Australia is in a housing crisis. Every level of government acknowledges it. Targets have been set, strategies published, and Regional Plans gazetted. The State has done the strategic work. The LEP reflects it. So why is a single Council DA Planner still sitting between a compliant development application and an approval?
The strategic studies identifying suitable land uses for each locality and zone have already been completed. Land use suitability is not an open question at the DA stage. It was resolved through years of strategic planning work long before the application was lodged. Yet the Council DA Planner routinely treats it as one, reopening arguments over permissible land uses that have already been determined suitable for the zone. That is not assessment. That is a Council DA Planner operating outside their role and outside the instrument.
What value does the Council DA Planner add to that process? None. The land use question has been answered. The technical reports address every relevant matter. The Registered Planner has certified compliance. The Council DA Planner adds delay, cost, and friction to a process that should be straightforward, and often brings a bad attitude toward development that has kept them in a job up until now. That is not due diligence. It is obstruction with no accountability attached to it. It is time for that to change.
The land use question has already been answered
When a development is proposed on land zoned for that purpose, the fundamental planning question is this: is this land use an appropriate use upon this land? That question has already been resolved. Not by the applicant. By the State. Through a Regional Plan, a Local Strategic Planning Statement, and an LEP that took years to prepare, went through Gateway, was publicly exhibited, including consultation with the public to ensure the changes are in the public interest, and was executed by a Minister’s delegate. That process involved referral to and assessment by all relevant State agencies including transport, environment, heritage, infrastructure, and emergency services. Every land use permissible in every zone has already been through that assessment process for suitability, including consultation with the public to ensure the changes are in the public interest. The Council DA Planner was not part of that process. Their assessment adds nothing that has not already been considered at a far more rigorous level by all State Agencies with far greater expertise and authority.
The Council DA Planner did not write that instrument. The strategic planning team at council, working under direction from the Department of Planning, implemented it. The LEP is the answer. The DA is supposed to confirm compliance with that answer, not reopen it.
Yet that is precisely what happens. An applicant lodges a compliant DA with a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by a Registered Planner, supported by specialist technical reports addressing every relevant matter. The application then sits waiting for acceptance or rejection under the approved form requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, a process that can stretch to two weeks and result in rejection for reasons that bear no consistent relationship to the actual lodgement requirements under clause 36 of the Regulation. Council then issues an RFI. Then another. Months pass. Conditions are drafted that bear no relationship to the development standards in the LEP. And somewhere in that process, a Council DA Planner applies significant discretion and becomes the de facto decision maker on whether housing gets built.
That is not planning. That is obstruction.
DCPs are guidelines. Someone should tell council.
The Development Control Plan is the other persistent fiction in this process. DCPs are statutory guidelines under s.3.43 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Act is explicit: a consent authority must take a DCP into account, but it cannot refuse consent solely on the basis of non-compliance with a DCP provision. Every DCP says the same thing in its opening chapter. Guidelines. Not mandatory controls.
Council DA Planners treat them as law.
RFIs are issued demanding DCP compliance as a condition of assessment. Approvals are conditioned around DCP provisions as though they carry the weight of a development standard. Applicants comply because the alternative is a fight in the Land and Environment Court over a provision that was never legally binding in the first place. The asymmetry is exploited routinely and without consequence.
And most DCPs have not been substantively reviewed in fifteen to twenty years. The technical landscape has moved entirely. Australian Standards now govern car parking design, stormwater management, acoustic performance, construction methodology, and building services. The NCC addresses building performance comprehensively. A DCP chapter on setbacks written in 2004 is not a planning instrument. It is a redundant artifact from a previous more approachable time.
The certifier model already proves the alternative works
Private certification of construction has existed in NSW since 1997. A registered Principal Certifier takes statutory liability for compliance with the Building Code, assesses the work, and issues the certificate. Council steps back. The building gets built. The system works because accountability sits with a qualified, registered professional, not with a local government employee with no skin in the game.
The same logic can quickly and easily be adopted for DAs for permissible uses through a Registered Planner model. If a Registered Planner prepares and certifies a Statement of Environmental Effects, demonstrates compliance with the LEP, addresses all relevant matters under s.4.15 of the EP&A Act, and carries professional indemnity insurance and registration conditions, why does a Council DA Planner need to reassess the same material?
