereferredtotheChairpersonofthePlanningCommissiontobedealtwithonthepapers.

196.Theassessingbodiesseekingthepeerreviewshallnominatethreeproposedpeerreviewersfromwhichtheprojectproponentcanselectthereviewertobecommissioned.

197.Thepeerreviewingistobeundertakenattheproponent’sexpense.

198.Ifpeerreviewingisrequired,anadditionalperiodoffiveworkingdaysshallbeaddedtothestatutoryassessmentperiodfortheproject.

199.Theresultsofanypeerreviewaretobepublishedontheassessingauthority’swebsite.

200.Thisprocessistobegiveneffectbyregulationsothatitcanbereviewedaftertheexpiryof12months.


PART 11– Former Aboriginal reserves and missionsInVolume1147,wenotedthat59formerAboriginalreservesandmissionsthroughouttheStatehavenotbeenbroughtappropriatelywithinthepresentplanningsystem.WeconsiderthatdealingwiththesereservesandmissionsisafundamentalissueofsocialjusticefortheAboriginalpeoplegenerallyandfortheAboriginalcommunitieslivingonorassociatedwiththesesitesinparticular.Itmay,however,takesomeconsiderabletimetofinalisethelastofthemthroughtheprocessthatweenvisage.

Thisissuehasbeencanvassedwithusintwosubmissions148fromtheNewSouthWalesAboriginalLandCouncil.Thesesubmissionsidentifyanumberofissuesconcerningthesereservesandmissionsandtheirpresentexclusionfromtheordinaryprocessesthatmightbeexpectedtohavebeenappliedthroughthepresentplanninglegislation.Thesedifferentlytreatedparcelsoflandremain,infact,relicsofthecolonialera-treatmentofAboriginalpeople.Asaconsequence,weconsiderthatthisdefectwarrantsrectification.TheNewSouthWalesLandCouncilmadethefollowingfiverecommendationsinitssecondsubmission149:

• A new planning system must recognise and acknowledge the historical existence and cultural significance of Aboriginal settlements on former reserves and missions as a standalone type of development.

• A planning approvals process should be established that acknowledges the state significance of these sites in order to overcome the current barriers that are hindering these sites from becoming recognised as part of the NSW planning system, and re-integrate these sites into the NSW planning system without undue expense.

• A specific state-level approval process and consent authority for development proposals should be established relating to former reserves and missions to ensure a coordinated approach.

• Any proposed programs or legislative mechanisms to address former Aboriginal reserves and missions should be developed in partnership and close consultation with NSWALC and affected Local Aboriginal Land Councils.

• Timelines must be negotiated with NSWALC and relevant LALCs to allow enough time for genuine consultation to occur, and ensure that any potential adverse impacts are minimised (e.g. other operational requirements of LALCs; timeframes related to social housing schemes imposed by the Housing Office; funding from external sources).

Wehaveconsidered,notmerelythesefiverecommendations,butalsomorebroadlyhowtheseissuesshouldbedealtwithwithinareformedplanningsystem.WetakethefourthandfifthoftheNewSouthWalesLandCouncil’srecommendations,beforeturningtoconsiderhowthedecision-makingprocesseswilldealwiththeseparcelsofland.

147 Volume1,PartJ,page135

148 Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-PKqycR35oQ%3d&tabid=105&mid=516andhttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xNLWc_oTltg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

149 Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xNLWc_oTltg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-PKqycR35oQ%3d&tabid=105&mid=516

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xNLWc_oTltg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xNLWc_oTltg%3d&tabid=119&mid=569

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

John Sheehan to comment.

11 Former Aboriginal reserves and missions


ItisclearthattheremustbesignificantconsultationwiththeNewSouthWalesLandCouncil,eachrelevantLocalAboriginalLandCouncilandthelocalgovernmentcouncilwithinwhoseareaeachformerAboriginalreserveormissionislocated.IntegrationmustbeachievedinafashionthatrealisticallyrecognisestheirpresentusesandtheaspirationsoftheAboriginalcommunitiesthatliveonorareassociatedwiththesesites.Itisonlyifthereisanagreedconsultationprocess,includingsufficienttimeforaffectedcommunities–bothAboriginalandnon-indigenous–tocommentonandparticipateintheprocess,thatthereisanyrealisticprospectofsignificantprogressbeingmadeinintegratingthesesitesintotheconventionalland-useplanningsystem.

Itisequallycleartousthatitmustbeameasuredapproach,stagedovertime,sothatitisabletobeaccommodatedwithintheprocesseswerecommendbelowandwithintheresourcesavailabletothosebodiesandcommunitieswhichneedtobeinvolved.Inrecognitionofthis,anindicativesequencinglistshouldbenegotiatedfortheproposedintegrationprocessesbythefollowingbodies:

• theDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure• theNewSouthWalesAboriginalLandCouncil(withthisCouncilinvolvingrelevantLocalAboriginalLandCouncilsasitconsidersappropriateforsequencing)

• theLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation(togetherwithsuchcouncilsastheAssociationconsidersappropriateinthesesequencingdiscussions).

ItmayalsobeappropriatetoinvolvetheOfficeofLocalGovernment–giventhatissuesrelatingtowhetherornottheoutcomesoftheprocessmightrequirearevisitingoftherelevantprovisions150relatingtocouncilratesonlandownedbyaLocalAboriginalLandCounciland,ifso,underwhatcircumstances.

Historically,theissuesarelegaciesoftheactionorinactionofStategovernmentsratherthanoflocalgovernments.Asaconsequence,whenaworkplanemergesfromthesequencingdiscussions,theassessmentprocessestobeundertakenshouldbeprojectsfortherelevantregionalofficeoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.Giventhenatureoftheseissuesandtheirhistorystretchingbacktothe19thcentury,wedonotconsideritappropriatethattheDepartmentchargesanyapplicationfeesforundertakingthisprocess.TheDepartment’sprocessshouldbeonethatisfacultativewithaninitialconsultationprocesstodevelopaworkprogramthatidentifiesthefollowing:

• thenatureoftheinformationrequired• thenatureofanyapplicationappropriatetoproceedtothePlanningCommission.

Whenanassessmenthasbeenundertaken,thepointshouldbereachedwheretherecanbesomeformofpublicprocessundertakenbythePlanningCommissionholdingpublichearingsandmakingadeterminationaboutanapplicationormakingrecommendationstotheMinisteronhowamattershouldproceedfurther.

150Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983,Part2Division5andAboriginal Land Rights Regulation 2002,Part2clause7


Recommendations201.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,theNewSouthWalesAboriginal

LandCouncil(withthisCouncilinvolvingrelevantLocalAboriginalLandCouncilsasitconsidersappropriateforsequencing),andtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation(togetherwithsuchcouncilsastheAssociationconsidersappropriateinthesesequencingdiscussions)aretodevelopanindicativesequencinglistforintegratingAboriginalreservesandmissionsintothenewplanningsystem.

202.IfthesepartiesconsidereditappropriateandtheOfficeofLocalGovernmentindicatedawishtoparticipate,theOfficeofLocalGovernmentisalsotobeinvolvedinthesequencingdiscussions.

203.ForeachformerAboriginalreserveormission,theassessmentprocessistobeundertakenbytherelevantregionalofficeoftheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure.

204.TheDepartment’sprocessistobefacultativeandincludeidentifyingthenatureoftheinformationrequiredandtheappropriateformthatanapplicationmighttaketoeffectintegrationofthelandsbeingassessedintothenewplanningsystem.

