By Aaron Gadiel, Partner

The NSW Government’s Development Coordination Authority officially starts work on 1 July 2026.

Last Friday (19 June) the NSW Government published a suite of documents to give effect to the detailed legal arrangements. This comprised:

• a proclamation formally commencing some further provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025;
• the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Development Coordination Authority) Regulation 2026;
• State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Concurrences and Consultations) 2026.

Mills Oakley published an article outlining key aspects of the broader planning system reforms on 17 November 2025.  Mills Oakley also published an article on the commencement of the first round of the reforms on 22 December 2025.  Additionally, Mills Oakley published an article on the commencement of the second round of the reforms on 10 March 2026.

This article highlights some key changes in the latest round of reforms which may be of interest to property developers and their consultants.  It does not list all of the changes.  This article is not a substitute for legal advice.

The Development Coordination Authority

The ‘Development Coordination Authority’ will formally come into operation on 1 July 2026.

The first thing to appreciate is that this sounds like a new major institution, but, in truth, the Authority will simply be the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) wearing a different hat.   The staff doing the work of the Authority will merely be officers of the DPHI.

The Development Coordination Authority will take responsibility for issuing ‘general terms of approval’ in lieu of other NSW Government agencies when they are required for integrated development.

In brief terms — and notably for developers of urban property — general terms of approval are needed in the assessment of a development application when, to carry out the development, one of the following approvals would apply:

• the issue of a bush fire safety authority under the Rural Fires Act 1997 by the Rural Fire Service;
• various approvals under the Water Management Act 2000 by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW);
• various approvals under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development;
• the grant of an Aboriginal heritage impact permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 by the DCCEEW;
• an approval under the Heritage Act 1977 by the Heritage Council;
• an approval under the Coal Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 2017 by Subsidence Advisory NSW;
• the issue of an environmental protection licence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 by the Environment Protection Authority; and
• the grant of a section 138 consent under the Roads Act 1993, but only in those rare occasions when the local council is not the roads authority (noting that the local council is typically the roads authority for most classified roads).

In the above circumstances, the Development Coordination Authority will issue the ‘general terms of approval’ rather than the individual agencies referred to above.

Once development consent is granted, there will still be a need to obtain the actual approval from the relevant agency. (There is no change to the existing requirement that the subsequent approval must then be granted, consistent with the development consent, if an application is made within three years after the grant of the development consent.)

Additionally:

• The Development Coordination Authority will assume the consultation role of Sydney Water for development that may affect it (under section 78 of the Sydney Water Act 1993). However, this is only in relation to the conditions that are imposed on a development consent. It does not necessarily follow that there will be any change to the existing standard condition — which requires a building plan approval to be obtained from Sydney Water prior to the issue of a construction certificate or a subdivision works certificate. Nor does it remove the standard requirement for a ‘section 73’ compliance certificate to be obtained from Sydney Water prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or a subdivision certificate. This means, for example, Sydney Water continues to be the sole body responsible for determining what works must be the subject of a ‘developer works deed’ (when such a deed is required to obtain a ‘section 73’ certificate).
• The Development Coordination Authority will replace the Secretary of DCCEEW as a concurrence authority for the limited number of development applications that include a biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR), but do not propose to retire the credits that would ordinarily need to be retired under that report.
• The Development Coordination Authority will replace the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development as a concurrence authority on threatened aquatic species under the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
• The Development Coordination Authority will replace Hunter Water as a consultation authority under section 51 of the Hunter Water Act 1991.
• The Development Coordination Authority will assume some functions previously vested in the ministers responsible for the marine park and aquatic reserve management under sections 55 and 56 of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014.
• The Development Coordination Authority will assume the concurrence role of Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in relation to roads affected by a road widening order (under section 26 of the Roads Act 1993).

From 1 July 2026 there will be a new expanded Chapter 4 (‘Concurrences and consultations’) in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 (Planning Systems SEPP) (replacing, in its entirety, the existing Chapter 4).  Notably, for developers of urban property the Development Coordination Authority will take the place of TfNSW and related transport authorities in relation to the following matters:

• development adjacent to rail corridors;
• excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors;
• traffic-generating development; and
• development on proposed classified road.

The Development Coordination Authority has not been given any statutory role in the preparation and finalisation of ‘works authorisation deeds’ under the Roads Act 1993. These deeds are typically required by TfNSW before it will approve the carrying out of necessary work for a development on a classified road.

It is an open question as to whether this reform will be a change for the better.  The reform might be seen as hollow if all that happens is that another layer is created between:

• local council, the development applicant; and
• the public servant who has the expertise to actually decide whether general terms of approval or advice should be issued (and if so, what the approval or advice should say).

For example, it is likely that the Development Coordination Authority will not make decisions on some sensitive transport matters without some degree of consultation by it with TfNSW. If the Authority simply acts as a post box between the local council, the development applicant and TfNSW, the reform may have little benefit — and may, in fact, be negative.

