Under a new planning provision, development applications that meet development standards no longer require to be publicly exhibited.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
The new plan
On 1 September, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure published a Statewide Community Participation Plan (CPP) as required under the 2025 revisions to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). Under this Plan, the majority of development applications (DAs), including all dwellings that meet the development standards, will no longer be publicly exhibited. Replacing CPPs previously prepared by each local council, the new plan’s stated intent is to improve consistency and efficiency, shifting the community’s focus from DAs to broader strategic planning. Whether this shift occurs or not, residents in local communities will be left uninformed of development in their neighbourhoods and trust in planning will be further eroded.
Long held right to be notified of proposed developments
Planning is a complex and dynamic process that deals with managing change and balancing competing needs, demands and desires. Planning is conducted within cultural, political and economic contexts with a mandate to champion equity and environmental sustainability for the future. In defining what constitutes good planning, the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) emphasises fairness and the relationship between “communities, governments and the private sector” to “envision how their community can grow and develop”.
The Statewide CPP undermines this relationship and the shared endeavour that is good planning. Not only does the plan remove the long-held right of communities to be consulted on most local DAs, but it also prevents residents from sharing their concerns in a formal way with the planner tasked with assessing the application.
There is a long history of public notification of development proposals. This goes back to the 1950s under the Local Government Act 1919 and was further reinforced in 1979 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which is still in effect.
Meaningful community engagement was a foundation of the EPA Act and is enshrined in its objectives. Object 1.3(h) provides “opportunities for participation in environmental planning and assessment”. Section 2.23 subsection (2)(a) states that “The community has a right to be informed about planning matters that affect it”, and at subsection (2)(b) “Planning authorities should encourage effective and on-going partnerships with the community to provide meaningful (our emphasis) opportunities for community participation in planning”. The Statewide CPP largely strips away these community engagement rights.
Consequences of the new plan
So, what are the consequences? At a time when the government is seeking to build more dwellings than ever before and to roll out significant planning reforms, keeping the community involved in the process has never been more important.
In densifying urban areas where lot sizes are small and buildings close together, the potential impact on neighbouring amenity is high. The whole point of DAs, as opposed to cookie cutter Complying Development Certificates (CDCs), is their site-specific assessment, including any impacts on neighbours.
Participation ensures technical planning expertise is informed by the lived experience of local residents. At the very least, this ensures that all matters are understood in the assessment and, in some cases could even speed up the process. Where the community is properly engaged in decisions, there are fewer appeals and greater trust in the planning system.
The Statewide CPP’s table 6 sets out developments which are now excluded from public exhibition. It is no longer up to councils to decide what’s best for their local context. Crucially, communities won’t be informed about new developments of up to five attached dwellings that comply with the height and floor space controls. This is a significant alteration to the planning process and communities’ ability to be heard in that process. It is difficult to understand on what planning basis the State Government has concluded that these developments warrant no public notification whatsoever.
While the CPP endeavours to shift engagement to the strategic planning stage, this doesn’t work in practice. The implications of zoning, height and floor space controls only become relatable when a particular structure is proposed next door or nearby.
For residents without planning expertise, it is difficult to conceptualise development at the strategic stage, nor do strategic plans go into that level of detail. It is only with concrete DA plans that the tangible impact on their own property and street is understood. Accordingly, for participation to be “meaningful” – as the EPA Act declares it should be – it must also occur at the DA stage. Sure, do more strategic consultation, but not at the expense of exhibiting DAs.
Whether there are any efficiency gains from this reform is highly questionable. Steps in DA assessment are undertaken concurrently, not sequentially. This means not placing applications on public exhibition is unlikely to shift the dial of DA assessment timeframes.
What the change will look like
Imagine this scenario as part of the local council planner’s DA assessment.
Council Assessing Officer: Hello, I’m a planner from Council here to do my site inspection for the DA for next door. Can I come in and check a few things from your side of the fence?
Resident: What DA? No-one’s mentioned any DA to me! I want to see the plans!
Council Assessing Officer: Since the development meets the height and floor space requirements, we no longer exhibit the plans – this is a requirement of the state government. I just need to confirm a few things from your property, then I can finish my report and grant the approval. Your neighbour will give you seven days’ notice before starting work.
Resident: So, I just take your word for it, do I, that everything’s fine? This is outrageous. I have property rights like everyone else. I am going to complain to the councillors and see my solicitor.
Not exactly conducive to good neighbourly relations! Nor is it fair on the local assessing officer coping the blame as they carry out their proper DA assessment.
Consulting on whether to consult
Many of the above points were made in response to the draft Statewide CPP when it was exhibited for comment. A three page (excluding covers) “What We Heard” document was released by the state government reporting that over 1000 public submissions and survey responses were received. Perhaps somewhat ironically, this document does not engage with the feedback on excluding development types from exhibition. It merely admits that 90 per cent of respondents considered that DAs should be advertised for 14 days.
The final CPP was released two business days before it took effect, seeing councils scramble to overhaul their processes. Communities remain largely in the dark. There are many operational issues and unanswered questions that councils and communities have been left to navigate without support or clear direction from the state government.
The final CPP was released two business days before it took effect, seeing councils scramble to overhaul their processes. Communities remain largely in the dark.
For example, it may be that councils are able to resort to a workaround where they “notify” or “inform” residents without this constituting formal public exhibition. This of course would have cost and resourcing implications in a climate where DA timeframes seem to matter more than quality assessments.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves and how local communities react, especially in dense urban areas where there are few CDCs and the majority of DAs are always advertised. And what will be the toll on local council planners trying to do a thorough DA assessment?
Conclusion
Community participation is a cornerstone of our planning system, upholding democratic, fair and transparent planning for everyone. The abandonment of long-held public exhibition practices further erodes community trust in government. Communities have a right to contribute to their changing neighbourhoods – both the long term vision and the detail of changes that affect their daily lives. The Statewide CPP should be revised to reflect the practices of most councils before September 1, when all DAs were publicly exhibited.