205.WhenanassessmentofanyformerAboriginalreserveormissionhasbeencompleted,thereistobeapublicprocessundertakenbythePlanningCommission,eitherholdingpublichearingsandmakingadeterminationonanyapplicationthatmayhavebeenmadearisingfromtheassessmentprocessorholdingpublichearingsandmakingrecommendationstotheMinisteronhowthatmattershouldproceedfurther.

206.TheDepartmentisnottochargeanyfeeforundertakingthisprocess.

12 Community Engagement


PART 12 – Community EngagementThisPartdiscussessomeadditionalmatterswherewethinkthatgreaterengagementofthecommunitywiththeplanningsystemcanbefacilitated.

Assisting with the “right to know”InVolume1,wehavediscussed151theopportunitiestousenewelectronicmedianotifications,drawingtheattentionofthosewhohaveexpressedinterestinaparticulartopictothefactthatnewmaterialmayhavebecomeavailable.Fundamentally,theplanningsystemshouldnotregardinformingthecommunityasapassiveprocess–itneedstobeanactiveanddynamiconereachingoutratherthanrelyingonthosewhoareinterestedtohuntforandfindinformationontopicswithwhichtheywishtobeengaged.

WealsorecommendedinVolume1152thattherebeacontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentprogramforthoseinvolvedinland-useplanningintheStateandlocalgovernmentsectors.Weconsiderthatasignificantelementinthateducationmustinvolveuseofevolvingcommunicationtechnologiesandhowthesecanbeusedtocommunicatewiththecommunity.

Recommendation207.ThecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentworkinggrouprecommendedinVolume

1PartIistoincorporateamoduleonopportunitiesforactivecommunicationwiththecommunityintheprogramthattheydevelop.

Precinct committeesAnumberofurbancouncilshaveestablishedprecinctcommitteesforinterestedcommunitygroupsorindividualsinanidentifiedlocalitytoprovideguidanceonissuesaffectingalocalityoronbroaderpolicyissues.Theirroleisrelevantforstrategicplanning,localland-useplanning,localiseddevelopmentcontrolpreparation,anddevelopmentproposalassessmentactivitiesofacouncil.Althoughweacknowledgethevaluableroleofthesecommittees,wedonotconsideritappropriatetocontemplateanyformofstatutoryrecognitionintheSustainablePlanningActforthesebodies.

Weconsiderthatcouncils,particularlyinurbanareaswhereprecinctcommitteeshavenotbeenestablished,shouldbeencouragedtoconsidersuchastructure.Toassistinthisprocess,itisdesirableaplainEnglish,bestpracticeguidebepreparedontheestablishment,rolesandoperationofprecinctcommitteesandprovidedtourbancouncilsorprovincialcitycouncils.Obviously,inthepreparationofsuchaguide,thosecouncilspresentlyoperatingsuchcommitteescanprovidevaluableassistance,aswouldboththeOfficeofLocalGovernmentandtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociation.

151 SeeVolume1,PartHatpages130-10

152 SeeVolume1,PartIatpage133

David

Highlight

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

Need GIS skills.


Recommendations208.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoconveneaworkinggroup

comprisingrepresentativesoftheOfficeofLocalGovernmentandtheLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationandrepresentativesofthosecouncilscurrentlyoperatingaprecinctcommitteesystemwishingtobeinvolvedintheworkinggroup.

209.ThetaskoftheworkinggroupistoproduceaplainEnglishguidetobestpracticeintheestablishment,rolesandoperationofprecinctcommittees.

Project identification on the Department’s websiteCurrently,informationregardingmajorprojectsismadeavailableontheDepartment’swebsite(calledtheMajorProjectsRegister)153.Unfortunately,findinginformationonaprojectrequirestextsearches–notbyusingvisualoptionssuchasmapsorimages.Inordertoadvancethe‘righttoknow’,informationshouldbeaccessedviabothtextsearchesandinteractivevisualmeans(suchasusedbyusduringourconsultationprocess154).Azoom-infunctionwouldberequiredintheSydneymetropolitanareaortheHunterValley,wheretheremightbeanumberofprojectsincloseproximity.

Recommendation210.TheDepartment’swebsiteistoincludeaninteractivemaptofacilitateaccessto

informationconcerningallprojectsbeingassessedbytheDepartment.

153 Seehttp://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/

154 Seehttp://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/ConsultationProcess/CommunityForumMap/tabid/89/Default.aspx

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/

http://planningreview.nsw.gov.au/ConsultationProcess/CommunityForumMap/tabid/89/Default.aspx

13 Other reform measures


PART 13 – Other reform measuresInVolume1155,weproposedtwoothermajormeasurestoreformtheplanningsystem(establishingaPlanningAdvisoryBoardandaddressingcopyrightissues).Thefollowingarethreeotherareasofreformthataredesirable.

Planning in the unincorporated area of the StateTheunincorporatedareaofNewSouthWalescomprisesapproximately29percentoftheState.Currently,theWesternLandsCommissionerhaslimitedsupervisoryresponsibilityforplanninginthisarea,withsignificantprojects,triggeredbyStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicies,fallingwithinthejurisdictionoftherelevantJointRegionalPlanningPanel.

Wehaverecommendedthataunitaryplanningdocument156applyinallareaswherethereisarelevantlocalgovernmentbodyresponsibleforlocalplanningmatters.Currently,thereisnodocumentrelatingtotheunincorporatedareathatwouldcompriseeitherofthesecondandthirdelements157ofsuchunitaryplanningdocument.AlthoughmanagementofSilverton,forexample,isvestedinatrust,thereisnoenvironmentalplanninginstrumentthatsetstheframeworkforanyplanningactivitiesthatmightbeappropriateforthatvillage.

Muchofthedevelopmentthatwilltakeplaceinthevillagesintheunincorporatedareawouldfallwithinwhatwillordinarilybecategorisedasexemptorcodeassessabledevelopment.Developmentonagricultural/pastoralholdingswouldbesimilar–aslongascareistakeninsituatingthemrelativetoephemeralwatercourses,vegetationandpermanentwaterstorages.

Nonetheless,thereshouldbeaLand-UsePlanfortheunincorporatedareatogetherwithanaccompanyingDevelopmentControlPlan.BoththesedocumentsmaybeofcomparativelymodestscopebutmustprovideappropriateguidancetothoselivingorundertakingactivitieswithinthisvastareaoftheState.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureshouldtakeresponsibilityforthepreparationofthesetwodocumentsinconjunctionwiththeWesternLandsCommissionerandinconsultationwiththeWesternLandsAdvisoryCouncilandotherbodieswithaninterestinthisarea.

Recommendations211.TheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructureistoprepareaLocalLand-UsePlan

andDevelopmentControlPlanfortheunincorporatedarea.TheseplansaretobepreparedinconjunctionwiththeWesternLandsCommissionerandinconsultationwiththeWesternLandsAdvisoryCouncil,theNewSouthWalesMineralsCouncil,theNationalParksandWildlifeServiceandanyboardsofmanagementofAboriginal-ownedandjointly-managedNationalParksintheunincorporatedarea.

155 SeeVolume1,PartKfrompage136


157ALocalLand-UsePlanandaDevelopmentControlPlan


212.TheconsentauthorityfordevelopmentproposalsintheunincorporatedareaistobetheWesternLandsCommissioner,withthefollowingexceptions:codeassessableCrowndevelopment,developmentthatwillfallwithinthejurisdictionofaJointRegionalPlanningPanelordevelopmentthatwillfallwithinthejurisdictionofthePlanningCommission.

213.TheconsultationprocessforthedevelopmentoftheLand-UsePlanfortheunincorporatedareaistoincludespecificconsultationsabouttherangeofmattersthatcanberegardedascodeassessabledevelopmentswithinthisplanningframework,particularlyonpastoralholdings.

