“Building Business Back Better” (Proposed changes to complying development)

DPIE has released an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) to amend the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) to extend the complying development pathway to more industrial and commercial development.

The EIE, titled “Building Business Back Better”, proposes “strengthening” complying development by:

1. Enabling land use and business agility for retail, commercial and industrial development reducing barriers in utilising existing space.
2. Optimising opportunities for industrial and commercial development.
3. Neighbourhood centre activation, strengthening our increasingly important local networks.
4. Streamlining the delivery of data centres to support network

The EIE proposes reforms to the Codes SEPP to "accelerate capital investment" in employment zones (IN1 General Industrial, IN2 Light Industrial, IN3 Heavy Industrial Business, B5 Business Development, B6 Enterprise Corridor, B7 Business Park, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre) by expanding opportunities for complying development certification.

While we're yet to review the detail of the EIE, the Urban Taskforce greatly supports an extension to the scope of complying development. We also acknowledge the market sounding by DPIE with industry to better understand future development pipelines and planned capital spending in commercial and industrial development projects across NSW.

The EIE is on public exhibition until 9th May and can be accessed here.

 

Clause 4.6 Review

Back in January 2020 the Urban Taskforce, following feedback from members, wrote to the DPIE raising issue with the current drafting of Clause 4.6 (the provision now in the Standard Instrument that replaced SEPP 1) and providing some recommended improvements to the wording.

DPIE has now released the Explanation of Intended Effects (EIE) on proposed amendments to Clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan.

Consistent with the letter written by the Urban Taskforce, the EIE is a step in the right direction in the reference to the need to demonstrate planning benefit – thus giving the decision makers what would appear to be clear guidance as to where cl 4.6 can be legitimately used or not.

However, the positives of the reference to planning benefit is potentially compromised through the clause itself defining what needs to be taken into account in the consideration of a “planning benefit” being public interest, environmental outcomes, social outcomes and economic outcomes.

On the other hand – the Minister would argue that this was necessary to effectively respond to the ICAC report into Canterbury Council findings – and that he has simply pulled the definition that exists in the Act into Claude 4.6, thus effectively narrowing considerations available to Council away from “public benefit” and towards “planning benefit”.

While the Urban Taskforce is yet to consult members on the EIE, we recognise the proposal attempts to tread the fine balance for Government in responding to the issues raised by industry and the findings of the ICAC’s Operation Dasha highlighting the need for changes and increased accountability.

DPIE, in releasing the EIE in the format of a discussion paper that poses questions and alternatives, is clearly open to feedback.

The EIE discussion paper can be accessed here.

Submissions can be made until 12 May 2021.
 

Click here to read the Urban Taskforce January 2020 letter on suggested changes to Clause 4.6.

DPIE's Stakeholder Enagement team has prepared a document of key planning and public spaces programs and initiatives being delivered across the Department over the coming months.

The "outlook" provides a useful overview of the consultation on planning reform initiatives and other major programs.

The intent of DPIE is to update and circulate the outlook on a quarterly basis. 

To access the outlook document click here.

A NSW parliamentary committee has launched a new inquiry into whether SEPPs should be disallowable by the Legislative Council.

The Chair of the Regulation Committee, the Labor Party’s, Mick Veitch MLC, said:

“The committee's recent report on the making of delegated legislation documented the exclusion of certain legislative instruments from disallowance, or veto, by the House. SEPPs are a case in point, as currently these important instruments, which address significant planning issues across the state, cannot be disallowed by the Legislative Council."

'This inquiry will provide an opportunity for the committee to shine a light on this scrutiny gap. The committee will also consider how SEPPs are made under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including whether the NSW Government Guide to Better Regulation is adhered to when SEPPs are being developed."

Urban Taskforce is of the view that SEPPs – as they currently can be altered or made – can be a valuable tool to allow governments to be responsive to changing land use, economic and investment demands and drivers. The last thing NSW needs is SEPPs being further slowed or held hostage to others’ political agendas. SEPPs are too important for this.

The committee is receiving submissions until 19 May 2021.

To view more information on the inquiry including the terms of reference click here.