NSW Planning Secretary Can Group Projects and Fix Old Invalid Permissions

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024

11 Feb 2025: Passed by Parliament and signed off by the governor.

This bill kicks in: TBA

Legislative Assembly

Legislative Council

Assent

Share this bill

Email Facebook X Bluesky

Topics

building standards development consent land development land use planning approvals real estate urban planning

Introduced by: The Hon Paul Scully MP (ALP); The Hon Penny Sharpe MLC (ALP)

Links to official parliament websites

Official page: progress through parliament

Official page: bill text and explanatory notes

Effects of this bill

If this bill passes, it means that:

Projects now have a two year deadline to finish their environmental assessments, to try and reduce dragging on for years without moving forward
Some types of projects, like schools or hospitals, now have pre-set guidelines (called SEARs). This means they don't have to go through as many steps if their plans match these pre-made rules
There are now clearer rules for submitting applications for large projects, so everything can move along quicker
New guidelines emphasize better engagement with the community and consideration of social and cumulative impacts of large projects. In theory this means concerns about things like noise or traffic are taken seriously
The Planning Secretary can now decide if a project is part of a single proposed development for state significant development consent.
If the Planning Secretary decides a project is not part of a single proposed development, certain existing rules about how those projects are handled no longer apply.
Development consents that were previously invalid only because they didn't follow those specific rules are now valid, as long as they happened before this law started.
This validation does not apply if a court already declared a development consent invalid, or if a new application was based on a consent a court already threw out.
Regulations will set out the forms and procedures the Planning Secretary must use to make these decisions, including how they must consult others.

The Debate

What different members said when this bill was debated:

Scott Farlow LIB

“I speak in support of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024 on behalf of the Coalition. This bill responds to recent legal developments which have cast significant uncertainty over how major projects are assessed and approved in New South Wales.”

Official source →

Sue Higginson GRN

“The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024 has been introduced in response to the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Bingman Catchment Landcare Group Incorporated v Bowdens Silver Pty Ltd this year. This case was brought in the Land and Environment Court by the community.”

Official source →

Rod Roberts IND

“I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024. I support the bill and thank the Government for its prompt reaction to the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in Bingman Catchment Landcare Group Incorporated v Bowdens Silver Pty Ltd.”

Official source →

Mark Buttigieg ALP

“It is worthwhile summarising why this bill is critically important to the people of New South Wales and the State significant development [SSD] projects that will be delivered with restored certainty by the passage of this bill.”

Official source →

News articles and press releases

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024

Mr PAUL SCULLY, Minister for Planning and Public Spaces — 2024-10-16

The bill will remove the uncertainty that now exists and will restore the certainty that should exist, by clearly clarifying the extent of assessment for State significant development applications and reinstating the general approach taken prior to the Court of Appeal decision in the Bowdens case. In the case of Bowdens, on 22 July 2024, the Court of Appeal held that the Independent Planning Commission, as the consent authority, should have considered the likely impacts of a transmission line because it was "integral" and had a "real and sufficient link" with the development of an open-cut silver mine and, therefore, formed part of the "single proposed development" within the meaning of section 4.38 (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.