Revitalisation of the Newcastle Central Business DistrictTheissueofminesubsidencerisksanditactingasabarriertoredevelopmentoftheNewcastleCentralBusinessDistrictwasaspecificissueraisedwithusduringtheconsultationprocess.TheIssuesPapersetthisoutat18.5 Aggregated developments in mine subsidence areas.Weasked:

D130. Is it appropriate to consider, in legislation for a new planning system, providing a statutory basis for spreading the cost of a necessary rehabilitation or stabilisation measure across all property ownerships benefited by such a measure?

Wehaveconsideredcarefullywhetherweshouldaddressthistopic,asitisaveryspecificplanningissue.However,wehaveconcludedthatweshoulddosobecauseoftheeconomicimportanceofNewcastleasthenorthernendofwhatisincreasinglybecomingtheintegratedconurbationofNewcastle,SydneyandWollongonganditsroleasgatewaytotheHunterValley.

Indoingso,wenotethatNewcastleCityCouncil’ssubmissionsupportedthepropositionthatthereshouldbeastatutorybasisforrecoveringthecostofnecessaryrehabilitationandstabilisationmeasuresfromallbenefitedpropertyowners.Itseems,attheleast,thatitisnecessarythatsuchaschemeoperatebyacombinationofmeasurestoidentifytheplanningandgeographiccontextforfundingpreventativeworks,viatheMinesSubsidenceBoard,soastoencouragea‘first-moving’re-developmentprojectwithinthescheme’sarea.

Asaconsequence,weproposethattheSustainablePlanningActpermitidentificationoftheareawithinwhichsuchaschemecanoperate;theplanningprocessforthepotentialminesubsidenceconsequencesthatwouldneedtobeaddressedforsucharedevelopment;andtheextenttowhichthoseworkswouldneedtoextendwithintheboundariesofadjacentproperties,whetherpubliclyorprivatelyowned.Worksthatextendedunderadjacentpropertiesinprivateownershipwouldneedtobeabletobeundertaken(ifowners’consentwerenotgivenforthoseworks)byremovaloftherequirementforowners’consentbeingrequired.Asthisispotentiallycontroversial,weproposethatanysuchschemenotcomeintoeffectuntilafteranextensiveconsultationprocessisundertakenwithpropertyownersintheareaidentifiedforsuchascheme.

13 Other reform measures


Itwillalsobenecessarytofundthoseelementsoftheworksfortheredevelopmentofanyparticularsitethatfalloutsidetheboundariesofasite.TheonlypossiblesourceoffundingthatweareabletoidentifyisfromtheMinesSubsidenceBoardwiththeBoardrecoupingthefundsfromotherbenefitedprivatelandholdersatthetimeofredevelopment.

Althoughthepossibilityofestablishingsuchaschemeraisescomplexissues,weconsideritdesirablethataframeworkbeestablishedintheSustainablePlanningAct.However,wedonotenvisagethattheschemewouldbecomeoperationaluntiltherehadbeencloseconsultationwithpropertyowners,theMinesSubsidenceBoardandNewcastleCityCounciltoidentifyanyareathatwouldbeencompassedandhow,inapracticalsense,itwouldoperate.

InadditiontoincorporationoftheaboveproposedfacultativeprovisionsintheSustainablePlanningAct,amendmentsmayneedtobemadetotheMinesSubsidencelegislation,atafuturetime,topermitaschemetobecomeoperational.Thismaywellprovideanappropriatefurtherbasisforgovernmentconsiderationofsuchaproposalpriortoitsimplementation.

Recommendations214.TheSustainablePlanningActtoincludeparticularprovisionsfacilitating

establishmentofaschemetoencourageredevelopmentofminesubsidenceareasidentifiedwithintheNewcastleCentralBusinessDistrict.Theseprovisionsaretopermitaschemetobeabletobeimplementedtoallowtheproposedredevelopmenttoproceed,withoutowners’consentbeinggivenbyownersofpropertiesadjoininganypropertyproposedtoberedevelopedorwheretheadjoiningpropertieswouldrequiretohavesubsidencepreventionmeasuresundertakenunderthem.

215.AssuchprovisionsmayalsohavewiderapplicationthanmerelyNewcastle,theyaretobedraftedingeneralterms.

216.TheselegislativeprovisionsarenottocomeintoeffectuntiltheGovernmentissatisfiedthatanappropriateschemefordoingsohasbeendevelopedbytheDepartmentofPlanningandInfrastructure,inconjunctionwithlandholderinterestsintheidentifiedarea,NewcastleCityCouncilandtheMinesSubsidenceBoard.

Transferable development rights to agricultural landIntheIssuesPaper,weposedquestions158relatingtotransferabledevelopmentrightsforagriculturalland.Discussionduringournon-metropolitancommunityforumsonthistopiccentredontheabilityoffarmerstoaccessthevalueoftheirfarm(astheirsuperannuation)andretirefromfarmingbypassingthefarmtoafuturegenerationofthesamefamily.

158 InSectionD2.5atpage55

David

Highlight

David

Sticky Note

John Sheehan?


Oneproposalconcernedexistingagriculturalholdingswithmorethanoneexistingorpotentialdwellingentitlement.Theproposalwasthatitshouldbepossibletorealisethevalueofextradwellingentitlementswithoutfragmentingthelandholdingbydoingthefollowing:

• transferringtheadditionaldwellingentitlementtoanexistingallotmentatanotherlocation

• extinguishingthatdwellingentitlementontheagriculturallandholding.

This,itwassuggested,hadtwopotentialbenefitstoexistingrurallandholders:• landholderswhowishtoretirecouldtransferadwellingentitlementtoanallotmentwithoutoneclosertoanearbytownship.Thiswouldmakeitmoreeconomicallyefficient,asitwouldcostsignificantlylesstoacquirethenewallotment.

• existinglandholderscouldselladwellingentitlementtotheownerofanallotmentthatdidnothaveone.Thiswouldpotentiallyprovideacashbenefittotheexistinglandholders,whichcouldeithersupportongoingagriculturalactivitiesorprovideafinancialbasisfortheoldergenerationtomoveoffthelandholdingandtransferittoanewgenerationinthesamefamily.

ThisconceptwouldneedconsiderablefurtherdevelopmentbeforeitcouldbeconsideredforincorporationintotheSustainablePlanningAct.Thelegislativeamendmentsthatmightneedtobemadetootherstatutes(suchastheReal Property Act 1900)arepotentiallycomplex.Equally,difficultissuescouldariseforcouncilswhenassessingthecompetingvaluesthatwouldrequireconsideration.

Asaconsequence,atthepresenttime,wedonotrecommendthatsuchrightsshouldbecreated.However,wedoconsiderthatfurtherworkiswarranted.Tothisend,werecommendthataworkingpartyshouldexplorethismatterfurtherandmakerecommendationstotheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructureastowhetheranyfurtherlegislativechangesarerequired.

Recommendation217.AworkingpartyistobeestablishedcomprisingrepresentativesoftheDepartment

ofPlanningandInfrastructure,theLocalGovernmentandShiresAssociationandtheNewSouthWalesFarmersAssociationtoconsiderwhethercreatingtransferabledevelopmentrightsforagriculturallandisfeasibleanddesirableand,ifso,howitshouldbeimplemented.

