Menu Close

NSW Environmental Planning laws under attack

NSW Environmental Planning laws under attack

NSW Labor committed to stop land clearing – urgency to act – April 2026

At the last election NSW Labor promised to stop land clearing. This promise was widely welcomed. However, the Government are yet to implement their promise and instead, land clearing rates have increased. Most land clearing occurs in western NSW and there is concern landholders may be rushing to clear land ahead of any changes.

Habitat destruction is one of the major drivers of biodiversity decline.

The NSW Nature Conservation Council is asking concerned citizens to contact their local member and ask them to ensure Labor’s promise to stop land clearing is delivered urgently. The Government is currently reviewing the Biodiversity Conservation Act which presents an opportunity to call for stronger upfront environmental protections, however, a huge issue remains in the Local Land Services (LLS) Act which permits landholders to unsustainably clear land.

For example, at 19 Gan Gan Road, Anna Bay, a mature stand of Koala feed and shelter trees bordered much of this corner block, which also faces Nelson Bay Road. The trees also provided an attractive green entry to Anna Bay. Zoned rural, land clearing is permitted under the LLS Act, and now most of the trees have been destroyed Residents and Council were powerless to stop this clearing on the margins of this block.

We encourage you to write to your local member and ask them to help secure stronger protections for nature through the current Biodiversity Conservation Act reform process, in particular:

  • Setting no-go zones to protect the highest environmental values from destruction
  • Ensuring laws meant to protect nature have priority over interacting legislation
  • Increased resources and incentives to motivate landholders to protect nature
  • Changing the Local Land Services Act to prevent broadscale clearing.

 November 2025

NSW environmental planning laws weakened

In November 2025 the NSW Parliament passed major changes to the state’s planning system. While the environment movement were able to secure some adjustments before the bill was passed – the overall outlook is not good.

The changes create a new streamlined pathway for development, changes the way environmental impacts are considered in decision making, and enables an accelerated rezoning process. The NSW Nature Conservation Council is particularly concerned that off-site impacts no longer need to be concerned – this is alarming when you think about projects like the proposed Redbank Power Station, that wants to burn native vegetation to create energy.

You can read more in this explainer prepared by the lawyers at the Environmental Defenders Office.

30 October 2025

The Guardian reports (31 Oct 2025) “The Minns Labor government has admitted its wide-ranging changes to planning laws, promoted as measures to speed up housing approvals, will also apply to mining and power projects, clearing the way for new mines and wind and solar farms to be fast-tracked.”

However this does not seem to accord with earlier reassurances our MP Kate Washington provided below relating to mining.

There’s confusions over the planning laws, which is inevitable when laws are rushed through parliament.

FIND OUT on this webinar Monday 15 December about how “Our nature laws are changing – will they halt the extinction crisis?“, from those active in advising and lobbying on nature laws. Also find out where there is opportunity to make some meaningful changes. More Information and Register for the Zoom link

20 October 2025

Environmental groups throughout the State, such as the NSW Nature Conservation Council, the NSW National Parks Association, Better Planning Network, Lock the Gate, and nationally the Environmental Defenders Organisation (EDO), have major concerns about changes being proposed for our NSW Environmental Planning Laws.

As one longterm environmentalist said “It is highly concerning and unusual that the NSW Government has introduced such a significant and risky Bill into the Parliament with no public consultation and with no detailed explanatory material. When changes like this are conceived in a rush and pursued without broad consultation there are likely to be unintended consequences for communities, for the environment, and for the integrity of the planning framework itself.”

With some consultation just a few days prior to the Bill’s introduction into the Legislate Assembly, it was passed with amendments on Thursday 16 October, and has now been introduced into the Legislative Council and debate on the Bill is expected to continue in the NSW Legislative Council commencing Tuesday 21 October. 

The EDO has outlined many outstanding concerns, listed below.

Friday 17 October 2025

The Environmental Defenders Organisation (EDO) provided a detailed update, setting out what the amendments mean and what matters of concern are yet to be addressed. This is reproduced below which we’ve sectioned for your ease in viewing, or see the original EDO update.

