The NSW Government has rolled out a wave of planning system reforms on Saturday, 21 March 2026, amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the EP&A Act’ or ‘the Act’). These changes enact reforms introduced under the NSW Planning Systems Reform Act 2025 and aim to make planning assessments faster, simpler, and more proportionate to the level of risk involved.

1. A New “Targeted Assessment” Pathway

From March 21, the NSW Government has established the legal framework for a new streamlined assessment pathway called Targeted Assessment Development.

What starts now:

• The definitions, rules and structure for targeted assessment development come into force.
• The Act has been updated with new sections describing how the pathway works (see Division 4.3, Division 4.3A, and Schedule 1 of the Act).
• Consultation rules are updated so they’re ready for when the pathway is active.
• Notably, under subsections 4.15 (1C) and (1D) of the Act, determination by a consent authority of targeted assessment development must not take into consideration the significant likely impacts of that development, the suitability of the site for the development, or the public interest, only the matters identified under subsections 4.15(1)(a) and (d) of the Act.

What does not start now:

• The pathway is not effectively operating yet because the Government hasn’t released a SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) that will declare the criteria for which developments will be subject to targeted assessment development.
• That SEPP must go on public exhibition for 28 days prior to commencement.

2. Faster Decisions for Minor Modifications (s4.55)

A. Modification applications under Section 4.55 of the Act that:

• Fix minor errors, misdescriptions or miscalculations, or
• Have no environmental impact

Will now be assessed under s4.55(1) instead of s4.55(1A).

This is significant because:

B. Councils must now determine s4.55(1) modifications  in 14 days after lodgement

A brand‑new section of the EP&A Regulations,  s118A, requires councils to determine s4.55(1) modifications within 14 days after lodgement, because…

C. If a council misses the deadline, they must approve it

A new section of the Act, s4.55A, says that if the council does not determine a s4.55(1) application in that 14 day period, they:

• Cannot refuse the modification, and
• Must approve it as soon as practicable with conditions that only relate to the modification and that give effect to the modification (note: exact wording is “must not defeat the purpose of the modification application”).

This is a major shift in how the system handles minor modifications and aims to result in faster outcomes for applicants. It will assist in increasing applicants’ certainty and confidence in the success of minor modifications.

3. REFs and EIS Now Use a “Proportionate to Risk” Standard

From March 21, environmental impact assessments for activities under Part 5 Division 5.1 of the Act (including Reviews of Environmental Factors (REFs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) must now be:

• Scaled
• Proportionate
• Matched to the level of environmental risk involved.

Section 5.5 of the Act has been amended so that activities no longer need to be assessed to the fullest extent possible by a determining authority; the determining authority only needs to

• Examine and take into account matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity; and
• Take into account the matters referred to above in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity.

What this means in practice:

• Low‑risk projects → a shorter, simpler REF can be prepared
• Higher‑risk projects → a more detailed analysis is required
• No more obligation to assess “everything” (e.g. “full extent possible”, including alternative options), only focus on significant likely impacts, not every possible impact

This change aims to eliminate unnecessary over‑reporting and keep assessments practical and relevant to the scale and nature of the activity being described.

4. Appeal Processes Cleaned Up

The legislation now makes it clear you cannot apply for :

• An internal review and
• A Court appeal

For the same decision at the same time, under Part 8 of the Act This avoids duplication and confusion in planning disputes. Please note that a Section 8.2 review cannot be undertaken in relation to a decision after the Court has disposed of an appeal against that same decision (s8.4 of Act).

Notably, provided a review under Division 8.2 is submitted prior to the rights of appeal expiring (6 months after the determination being registered on the NSW Planning Portal), subsection 8.3(2) of the Act has been amended so that an 8.2 review is no longer required to be both lodged and also determined within that same 6-month period after the determination.

---

What This Means Going Forward

These reforms signal a clear policy direction: faster assessments, proportionate regulation and greater certainty for low‑risk development. However, the practical benefits will only be realised where the legislation is applied with judgment, discipline and a clear understanding of risk.

As NSW’s planning system continues to evolve, certainty, judgment and delivery are critical. BRS provides clear, commercially focused town planning advice that cuts through reform and drives reliable outcomes. Speak with our town planning team to understand how these changes affect your project, and how we can help you move forward with confidence below.

The success of these projects is often judged by two competing forces: efficiency and quality. While efficiency focuses on delivering projects on time and within budget, quality ensures assets are safe, durable and fit for purpose over their full lifecycle.

The most successful infrastructure projects recognise that these outcomes are not mutually exclusive, but rather interdependent.

Understanding efficiency in infrastructure delivery

Efficiency in projects is commonly associated with speed, cost control and streamlined delivery. Governments, developers and councils face increasing pressure to accelerate delivery timelines while managing constrained budgets. However, efficiency is not simply about doing things faster, it is also about doing the right things well, and with minimal waste.

From an engineering and project management perspective, efficiency is achieved through early planning, realistic programming and coordinated design. When civil engineers, planners, surveyors and project managers collaborate from the outset, risks are identified early and costly rework is reduced. This integrated approach enables informed decision-making and smoother transitions from concept to construction.

Why quality cannot be compromised

Quality in infrastructure projects extends far beyond compliance at completion. It encompasses design integrity, constructability, safety, environmental performance and long-term asset resilience. Projects that prioritise short-term efficiencies at the expense of quality often incur higher lifecycle costs due to premature asset failure, increased maintenance and reputational damage.

The result of a project can be safeguarded through accurate site data, robust design documentation and ongoing verification during construction. Planners and certifiers play a vital role by ensuring infrastructure aligns with statutory requirements and long-term land use objectives.

The benefits of embracing digital

Digital engineering plays an increasingly important role in resolving the perceived tension between efficiency and quality in infrastructure delivery. Rather than treating these outcomes as competing priorities, digital tools enable project teams to strengthen both simultaneously.

Through improved upfront planning, integrated design environments and structured information management, digital engineering enhances coordination across disciplines and improves visibility throughout the project lifecycle. Shared digital models and transparent data workflows allow engineers, planners and contractors to identify design clashes earlier, minimise scope misalignment and reduce the risk of costly rework.

By supporting more informed, data-driven decision-making, digital engineering improves constructability, strengthens governance and increases confidence in time, cost and quality outcomes. In doing so, it provides a practical framework for delivering projects more efficiently without compromising the standards required for long-term asset performance.

Balancing what matters most

Ultimately, infrastructure projects succeed or fail not by how quickly they are delivered, but by how well efficiency and quality are aligned throughout the project lifecycle. When delivery is driven solely by time or cost, quality is often compromised — resulting in higher long-term costs, increased risk and reduced asset performance. Conversely, projects that embed quality into planning, design and delivery are better positioned to achieve efficiency in a meaningful and sustainable way.

For engineers, surveyors, planners and project managers, this balance is achieved through early collaboration, disciplined decision-making, digital tools and a shared commitment to long-term outcomes. By prioritising integrated planning, accurate data and rigorous quality assurance, infrastructure projects can meet immediate delivery pressures while still providing assets that are safe, resilient and fit for purpose.

In an increasingly complex infrastructure environment, success is no longer defined by efficiency or quality alone — but by the ability to deliver both, consistently and with intent.