14 Certification matters


PART 14 – Certification mattersThe role of private certifiers

IntroductionAspartofearlierchangestothewaydevelopmentisinspectedforconformitywithbuildingstandardsandforcompliancewiththedevelopmentforwhichanapprovalhadbeengiven,theexclusivevestingofcompliancecertificationwasremovedfromcouncils.Asystemestablishingcertificationbyprivateprofessionals(contractedonaprojectbyprojectbasis)wasestablished.Thisprivatecertificationoptionrunsinparallelwiththecouncil-basedsystem.Anelectionismadebythoseundertakingthedevelopmentofwhethertheywishtoappointaprivateprofessionalcertifierorretainthecounciltoundertaketherole(ineithercaseknownasthe‘principalcertifyingauthority’).Inaddition,aclassofdevelopment,presentlyknownascomplyingdevelopment,isabletobeapprovedbyanon-council,privatecertifier.

Widespreaddistrustwasexpressedaboutprivatecertificationduringthecourseofthecommunityforumsandinanumberofsubmissions.Wehavenowayofevaluating,accurately,theextenttowhichtheremightbevalidityinthesecomplaints.Ithasnotbeenappropriateforustomakebroadrecommendationsaboutregulationofthebuildingindustryortheregulationofanddisciplinaryproceduresforcertifiers.Thereare,however,somemattersconcerningtheroleofcertifiers,bothprivateandcouncil,whereitisappropriateforustomakerecommendations.

Consistency of construction plans with development approvalWheredevelopmentisbeingundertakeninaccordancewithadevelopmentconsent,theprincipalcertifyingauthorityisrequiredtocertifythatthedetailedworkingplans(pursuanttowhichconstructionistobeundertaken)arenotinconsistentwiththedevelopmentconsent159grantedbytheconsentauthority.ThesearecurrentlyknownastheConstructionCertificatePlans.TheseareaccompaniedbyaConstructionCertificateauthorisingthecarryingoutoftheworksshowninthoseplans.

Thismeansthatacertifieroughtnotpermitanyvariation,savewhatmightberegardedasminorandnon-impacting,fromtheplansforwhichdevelopmentconsentwasgrantedbythecouncil.InVolume1,werecommended160thattheonlychangestobepermittedtoconstructionplans(whencomparedtotheplansforwhichdevelopmentconsentwasgiven)aretobespecifiedasbeingminorchanges(withthisrequirementtobecontainedintheSustainablePlanningAct).

Thischangewilladdressthevalidconcernthatasmallminorityofcertifierspermitvariationsthatareotherwiseimpermissible.Restatingthetestinamorerestrictedfashionshouldprovidegreatercertaintyforensuringcompliance.

159 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,clause145(1)(a)

160 Volume1,PartC,Chapter14atpage112


Separation of granting consent and certification during constructionEarlierinthisVolume161,werecommendedthattherolesofgrantinganapprovalforcodeassessabledevelopmentfornewfreestandingordualoccupancyresidentialdwellingsshouldbeseparatedfromandnotabletobeperformedbythesamepersonwhoperformstheconstructioninspection(orapartnerofthatpersonoranybodyemployedbythesamecommercialentity).

Wehaverestrictedthistonewfreestandingordualoccupancyresidentialdwellingsasthiswasthedominantareaofcomplaint.Ifthereistobeawiderreviewofthebuildingindustry,thequestionofwhetherthisrestrictionshouldbeexpandedmightbeconsideredbythatreview.

Thisisanappropriateandmeasuredresponse,weconsider,totheperceptionthatthereisanincentiveforaprivatecertifiertoapproveaprojectinordertohavethebenefitofthesubsequentconstructionphaseinspectionwork.Theproblemsdonotariseforcouncilstaffastheyhavenopotentialeconomicincentivetograntanapproval.

Code assessment of master or concept plan elementsFinally,inordertoensurethatthereisproperaccountabilityforindividualdevelopmentelementsarisingoutofapprovedmasterorconceptplanproposals,wehaverecommended162thatitshouldbemandatorythatthecodeassessmentprocessfortheindividualelementsshouldbeundertakenbytheconsentauthoritythatgrantedtheconsentfortheconceptplanormasterplanandshouldnotbeabletobedealtwithascodeassessablebyaprivatecertifier.

Final and interim occupation certificatesCertificationalsoincludesgivingpermissiontousethewholeorpartofadevelopmentbyissuingeitheranInterimoraFinalOccupationCertificate.InterimOccupationCertificatesdonothaveanexpirydate.TheconsequenceofthisisthatsomedevelopmentsmaybeusedpursuanttoInterimCertificateswithoutaFinalOccupationCertificateeverbeingissuedtofinalisethedevelopment.

FinalOccupationCertificatescertifythatthedevelopmentisappropriatetobeused,onapermanentbasis,butdonotamounttocertificationthatthedevelopmenthasbeencarriedoutgenerallyinaccordancewiththeoriginaldevelopmentapproval.

Aprivatecertifierisobligedtoinformthecouncilatvaryingstagesofadevelopmentoftheprogressofthatdevelopment,includingtheinitialissuingofanyoccupationcertificate(interimorfinal).

Thebroadquestionofwhetherornotthecertifier,whethercouncilorprivate,whoissuesaFinalOccupationCertificateshouldberequiredtocertifythatthedevelopmenthasbeencompletedinaccordancewiththeconstructionapprovalandthattheonlyvariations



14 Certification matters


betweenthedevelopmentconsentandtheconstructionapprovalplansasexecutedareminorones,is,inourview,amatterthatmustawaitanybroaderexaminationofthebuildingindustry.WehavereachedthisconclusionbecauserequiringsuchcertificationasanelementoftheFinalOccupationCertificatemaywellinvolveanecessityforadditionalinspectionsandincuradditionalcosts–coststhatmightwellbeentirelydisproportionateforprojectsofmodestscale.

AdifferentpositionariseswithrespecttoanInterimOccupationCertificate,whichcanbeused,effectively,topostponeindefinitelythecompletionofaproject,whilsthavingthebenefitofutilisingtheelementsforwhichsuchanInterimOccupationCertificatehasbeengiven.

Wedonotthinkthatthispositionisappropriatebecausetheconceptofsomethingbeing‘interim’contemplatesthatfinalitywillbeachieved.WethereforeproposethatanInterimOccupationCertificateshouldhaveamaximumlifeoffiveyearsandthat,aftertheexpiryofthatperiod,thecertificateshouldlapse.OnlyoneInterimOccupationCertificateistobepermitted for any single aspectofaparticularproject,whetherworksorauseofland.ShouldanInterimOccupationCertificatelapse,therewillnolongerbeanentitlementtooccupyorusetheelementofthedevelopmentcoveredbythecertificate,soacouncilwouldbeable,ifitchosetodoso,toordercessation,ascontinuedoccupationwouldconstituteanunapprovedactivityafterthelapsingoftheInterimOccupationCertificate.

Recommendations218.OnlyoneInterimOccupationCertificateistobepermittedfor any single aspectof

aparticularproject.

219.InterimOccupationCertificatesaretolapseafterfiveyears.


PART 15 – Rejected mattersMatters outside the scope of our reviewAnumberofotherpolicyareaswereraisedwithusthatareentirelyoutsidethescopeofourreview.Twoexamplesoftheseillustratethispoint:

• Itwassuggestedthatweshouldrecommendthebanningofcoalseamgasexplorationandextraction.WhetherornotthatisdesirableisforpolicyconsiderationbytheGovernment.Itissufficientforustoacknowledgethatwehaveneitherthemandate,northetechnicalexpertisetoconsidersuchanissue.

• Somesuggestedthatweshouldproposepopulationpolicymeasures,includingpopulationlimits.Onesubmissionsaidthat,formanyofourcities,permanentlegislatedlimitstogrowthmustbeimplemented.OtherssuggestedthatweshouldmakestipulationsrelatingtotheGreaterSydneymetropolitanarea,includingthedesiredmaximumpopulationfortheregionorthegeographicouterlimitsofitsfootprint.These,too,arepolicyissuesentirelyoutsideourmandate.