Click ▶︎ to open up each section

Key amendments made in the Legislative Assembly are as follows: 

  • Restriction to targeted assessment development, to exclude fossil fuel and other projects from fast tracking.  The Government moved its own amendment to exclude designated development (coal mines, electricity generating stations, concrete works, etc.) from the proposed new streamlined assessment pathway. A list of designated development can be found in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EP&A Regulation). Designated development may also be identified in an environmental planning instrument (EPI). This was a direct change made in response to concerns raised by EDO and other stakeholders and is a key improvement to the Bill.  
  • Public consultation timeframe specified for targeted assessment development: The Opposition secured an amendment that a proposed policy to declare targeted assessment development must be subject to public consultation for a minimum of 28 days (the Bill was originally silent on the time period). 
  • Amendments made to maintain environment protection and human health in Objects: Independents Alex Greenwich MP and Jacqui Scruby MP secured amendments to retain important elements of the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) relating to protection of the environment, protection of the health and safety of the occupants of buildings, and proper management and conservation of natural resources. These changes generally address EDO’s concerns about proposed changes to the objects of the Act. 
  • Tightened wording for expedited amendment of Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs): The Opposition also secured an amendment to provisions that would allow the expedited amendment of EPIs that the Housing Delivery Authority considers ‘reasonably necessary’ to enable the carrying out of State significant development (SSD) (rather than ‘necessary and convenient’ as originally proposed). While this is an improvement to the Bill as originally drafted, we remain concerned about the environmental and community impacts, as well as the potential corruption risks arising from expedited EPI amendments – see below. 
  • Bush fire prone land protections retained in the Act: Independent Michael Regan MP secured an amendment to retain provisions relating to bush fire prone land mapping in the EP&A Act. The Government also inserted a requirement for a consent authority to consider the relevant Bush Fire Protection Planning guide before granting development consent (although this is a change to current requirements in section 4.14 of the EP&A Act that require consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service). 
  • Clarification of provisions relating to ‘zombie development applications’: The Government amended the provisions of the Bill intended to address ‘zombie’ development applications. The amendments will limit the use of modification and revocation powers pertaining to an existing EPI to the planning secretary only for development consents granted more than 25 years ago. We note a Parliamentary inquiry into historical development consents in NSW is still underway. 
  • Improvements to transparency and accountability: Several other amendments were made to the Bill that would improve transparency and accountability. These include: 
  • A requirement for the Minister to publish reasons for not accepting a recommendation from the Housing Delivery Authority. 
  • A requirement for the Planning Department’s annual report to report on the operations of the Development Coordination Authority. 
  • The Planning Secretary must arrange for the community participation plan to be published on the NSW legislation website. 
  • A new Joint Select Committee of the Parliament will be established to undertake reviews of the amendments made to the Act relating to the Housing Delivery Authority to determine whether— (a) the policy objectives of the amendments remain valid, and (b) the terms of the Act, as amended, remain appropriate for securing the objectives. 

The following proposed amendments to the Bill were not supported and did not pass: 

  • Amendments proposed by the Greens that would require, for development for the purposes of residential accommodation that will result in 10 or more dwellings, a condition that 20% of the residential floor space of the development will be used for affordable housing.  
  • Amendments proposed by the Opposition to retain Sydney district and regional planning panels.  

Outstanding concerns 

Although Legislative Assembly amendments have reduced some risks in the Bill, EDO maintains serious concerns with a number of remaining provisions.  

1. Environmental considerations still weakened 

Changes that will affect how all development and infrastructure is assessed and considered remain in the Bill. 

  • In relation to Part 4 Development, the Bill: 
  • Weakens consideration requirements by requiring that only “significant” likely impacts are considered. This change may prevent the consideration of impacts material to the community, or cumulatively significant, but not rising to the definition of “significant” impact; 
  • Continues to allow regulations to set out matters that are prohibited from consideration, and makes a new regulation prohibiting consent authorities from considering “other development”, which is very ambiguously defined and could extend to indirect impacts, including cumulative impacts. 
  • In relation to Part 5 Infrastructure, the Bill still proposed changes to the duty to consider environmental impacts when determining Part 5 public infrastructure applications (e.g. roads, schools and utility networks). These changes have the potential to limit the extent to which environmental impacts need to be considered in Part 5 applications.  Specifically, the Bill will be amended to remove the words “to the fullest extent possible” from the requirement to take into account all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity;  and allow a determining authority to consider environmental impacts “in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity”.  