The changes associated with the Development Coordination Authority do not generally apply to pending development applications that have been lodged before 1 July 2026.

Consultation requirements for modification applications

Until now:

• For a ‘section 4.55(1A)’ modification application — a consent authority is not obliged to consult or obtain the concurrence of any state government agencies before determining the modification application.
• For a ‘section 4.55(2)’ modification application — a consent authority is obliged to consult state government agencies regarding conditions imposed as a result of a concurrence to the original development consent or in accordance with general terms of an approval given in accordance with integrated development arrangements. If the state agency objects within 21 days, the application cannot be approved.

This changes from 1 July 2026.

Now, if an environmental planning instrument requires notification, consultation or the concurrence of a person (including a state government agency) before the grant of the original development consent, that same process of notification, consultation or concurrence must be repeated before either a ‘section 4.55(1A)’ or ‘section 4.55(2)’ modification can be approved.

This imposes a more onerous procedural burden on the approval of a ‘section 4.55(1A)’ modification application, but a lighter burden on a ‘section 4.55(2)’ modification.

The procedures outlined above do not apply to state significant development.

The Planning Systems SEPP will contain new provisions that prevent approval from being given to the modification application unless the consent authority has:

• given written notice of the modification application to each relevant referral authority no later than 14 days after receiving the application;
• taken into account comments received from the relevant referral authority no later than 28 days after giving the notice.

Requirement to consult on threatened species

Until now there has been a statutory obligation — independent of anything in a gateway determination — for a planning authority to consult the DCCEEW before making or amending an environmental planning instrument.

This requirement will be removed on 1 July 2026.

However, a gateway determination — for a new or amended local environmental plan — may still require a planning authority to consult DCCEEW.

For a new or amended state environmental planning policy there will be no legal requirement for the DPHI to consult DCCEEW.

Interestingly, the legal challenge by Ku-ring-gai Council against the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) Amendment (Transport Oriented Development) 2024 was principally based on a breach of this existing legal requirement. After 1 July 2026, no similar legal challenge could be sustained against the NSW Government in the future.

Bushfire safety consultation

Until now — for development that does not require a ‘bushfire safety authority’ from the Rural Fire Service — a consent authority has been unable to grant a development consent unless either one of the following three circumstances exist:

• the consent authority is satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection;
• the consent authority has been provided with a certificate by a qualified consultant stating that the development conforms to the relevant specifications and requirements; or
• the consent authority has consulted the NSW Rural Fire Service.

From 1 July 2026, this rule will be scrapped.

Instead, a consent authority will only be required to consider Planning for Bush Fire Protection (for development that does not require a ‘bushfire safety authority’ from the Rural Fire Service).

A new Division 3 (‘Bush fires’) in Part 4.2 (‘Concurrences and consultations’) of the Planning Systems SEPP now sets out a consultation requirement with the Development Coordination Authority.

This change does not apply to pending development applications that have been lodged before 1 July 2026.

Extension of ‘Division 8.2’ reviews

Under the existing law, development consent can be (and routinely is) granted with conditions that require an aspect of the development to be carried out to the satisfaction of a person, such as a state government agency.

This power remains.

However, the new statutory scheme for the Development Coordination Authority expressly anticipates that conditions of development consent may require that an aspect of the development be carried out to the satisfaction of the Development Coordination Authority.

When such a condition is imposed — and the Development Coordination Authority is not satisfied — there will be a new ability to seek an internal review of that decision by the Authority under Division 8.2 of the EP&A Act.

This right is in addition to the existing right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court (when a local council or a third-party, such as the Development Coordination Authority, is not satisfied under a condition of development consent).

Preparing development applications

Under the existing law a development application is required to contain:

• a list of the authorities from which concurrence must be obtained before the development may lawfully be carried out (or would have been required, but for the development being state significant development); and
• a list of the relevant ‘integrated development’ approvals that must be obtained before the development may lawfully be carried out.

From 1 July 2026, this requirement will be expanded (in one respect) and narrowed (in another respect).

It will also be necessary to provide a list of the provisions of an act of parliament or an environmental planning instrument that require a consent authority to consult with a consultation body before granting development consent.

For state significant development, it will no longer be required to include in the list a concurrence requirement which is imposed by an environmental planning instrument — so long as that requirement is not expressed to apply to state significant development.

Amendment to a development application

There will no longer be an automatic requirement to re-refer every amendment of a development application to a referral authority (whose concurrence or consultation is required, or from whom general terms of approval are needed).

A consent authority will have the power to decide not to refer the application if it considers that the amendment will not affect the assessment of the development undertaken by the referral authority.

Bottom line

The creation of the Development Coordination Authority is a real effort to remove some of the bureaucratic inefficiencies from development assessment in NSW.

However, if not well-managed, there is a risk that the Development Coordination Authority will become a layer between a development applicant and the real decision-maker somewhere in the bowels of government.  Let’s hope that this is just misplaced pessimism.