Finally,weshouldobservethattherehavebeenalimitednumberofsuggestionsrelatingtothefundamentalbasisoftheplanningsystem.Specifically,thatitshouldpermittheunregulatedandunlimitedrightofapropertyownertoundertakeanydevelopment.WerejectthisfundamentalistpropertyrightsviewbecauseitisantisocialandcontrarytotheoverarchingobjectiveoftheSustainablePlanningAct163.

Rejected matter – An absolute right to developWedonotacceptthatzoningshouldbethesoledeterminantastowhetheritisappropriatetoapproveadevelopmentonaparticularsite.ThepropositiondiscussedbyMcClellanCJinBGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council164isthatthereisapresumptionthatapropertymaybesodeveloped,butthatthereisnosuchabsoluteright.

Itisimportanttonotethatourproposaltostreamdevelopmentapplicationsandtheirassessmentprocessesrenderstheconsiderationofthistopicunnecessary,toalargeextent.Exemptandcodeassessabledevelopmentembodydevelopmentproposalsthatmightberegardedasembodyingarighttodevelop.Ourproposedclassificationprocesswill,however,reservegreaterscrutinyformeritandimpactassessmentdevelopmentproposalswheresucharightshouldnotexist.


164BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2004]NSWLEC399atpara117

15 Rejected matters


Rejected matter – Commercial viability of a proposed developmentIntheIssuesPaper,weaskedthequestion:

D39. Should the economic viability of a development proposal be taken into account, in deciding whether the proposal should be approved or in the conditions of approval?

Therewasnearuniversaloppositiontothispropositiondespitethefactthat,duringtheconsultationprocessleadinguptothereleaseoftheIssuesPaper,thisquestionwasraisedonanumberofoccasions.

Althoughoneelementoftheoverarchingobjectiveofthelegislationmustbetoencouragesustainableeconomicgrowth,wearesatisfiedthattheplanningsystemshouldnotendeavourto‘pickwinners’and,asaconsequence,theeconomicviabilityofadevelopmentproposalshouldnotbetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhethertheproposalisacceptableinlanduseplanningterms.

Rejected matter – Commercial viability of existing businessesThequestionaroseofwhetherornottheplanningsystemshouldhaveregardtothecontinuingviabilityofexistingbusinesses,ifdevelopmentapprovalweretobegiventoanewbusinessthatwouldresultincompetition.Inthiscontext,wenotetworelevantreportsoftheProductivityCommission165in2011.IntheDecember2011report,theCommissionmadeitclearthatquestionsofeconomicimpactonexistingbusinessesshouldnotbefactoredintoanassessmentofproposeddevelopments.

Thebroadpositiononconsideringquestionsofeconomicandsocialimpacts,asfoundinsection79Cofthepresentplanninglegislation,wassettledbytheHighCourtinKentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis166

…the mere threat of competition to existing businesses, if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration.167

Forsimilarpublicpolicyreasonstothosethatcauseustorejectconsiderationoftheeconomicviabilityofadevelopmentproposal,weconsiderthatthemerethreatofcompetitiontoexistingbusinessisnotarelevantplanningconsideration.

165 PerformanceBenchmarkingofAustralianBusinessRegulation:Planning,ZoningandDevelopmentAssessments–May2011(http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/regulationbenchmarking/planning/report);EconomicStructureandPerformanceoftheAustralianRetailIndustry–December2011(http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/retail-industry/report)

166Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979)24ALR161

167Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidisatpara170

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/regulationbenchmarking/planning/report

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/retail-industry/report

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/retail-industry/report


Rejected matter – Deemed approvalsAnumberofsubmissionsproposedthatthereshouldbedeemedapprovalsiftheassessmentanddeterminationprocesshasnotbeencompletedwithinthespecifiedtimeperiod.Weunderstandthesentimentbehindthis–namely,adesiretoeliminatedelayintheassessmentanddeterminationofdevelopmentproposals.Weconsiderthatitwouldbeasteptoofartoadoptsuchaproposition.Noonehassatisfactorilyidentifiedanymethodthatwouldenableconditionsofconsenttobeimposedformorecomplexmattersthatwouldrespondtotheparticularproposeddevelopment.Atfirstglance,deemedapprovalmightbeappropriateforacodeassessabledevelopmentapplication,asthiscouldbesubjecttostandardiseddefaultconditionsofconsent.However,wearenotsatisfiedthatitisappropriatetoremoveconfirmingthattheproposalactuallyqualifiesascodeassessabledevelopment.

Inaddition,weexpectdeemedapprovalswouldinevitablyleadtoacultureofautomaticrefusalsasthetimelimitapproached,withtheconsequentneedfortheengagementofreviewprocessesorcommencementoflitigation–neitheroutcomebeingadesirableone.

However,wehavemadeanumberofrecommendationsthatwillassistinreducingdelayinthesystemincludingthefollowing:

• revisingtheclassificationofdevelopmentproposals168

• significantstreamliningofconcurrenceprocesses169

• changingtheculturewithintheplanningsystemtobefacultativeofacceptabledevelopment170.

Rejected matter – Past performance of a development applicant Currently,itisthelongsettledlegalpositionthatapersonorcompanywhoisgivenadevelopmentconsentsubjecttoconditionswillabidebythetermsofthoseconditions171.Duringthecourseofoneofthecommunityforums,itwassuggestedthat,ifapersonorcompanyhadnotobeyedthetermsofadevelopmentconsent,aconsentauthorityshouldbepermittedtotakeintoaccountthatunsatisfactoryperformanceindecidingwhetherornottogiveafurtherdevelopmentconsent,subjecttoconditions(ifafreshapplicationfordevelopmentismadebythatpersonorcompany).

Itwasalsosuggestedthat,ifapersonorcompanybreachedtheconditionsofanearlierdevelopmentconsent,theextentandnatureofthosebreachesoughttobeamatterabletobetakenintoaccountinconsideringwhetherornotanyfuturedevelopmentconsentshouldbegrantedsubjecttoconditions.

Wecannotaccepteitherofthesepropositions.Developmentconsentshaveneverbeenpersonalbutare‘inrem’–thatis,attachedtotheland.Whilstpastconductmight,inextremecases,warrantmoreonerousconditionsofconsent172,pastperformanceisnotanappropriatefactortobeconsideredindecidingwhetherornotaproposalshouldbeapproved.



170 Volume1,PartI

171 Jonah Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council[2006]NSWLEC99


15 Rejected matters


Rejected matter – Property valuesIntheconsultationprocessandinindividualsubmissionsmadetotheIssuesPaper,therewasarecurringrequesttoincludeanelementrelatingtopropertyvaluesindevelopmentproposalassessments.Specifically,itwassuggestedthatdevelopmentproposalsshouldbeassessedastowhetherornottheyhaveanadverseimpactonthevalueofpropertiesinthevicinity,andifso,theextentofthatimpact.

Itisthelongsettledlegalpositionthatanynegativeimpactonpropertyvaluesisnotamattertobetakenintoaccountinassessingtheacceptabilityofadevelopmentproposalthatisotherwisepermissibleatthelocation173.

Althoughweunderstandwhytherearevalidconcernsregardingthepossibleimpactonpropertyvaluesbyaproposeddevelopment,wedonotconsiderthatitisappropriatetochangethelong-standinglegalposition.Onesimpleexampleissufficienttodemonstratewhythisshouldbethecase.