Together, these changes significantly weaken environmental and community protection, and disempower decision-makers from properly considering the impacts of all developments. These changes are a retrograde step, which are directly at odds with the Minister’s assertion that the Bill “modernises” the planning system.  

2. Corruption risks remain with expedited amendment of Environmental Planning Instruments  

A significant corruption risk remains in the Bill, which drastically reduces community input and external oversight. This is the proposed provision for expedited amendment of EPIs that the Housing Delivery Authority considers “reasonably necessary” for carrying out State Significant Developments (SSD). While the amended wording from ‘necessary and convenient’ to ‘reasonably necessary’ is an improvement, ultimately the provision still allows expedited ‘spot rezoning’.  This means that no planning proposal process needs to be undertaken and there is no external accountability if the Minister declares a proposal to be SSD and the Housing Development Authority considers it reasonably necessary. Site-specific rezoning with no safeguards is a major corruption risk that ICAC has repeatedly warned against.  

3. Powers removed from specialised agencies and Ministers, and centralised in Planning Minister and Planning Secretary (Development Coordination Authority)  

The Bill proposes to remove the role of specialised agencies and Ministers to input into planning decisions, instead providing for: 

  • The Development Coordination Authority (DCA) to provide general terms of approval for integrated development. 
  • The DCA or Planning Minister to take over certain referral and concurrence roles, including in relation to threatened species and ecological communities, biodiversity impacts and marine parks and reserves. 

The changes remove the role of specialised agencies and Ministers to input into planning decisions. Those agencies and Ministers are best placed to consider the issues relevant to their portfolio (e.g. biodiversity impacts, impacts on threatened species etc.) and can provide frank advice, at arms-length from the Planning Department.   

Functions will be centralised in the DCA – who is defined in the legislation as the Planning Secretary. While the Bill provides that the DCA can draw on other Departments or experts, there is no requirement for the DCA to do this, and there is nothing to prevent the DCA simply exercising functions unilaterally (in time or under future governments).  

The DCA is intended to help streamline decision making, but there are already provisions in the EP&A Act that can help address delays, for example  

  • The EP&A Act and EP&A Regulation already allow the Planning Secretary to step in and act on behalf of an approval body for integrated development where there are delays (e.g. section 4.47(4A) of the EP&A Act)  
  • A number of referral and concurrence provisions already set time periods for other agency feedback (e.g. section 48 of the Dams Safety Act 2015; section 51 of the Hunter Water Act 1991) to prevent delays  

We recommend the role of existing agencies is retained and supported (e.g. with appropriate funding and capacity) allowing those agencies to continue to provide arms-length, specialised input into planning decisions for both integrated development and referral and concurrence. The Planning Department can continue to play an important coordination role, but the DCA/Planning Secretary should not be given direct powers to exercise functions unilaterally.  

4. Making of EPIs* – Special consultation procedures concerning threatened species 

The Bill removes the requirement to consult with the head of the Environment Department before making an EPI that would adversely affect critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats (by omitting s 3.25 of the EP&A Act). Unlike other changes to referral requirements in the Bill, this specific referral requirement is being removed entirely (not transferred to the DCA).  

* EPIs – Environmental planning instruments are local environmental plans (LEPs) and State environmental planning policies (SEPPs) but does not include development control plans (DCPs). The provisions of EPIs are legally binding on both government and developers. One primary function of EPIs is to specify what kinds of development are allowed in an area. LEPs deal with the local government area, and SEPPs can deal with specific locations, types of places (e.g. coastal wetlands), or the whole of NSW. Read more here

Friday 17 October 2025

Letter of response received from our Local MP ~ Port Stephens, The Hon. Kate Washington

Dear … fellow members of EcoNetwork Port Stephens,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 (Bill). It provides the opportunity to clarify several of the concerns that you have raised regarding the Bill, particularly in relation to the protection of the environment.