They don’t. The Registered Planner is the accountability mechanism. The assessment is submitted and receipted by council as a record on file. The consent issues. No Council DA Planner discretion. No RFI.
A better model
The reform is not complicated. The following is a streamlined approvals process for permissible uses that can be legislated now.
Step 1. Confirm permissibility
As part of due diligence the Registered Planner confirms the proposed use is permissible against the instrument. Zone objectives, permissible uses, and applicable development standards are reviewed and documented as part of the assessment.
Step 2. Prepare the assessment
The Registered Planner prepares the Statement of Environmental Effects addressing all relevant matters under s.4.15 of the EP&A Act and coordinates all required specialist technical reports covering civil engineering, traffic, stormwater, bushfire, acoustic, geotechnical, and any other relevant discipline. The Registered Planner certifies the assessment and takes statutory liability for its content, in the same way a registered engineer issues compliance declarations and takes statutory liability for their designs under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020, however for a period of five years. That precedent is already legislated and working in NSW.
Step 3. Lodge via the Planning Portal
The complete certified assessment package is lodged online via the NSW Planning Portal.
Step 4. Consent Issued
Development consent is issued upon receipt of the certified assessment provided by the Registered Planner. Council administration receipts the assessment and certification from the Registered Planner and records it on file. No RFI. No Council DA Planner review. Conditions are limited strictly to compliance with the commitments made in the SEE, accompanying technical reports, and Objectives of the Zone.
Step 5. Public notification
The consent is published on the council website and notified for a period of fourteen days. Any person may lodge an appeal during that period through the Land and Environment Court. The appropriate forum for objecting to a land use in a zone is the strategic review process for that zone, not the DA for every individual compliant application within it. The NIMBY position belongs at the LEP level, not the assessment counter.
Step 6. Proceed to CC or SWC
If no appeal is lodged within the notification period the development proceeds directly to Construction Certificate or Subdivision Works Certificate. Work commences. Housing gets built. If an appeal is lodged and proceeds to conciliation under s.34 or to a full hearing, the outcome of that legal process stands. That is the appropriate accountability mechanism. Deemed refusals disappear entirely under this model.
Public interest is not an afterthought in this model. It was addressed comprehensively at the strategic planning level through years of studies, agency referrals, public exhibition, and Ministerial sign off. That process determined which land uses are suitable in which zones. The public and elected council members had their opportunity to participate and influence land use suitability outcomes at that level. Relitigating public interest for every compliant application in every permissible zone is not due process. It is duplication. The strategic framework carries the public interest justification. The Registered Planner carries the statutory liability. The Planning Portal records the outcome.
On the question of who a Registered Planner is, the answer already exists. The Planning Institute of Australia is the approved body for planner accreditation in NSW. Registered Planners holding RPIA and EIA accreditation through PIA already carry professional and ethical obligations, continuing professional development requirements, and are subject to disciplinary processes. The registration framework is there. The statutory liability model simply needs to be legislated around it.
The housing target is not being met
State governments have set ambitious housing targets. Infrastructure is being funded. Rezonings are happening. And then the application hits the DA counter.
The Council DA Planner is not the only reason housing delivery is slow. But they are a significant and controllable one. The strategic work has been done. The instrument reflects it. A compliant application with a certified SEE from a Registered Planner should not require a gatekeeper whose primary contribution is delay, duplication, and discretion applied without accountability.
The certifier model transformed construction certification in this State. It is time for the same legislative reform to be applied to planning approvals for permissible uses. The Council DA Planner is not solving the housing crisis. They are a significant reason we are in one. These are not long term reforms requiring years of work. The State can legislate the Registered Planner model now. The effect on housing delivery would be immediate and felt across every council area in NSW. Council administration receipts the certified assessment. The Council DA Planner becomes redundant. Automation of consent via the Planning Portal will in time complete that task entirely.
Get out of the way.
Simon Halcrow is a Registered Planner, Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner and Development Manager at DBI. He works across Development Applications, Planning Proposals, State Significant Development and State Significant Infrastructure in NSW.