If,inasettledresidentialarea,thereisaparcelofbushlandthatiszonedresidentialbuthasnotbeendeveloped,thoselivinginitsimmediatevicinitymaywellhavebecomeaccustomedtotreatingit,informally,asifitwereareserve.Indeed,thevalueofthesurroundingpropertiesmaywellhavebeeninfluenced,positively,bytheiroutlookovertheundevelopedbushland.Subsequently,theremaybeanappropriateandcompliantapplicationtobuildontheland,whichwouldnotbeproblematicinaconventionalplanningassessment.Ifapproved,however,itmaywellhaveanadverseimpactonthevalueofthesurroundingresidences.Ifthatimpactweretobetakenintoaccount,theeffectmightwellbetheinvoluntarysterilisationofthedevelopmentpotentialofthatresidentiallyzonedland,clearlyinitselfaninequitableoutcome.

Rejected matter – Use of public positive covenants by councilsApublicpositivecovenant174infavourofacouncilcreatesarestrictionontheuseoflandthatisonlyabletobechangedbythecouncil.Somecouncilsusepublicpositivecovenantsasanadditionalmeasuretoenforceconditionsofdevelopmentconsent.

Therewasasuggestionthatthisduplicatesmattersthatcanbedealtwiththroughthedevelopmentconsentprocess.Asaconsequence,whenpositivecovenantsarerequiredtoberegisteredonthetitleoftheproperty,theyareregardedasimposinganunnecessaryexpenseonadevelopmentproponentandshouldbeprohibited.

173Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for Planning and RES Southern Cross Pty Ltd[2007]NSWLEC59;(2007)161LGERA1atparas150

174 Apublicpositivecovenantimposesobligationsonthenewowneroflandinfavourofaprescribedauthority.Theseobligationsinclude:

• carryingoutspecifieddevelopmentonorwithrespecttotheland • theprovisionofservicesonortothelandorotherlandinitsvicinity • themaintenance,repairand/orinsuranceofanystructureorworkontheland. Seehttp://rgdirections.lpi.nsw.gov.au/deposited_plans/easements_restrictions/positive_covenants/public_

positive_covenants

http://rgdirections.lpi.nsw.gov.au/deposited_plans/easements_restrictions/positive_covenants/public_positive_covenants

http://rgdirections.lpi.nsw.gov.au/deposited_plans/easements_restrictions/positive_covenants/public_positive_covenants


Wedonotacceptthisproposition.Publicpositivecovenantsprovideausefulmethodofgivingnoticetoprospectivepurchasersofpropertyofongoingrequirementsarisingfromadevelopmentconsent.Theiruseisnotwidespreadandtheyremainanappropriatetooltobeavailabletocouncils.Themeritofanysuchrequirementcanbetestedbyanappealagainsttheconditionthatrequiresthistypeofcovenanttoberegistered.

Glossary


Adversarial processWhenrepresentativesoftwoopposingpartiescontestadisputeinthepresenceofadecisionmaker(contrastwithInquisitorial processbelow).

Affordable housingHousingforverylowincomehouseholds,lowincomehouseholdsormoderateincomehouseholds,beingsuchhouseholdsasareprescribedbytheregulationsorasareprovidedforinanenvironmentalplanninginstrument.(Currentlydefinedinsection4oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

AssessmentTheevaluationofaproposaltoundertakedevelopment.

CadastreDataaboutproperty,includingownership,location,dimensionsandthelike.

CharetteAcollaborativeplanninganddesignprocessthatbringstogethercommunitymemberstofacilitateproblemsolvingand/oracquiringinputintourbanplanninganddesign.

Consent authorityAdecisionmakerwhodeterminesadevelopmentapplication–currentlyunderPart4oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

DCPSeeDevelopment Control Plan

Designated developmentDevelopmentdescribedinPart1ofSchedule3oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

DeterminationThedecisionofadeterminingauthorityorconsentauthorityeithertoapproveaproposaltoundertakedevelopment(eitherunconditionallyorsubjecttoconditions)orrefuseaproposaltoundertakedevelopment.

Development Assessment ForumAnationalmultipartiteadvisoryforumwhichdevelopsandrecommendsleadingpracticesforplanningsystemsanddevelopmentassessmentinAustralia.

Development consentPermissiongrantedbyaconsentauthoritytocarryoutaparticulardevelopment.

Development Control Plan (DCP)DocumentsthatcontaindetailedrequirementsforthedevelopmentthatisallowedtotakeplaceunderanEnvironmentalPlanningInstrument.AdevelopmentcontrolplaninnotanEnvironmentalPlanningInstrument,butmustbeconsideredbyadecisionmakerwhendeterminingadevelopmentapplication.

Development standardProvisionsunderwhichrequirementsarespecifiedorstandardsarefixedinrespectofanyaspectoffuturedevelopment.Pleaseseefullcurrentdefinitioninsection4oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Environmental Planning InstrumentDocumentsmadepursuanttotheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979thatcontroldevelopmentandspecifylanduseforparticularareas.TheseincludeStateEnvironmentalPlanningPoliciesandLocalEnvironmentalPlans.

Gateway determinationAninitialreviewofaplanningproposal(aproposedchangetoorcreationofaLocalEnvironmentalPlan)bytheMinister,whodetermineswhetherthemattershouldproceed,andwhetheritshouldbeamendedandwhatenvironmentalassessmentandpublicconsultationrequirementsshouldbeundertakeninthepreparationofthefinalplanningproposal.

GeoportalAtypeofwebbrowserusedtofindandaccessgeographicinformationandspatialdatasets.

Greenfield developmentDevelopmenttakingplaceonundevelopedland,usuallyontheoutskirtsofanurbanarea.

Infill developmentTheredevelopmentofalreadydevelopedlandinexistingurbanareas.

Glossary


Inquisitorial process Whenthedecisionmakercombinesinvestigativeandjudgmentalroles(contrastwithAdversarial processabove).

Issues PaperAdocumentpreparedbytheNSWPlanningSystemReviewentitled,“The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW? Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review”,December2011.

Judicial review Areviewofthelegalityofadecisionconductedbyajudge.

Joint Regional Planning PanelIndependentplanningbodiesestablishedundertheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979toassumeacouncil’sfunctionsasaconsentauthorityfortypesofspecified,larger-scaledevelopments.

Land and Environment CourtAcourtestablishedbytheLand and Environment Court Act 1979todetermineenvironmental,development,buildingandplanningdisputes,withthesamestatusastheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,andwhichissubjecttothesupervisionoftheNewSouthWalesCourtofAppeal.

Land use tableCategoriesofdevelopmenttypescontainedinaLocalEnvironmentalPlan.Thesecategoriesareusuallydevelopmentpermitted without consent, permitted with consentorprohibited.

LEPSeeLocal Environmental Plan.

Local Environmental Plan (LEP)AnEnvironmentalPlanningInstrumentpreparedbyarelevantplanningauthority,usuallyacouncil,andmadebytheMinisterforthepurposesofachievinganyoftheobjectsoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Local Planning PanelAMinisteriallyappointedindependentpanelmadeupofthreelocalgovernmentmembersandtwoStateappointedmemberstoincreaselocalgovernmentinvolvementintheplan-makingprocessandimprovetheflexibledeliveryoftheStandardInstrumentlocalenvironmentalplan.

MetadataDataaboutdata.Metadataplaystwoimportantroles.Thefirstistohelpusersidentifyandfindinformation.Thesecondistoenableuserstoestablishforthemselveswhetherthedataissuitableforitsintendeduse.

Mine subsidenceMovementofthegroundasaresultofcollapseorfailureofundergroundmineworkings.