The Minns Labor Government is committed to protecting the natural environment and promoting ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

For the first time, the Bill proposes to introduce an Object on climate change and natural disaster resilience into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to underscore its importance and continues to promote the conservation of threatened species and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. 

The Objects of an Act of Parliament are important because they provide a clear understanding of the intent and purpose of the legislation. Including climate change as well as the conservation of threatened species and ecologically sustainable development as Objects therefore gives a clear indication of the importance of these matters in the interpretation of the Act. Housing is also a priority for the community and the reforms aim to improve many aspects of the planning system, so that this nearly 50-year old Act can meet modern challenges.

There are presently only two methods to assess any development in NSW.  Either a development is complying, or it needs to undergo full merit-based assessment. Targeted Assessment, a new planning pathway, will help bridge the gap between complying development and a full development application, accelerating the development of well-considered, and low-risk proposals. This new planning pathway has been carefully designed to reduce duplication of assessments where strategic planning and community consultation have already occurred up front – without undermining important environmental safeguards.

A Statement of Environmental Effects of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will still be required through this process. The EIS will need to address detailed controls or other considerations determined through the strategic planning process.

It is important to emphasise that all projects eligible for this pathway must still comply with other relevant legislation, including the Biodiversity Conservation Act (BCA) and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

The existing provisions in these Acts will continue to apply in full.

Before any projects can be made eligible for this process, an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) must be publicly exhibited, providing transparency and accountability, while making sure the community has the opportunity to comment.

This is a pathway that could be used for proposals like the Mid-Rise Pattern Book, roll-out of community batteries, or upgrades of community sporting facilities.

The Targeted Assessment pathway will not be used for large-scale and high-impact developments, such as mining, and other industrial projects. These projects will continue to be subject to detailed merit assessment, as is currently the case.

Since the Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 17 September 2025, both the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Hon Paul Scully MP, and the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, have undertaken a series of meetings with environmental groups about the Bill and have explained this. The Minister has also been clear on this matter in his public comments.

In relation to concerns about consultations with stakeholders, I can advise that the Department has met with over 70 organisations, including environmental groups, and briefed more than 500 individuals on the Bill’s provisions. These consultations have been helpful in further clarifying the provisions in the Bill with stakeholders.

In addition, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has confirmed it provided advice on probity issues and met with the Department multiple times since 2024 to provide this advice.

In relation to certain bushfire provisions, it is important to emphasise, the Bill will not weaken, or remove, bushfire protection considerations in planning assessments and decisions.

Instead, it is proposed the provisions will be re-established in a new Climate Change and Natural Hazards State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). This approach aligns bushfire rules and mapping with how other natural hazards, such as flooding and coastal hazards, are currently managed within the planning system. This will make it easier to keep bushfire rules up to date as our understanding of climate change and bushfire risk evolves. Importantly, there will continue to be a statutory requirement to assess bushfire hazards that cannot be bypassed.

The Development Coordination Authority (DCA), which will include experts from the Rural Fire Service (RFS), will continue to consider the impacts of development when making decisions. The Bill does not propose to lower the standard of assessment, and the DCA will be legislatively required to carry out the assessment as though it were the agency acting under relevant legislation.

I can also re-assure you that existing checks and balances, including the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) and the NSW Land and Environment Court, will continue to operate to safeguard environmental and community outcomes, as both do currently.

The Bill has been carefully designed with guardrails to make sure that environmental legislation remains enforceable and expert advice remains central to planning decisions.

Community consultation is an important part of the planning system and it will continue. The Bill is only proposing to standardise the over 100 individual Community Participation Plans currently in operation across New South Wales. The new Community Participation Plan will be subject to community consultation.