Minister for Planning and InfrastructureTheHon.BradHazzardMP.

Non-conforming useAlandusethatisnotpermittedbythecurrentzoningoftheland,butwhichwasanexistinguseatthetimeofthezoningoftheland.

NSW Planning System ReviewAnindependentpanelestablishedinJuly2011toundertakeareviewofplanninglawandplanningsysteminNewSouthWalesandtomakerecommendationsforreforminconsultationwiththecommunityandstakeholders.

PACSeePlanning Assessment Commission

Planning Advisory BoardAproposedbodytoprovideadvicetotheMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure,principallyonstrategicplanningandtheimplementationofthenewplanningsystem.

Planning agreementAnagreementorarrangementbetweenaplanningauthorityandapersonwhoisdevelopingland,wherethepersondevelopingthelandisrequiredtodedicateland,payamonetarycontributionorprovideanothermaterialpublicbenefitforapublicpurpose.AlsoknownasaVoluntary Planning Agreement.

Planning Assessment Commission (PAC)AnindependentbodycorporateestablishedbytheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979toundertakedelegatedfunctions,includingtheprovisionofadviceandthedeterminationofprojectapplications,principallyofstatesignificance.ProposedtobereformedandrenamedthePlanningCommission.

Glossary


Planning certificateIssuedbycouncilstolandownersandprospectivepurchaserscontaininginformationaboutaspecificparcelofland,includingtheplanningcontrolsthatapplytothatland,alsoknowassection 149 certificates.

Planning CommissionAnindependentdecisionmakingandadvisorybodyproposedtobeestablishedundertheproposedPlanningCommissionAct.

Planning proposalAproposedamendmenttoaLocalEnvironmentalPlanortheproposedcreationofanewLocalEnvironmentalPlan.

Precautionary principleWheretherearethreatsofseriousorirreversibleenvironmentaldamage,implementingmeasurestopreventenvironmentaldegradationshouldnotbedelayedbecauseoflackoffullscientificcertainty.Whenapplyingtheprecautionaryprinciple,decisionsshouldbeguidedbycarefulevaluationtoavoid,whereverpracticable,seriousorirreversibledamagetotheenvironmentandassessmentoftheconsequencesofvariousoptionsintermsoftheirrisks.

Private certifiersPrivatebuildingsurveyorswhoareresponsibleforassessingandsigningoffondetailedplansandconstructionphasesofcertaindevelopment.

Prohibited development Developmentwhichisforbiddentobecarriedoutinazonebytheprovisionsofanenvironmentalplanninginstrumentordevelopmentthatcannotbecarriedoutonlandwithorwithoutdevelopmentconsent.Ascurrentlydefinedinsection4oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Public Positive CovenantAnobligationcreatedforanowneroflandinfavourofapublicauthority(prescribedauthority)andmayincludethecarryingoutofspecifieddevelopment,provisionofservices,maintenance,repairorinsuranceofastructureonland.Publicpositivecovenantsarecreatedundereithersection88Dorsection88EoftheConveyancing Act 1919.

Section 149 certificatesPlanningcertificates,issuedbycouncilspursuanttosection149oftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,tolandownersandprospectivepurchaserscontaininginformationaboutaspecificparcelofland,includingtheplanningcontrolsthatapplytothatland.SeePlanning certificate.

SEPPStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(SeeState Environmental Planning Policy)

Spatial dataDatathathasadirectorindirectreferencetoaspecificlocationorgeographicalarea.

Spatial datasetsAnidentifiablecollectionofspatialdata.

Spatial data servicesOperationsperformedonacomputer,whichenablethespatialdatasetstobeviewedon-line,downloadedandtobereformatted(ortransformed)sothattheycanbeusedinotherapplications.

Standard Instrument Local Environmental PlanAstandardisedformatforallnewLocalEnvironmentalPlansmadeafter31March2006setbytheStandard Instrument (Principal Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)AnenvironmentalplanninginstrumentmadebytheGovernorforthepurposesofachievinganyoftheobjectsoftheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.StateEnvironmentalPlanningPoliciesoverrideanyconflictingprovisioninaLocalEnvironmentalPlan

Stop the clockTheabilitytosuspendassessmentofadevelopmentproposalwhileseekingfurtherinformation.

The Act/the present planning legislationEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The CourtSeeLand and Environment Court of NSW

Triple bottom-line decision makingEqualconsiderationoftheenvironment,economyandsocietyindecisionmaking.


Unincorporated areaAreasofFarWesternNewSouthWalesthatarenotpartofanyLocalGovernmentArea(notincludingLordHoweIsland).

Unitary planning document Thecompositeplanningdocumentproposedtoapplytoanyparcelofland.Itwillcomprisethreeelements–Statecontrols,therelevantLocalLand-UsePlanandtherelevantDevelopmentControlPlan.

Web GISAninternetaccessiblegeographicinformationsystem.

Index


AAboriginalreserve4,25,119,

120,121affordablehousing16,80,81,

82,136alternativedecisionmaking

13,68amberlight68amendmentstocodeassessable

development13,68,69amendmentstomeritassessable

andimpactassessabledevelopment69

applicationfee12,21,50,51,54,55,102,120

Architecturalreviewanddesignpanel14,70

assessabledevelopment13,14,15,16,17,18,21,64,65,68,69,70,73,74,75,77,78,83,84,85,87,88,89,96,99,100,101,124,129,131,133

assessmentofapplication52,101

assessmentreport14,19,28,33,66,72,73,74,91,92,93

Ccarbonaccounting116climatechange116codeassessable13,14,15,17,

18,20,21,26,64,68,69,71,74,75,77,78,83,84,86,87,88,89,96,99,100,101,124,125,129,131,133

commercialviability132communitycompensation79communityconsultation13,43,

63,64,67,79communityengagement3,15,

25,74,97,122compensation30,79,106compliancecost23,44,108

conceptplan129conciliation/arbitration

model103concurrence6,7,8,13,15,21,22,

24,30,31,32,35,37,38,39,42,60,68,77,101,102,103,104,118,133

conditionsofdevelopmentconsent15,76,77,134

conflictsofinterest92consentauthority16,19,20,21,

22,26,35,53,71,77,78,79,85,89,90,93,94,95,96,97,99,100,101,102,103,104,114,119,125,128,129,133

continuingprofessionaldevelopment25,60,61,115,122

copyright57,124costsorder22,72,103,104,107council4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,

15,17,18,19,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,31,33,34,35,39,41,42,43,44,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,59,60,65,67,68,69,70,72,73,75,78,80,83,84,85,87,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,97,99,100,102,103,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,133,134,135

councilordermakingpower23,110

CourtofAppeal8,35,36,40,80,137

crossborderimpact20,97cumulativeimpact44,59

Ddeemedapproval133defaultconditionsof

consent133

definitions16,79,80,82,83DepartmentofPlanningand

Infrastructure6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,18,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,31,33,36,38,40,42,44,48,50,52,58,59,60,61,62,71,74,77,85,87,97,99,100,110,112,113,114,116,117,120,121,123,124,126,127

designateddevelopment101designcriterion21,100determinationperiod65developmentapplication11,12,

17,19,21,28,29,50,51,52,54,55,60,64,86,89,90,94,95,96,101,102,131,133

developmentapplicationfee12,54,55

DevelopmentAssessmentForum16,82,83

developmentconsent15,16,20,21,23,46,49,50,57,68,76,77,78,79,84,85,94,99,100,106,107,109,128,130,133,134

developmentcontribution12,55DevelopmentControlPlan9,11,

26,42,47,50,74,77,100,124developmentstandard17,42,66,

84,86Director-General7,10,11,24,31,

38,41,42,48,60,97,106,116,117,118

Director-General’srequirements24,116,117

dutytocooperate57,59

Eeconomicviability132economy4,48,81,138electronicaccess63,143electronicregister21,57,85,100email65