In introducing these planning reforms, the Minns Labor Government is proposed to overhaul the planning system to speed up decision-making, focus on outcomes – not process – and modernise how the planning system functions at a time when housing, jobs delivery and taking action on climate change, are among the most important priorities we face as a community.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me and raise your concerns. I hope this response will provide assistance to you in clarifying the provisions in this important Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Kate

Office of the Hon Kate Washington MP

Member for Port Stephens

Port Stephens Electorate Office

P 02 4987 4455    E portstephens@parliament.nsw.gov.au

26 William Street

Raymond Terrace NSW 2324

PO Box 82

Raymond Terrace NSW 2324

Monday 13 October 2025

Letters of concern linked here sent to

  • Local MP ~ Port Stephens, The Hon. Kate Washington
  • Premier Chris Minns
  • Opposition Leader Mark Speakman: 

Sunday 12 October 2025

We need your help to stop the attack on NSW planning laws 

“Changes to New South Wales’s planning laws designed to fast-track housing are so broad they could facilitate fast-tracking of mines, power projects and infrastructure without environmental assessment, the Environmental Defenders Office has warned.” The Guardian

The State’s major environmental groups, including the EDO, the NSW Nature Conservation Council, the NSW National Parks Association, Lock the Gate, and some environmental lawyers, said the changes were not limited to housing development and could result in environmental assessments going out the window for mining projects, windfarms and other developments.

The changed laws are progressing with ZERO community consultation, and our voices will be silenced through the changes.

If it passes, climate, heritage, and community voices will be silenced, says Lock the Gate, who are calling for a SNAP ACTION Tuesday 14 October in Sydney.

The Nature Conservation Council says this is a code red for environmental protection

The NCC media release Nature groups blindsided by sweeping changes to environment laws says “These extreme changes to our environmental protection laws would strip away environmental scrutiny, making it easier for damaging developments to slip through,” said Jacqui Mumford, NCC Chief Executive Officer. 

“This is a code red for environmental protection in NSW. If passed as is, the reforms on the table would have devastating consequences. Read more: 

The National Parks Association NSW calls on us to take action now before 14 October 

The NPA says the NSW Government and Opposition are conspiring to decimate our state’s environmental planning laws. We need your voice now — will you write to the Premier and Opposition Leader to tell them they’re going too far? 

We want planning laws to

  • Protect our environment and heritage 
  • Maximise transparency 
  • Give communities a genuine voice 

Here are the issues the NPA outlined

The housing crisis is being used as cover for sweeping changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  But these changes go far beyond housing approvals: they strip away state-wide safeguards for threatened species, ecological communities, and cultural heritage. 

Even worse, the Minister for Planning would gain unchecked powers to bypass environmental assessment altogether. These “short and dirty” processes would be triggered at the Minister’s discretion, with no community scrutiny and no right of appeal.  

If passed, the reforms would allow highways, pipelines, mines — even large housing estates — to be approved with the stroke of a pen, regardless of their environmental impacts. Shockingly, the changes don’t just remove the duty to consider environmental harm, they make it unlawful to do so. 

Why should we trust politicians with such unaccountable power? Why invite corruption and secrecy back into our planning system? 

Please act now. Write to Premier Chris Minns and Opposition Leader Mark Speakman and your local MP, remind them that NSW expects planning laws to: 

  • Protect our environment and heritage 
  • Maximise transparency 
  • Give communities a genuine voice 

NCC and Lock the Gate ask for urgent action from all members of the NSW Parliament to:

  1. Send the Bill to a multi-party Committee to allow proper scrutiny of its far-reaching impacts
  2. Delay voting on the Bill until adequate time has been allowed for community engagement and consultation
  3. Withdraw or drastically amend the Bill to curtail its wide-ranging negative impacts.

The Government’s proposal is a huge step backwards. Contact them here: 

Write or phone

For a detailed analysis of the risks, see the Environmental Defenders Office briefing note. 

Here is NCC’s proforma email to your local MP

Yes, there is a housing crisis, and government must act. But these changes go far too far. They strip away hard-won protections, trample transparency, and open the door to reckless development. If we stay silent, NSW risks sliding back into an era where political influence and backroom deals override science, community voices, and the rule of law.

Now is the time to speak up. Please act, write or phone before Tuesday 14 October
and if possible, go to the SNAP ACTION Tuesday 14 October in Sydney.