Index


enforcement22,23,24,105,107,108,111,112,113environmentalimpactstatement24,42,114,115,116,117,118

EnvironmentalPlanningInstrument29,124

e-planning11,12,50,52existinguse18,87,88

GGovernor-in-Council31

Hheritage12,14,15,17,19,21,53,

54,56,57,70,74,75,83,84,90,91,100,101,115

hospital70

Iimpactassessable13,14,16,17,

18,20,21,65,68,69,70,73,74,78,85,86,88,89,96,101,102,116

IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption(ICAC)4,46,59,60,61,62,63,64,66

IndependentHearingandAssessmentPanel19,53,70,90,91

IndependentHearingandDeterminationPanel12,19,53,54,91

informationtechnology11,12,52,143

interactivemap26,65,123interimoccupationcertificate27,

129,130IssuesPaper5,42,47,59,79,81,

83,89,92,94,114,116,125,126,132,134

JJointRegionalPlanningPanel

9,12,17,18,19,21,26,29,36,42,53,54,64,66,67,75,84,85,86,88,89,90,91,92,93,102,124,125

LLandandEnvironmentCourt6,

7,8,11,20,22,23,24,29,30,32,33,35,36,37,38,40,49,77,78,95,99,100,101,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,112,117

landowner’sconsent19,94landuse4,63,98,132LocalEnvironmentalPlan41,42,

50,64,136localinfrastructureplan10,11,

47,48,49,50LocalPlanningPanel137lodgement17,52,84,94

Mmasterplan129metadata57,137minesubsidence26,125,126,

137MinisterforPlanningand

Infrastructure6,13,15,24,28,29,30,31,37,41,53,60,62,68,74,75,112,113,127

minor4,6,13,15,17,18,20,31,33,37,64,65,69,75,76,78,80,86,87,91,96,104,128,130

minornon-compliance17,86modeldelegation19,95modificationstoexisting

approveddevelopment20,95

NNewcastle26,27,125,126NIMBY72notificationrequirement23,107

Oobjector19,22,34,66,93,103occupationcertificate27,129,

130openstanding66,107

PPart3A28,29,41pastperformance133physicalcommencement80planmaking13,62,67

PlanningAdvisoryBoard15,20,24,62,64,74,97,112,113,124

planningagreement10,46,47,60,63,66

PlanningAssessmentCommission10,28,29,34,36,37,41,45,53

PlanningCommission4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,17,18,20,24,25,26,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,45,48,52,53,54,60,61,62,64,66,74,85,86,88,89,99,100,117,118,120,121,125

PlanningInstituteofAustralia61planningportal52,99PlanningReformFund11,12,50,

51,52precinctcommittees26,122,123privatecertification5,74,128prohibition15,60,75projectvalue21,102propertyvalue134publicauthorities14,17,70,71,

84,85Publicbenefitinfrastructure

61,71publicconsultation64publicexhibition29publicinterest8,16,34,39,60,

61,78,79,80,107publicinterestcondition16,

78,79publicnotification15,64,76,

85,90publicparticipation7,39,66,

69,92publicpositivecovenant

134,135publicpurpose70publicsubmission63,73,90

Qquantitysurveyor’scertificate

21,102

Index


Rregisterofconsents20,57,76,

85,99revocation23,106rezoning15,60,64,75,76righttoknow25,90,93,117,

122,123road35,51

Sschool70section149certificate138securitybond16,78selfassessment99spatialdata4,56,57,58SpatialInformationAct4,13,56,

57,58StandardInstrumenttemplate

18,89StateDevelopment24,115,116StateEnvironmentalPlanning

Policy63Statesignificantdevelopment

28,61,101Statesignificantinfrastructure9,

41,42,60,61,62,71,85stoptheclock21,101strategicplanning10,13,43,44,

50,59,61,63,67,74,81,122strictliability23,110,111studentaccommodation12,16,

55,81,82submission4,10,14,19,29,33,

34,42,43,46,47,59,63,70,73,79,81,83,89,90,93,94,98,109,114,115,119,125,128,131,133,134,143

sustainabledevelopment16,80,81,83

Ttimeperiod21,73,101,102,133transferabledevelopmentright

27,126,127triplebottom-line138

Uunincorporatedarea26,124,125unitaryplanningdocument11,

47,49,50,62,124universities12,55,70utilities57

Vvoluntaryplanningagreement

10,46,47,60,63,66

WWesternLandsCommissioner26,

124,125

Zzoning18,64,75,87,89,131,

132.See also rezoning


Appendix 1 NSW Planning System Review Terms of ReferenceTheNewSouthWalesPlanningSystemReviewistoundertakethefollowingtasksinadvisingtheNewSouthWalesGovernmentonanewplanningsystemfortheStateandanewlegislativeplanningframeworktoreplacetheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.Indoingso,thePlanningSystemReviewisto:

1. ConsultwidelywithstakeholdergroupsandcommunitiesthroughouttheStatetoidentifytheissuesthatrequireconsiderationindevelopinganewplanningsystem;

2. Toconsiderstakeholderandcommunitysubmissionsonissuesidentifiedduringtheconsultationprocess;

3. ExamineinterstateandoverseasplanningsystemstoensurethatrelevantbestpracticeoptionsareconsideredforinclusioninanewplanningsystemforNewSouthWales;

4. RecommendastatutoryframeworkandnecessaryimplementationmeasuresforanewplanningsystemforNewSouthWalesthat:

• enunciateswhatshouldbethephilosophyandobjectivestounderpinanewplanningsystem;

• containsclearandsimpleprocessesembodiedinlegislationwritteninplainEnglish;

• identifieswhatplansshouldbemadeandwhatshouldbetheprocesses,includingstakeholderandcommunityparticipationandconsultation,forthemakingofthoseplans;

• setsoutadevelopmentproposalassessmentanddecisionmakingframeworkthatpromotestheenvironmental,economicandsocialneedsoftheState;

• identifiesandsetsouttheroleof,processesforandaccountabilityofeachbodyundertakingdecisionmakingconcerningdevelopmentproposalsandhowsuchdecisionscanbemadeinatimelyfashion;

• setsoutthebasisforstakeholderandcommunityparticipationinthedevelopmentproposaldecisionmakingprocess;

• setsouthowothermattersinthepresentplanningsystemnotlistedaboveshouldbedealtwith;

5. Promotesthemaximumuseofinformationtechnologyin:• makingandprocessingofdevelopmentproposals;• availabilityofinformationtodevelopmentproponentsandthecommunity• abouttheassessmentprocessesforanddeterminationofindividual• developmentproposals;and• maximisingtheavailabilityofgovernmentheldinformationaboutindividual• parcelsoflandthroughasingleelectronicaccesspoint;and

6. AnyothermattersthatthePlanningSystemReviewconsidersshouldbeincludedintheirrecommendationsthatarenototherwisedealtwiththeabove.

(As published in the Issues Paper December 2011)


Notes

JUNE 2012

NSW Planning System Review

GPO Box 39Sydney NSW 2000www.planningreview.nsw.gov.au

THE WAY AHEAD FOR PLANNING IN NSW

| RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NSW PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW

| VOLUME 2

The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW - dmpublisher.s3 … Way Ahead for Planning in NSW ... in Volume 1...

Documents

Transcript of The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW - dmpublisher.s3 … Way Ahead for Planning in NSW ... in Volume 1...