Final Report PlanFirst Review Taskforce - Department of Planning

Planning System 

PRINT VERSION 

1 September 2003 

Improvements 

Report by the PlanFirst Review Taskforce 

to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning 

and Minister for Natural Resources 


Department of Infrastructure, Planning 

and Natural Resources

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3 

1.1 Terms of Reference............................................................................................................3 

1.2 Members of the PlanFirst Review Taskforce......................................................................3 

1.3 Scope of the Review...........................................................................................................4 

1.4 Process...............................................................................................................................5 

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................6 

3.0 BACKGROUND – PLANFIRST OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND PROPOSALS ...........10 

4.0 REGIONAL PLANNING.......................................................................................................12 

4.1 Issues Examined ..............................................................................................................12 

4.2 Responses from Key Stakeholders ..................................................................................16 

4.3 Recommendations............................................................................................................17 

5.0 LOCAL PLANNING .............................................................................................................19 




6.0 THE STRATEGIC PLANNING FEE.....................................................................................29 




7.0 NEXT STEPS - IMPLEMENTATION....................................................................................33 

7.1 Legislative Change ...........................................................................................................33 

7.2 Electronic Delivery Demonstration Projects......................................................................34 

APPENDICES 

1. Submission to the Masterplan Review Taskforce 

2. Taskforce Letters to the Minister 

3. Integrated Plan Template 

4. National Development Assessment Forum Definitions 

PRINT VERSION 


2

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Terms of Reference 

On 12 June 2003, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources 

announced that a Taskforce was to be formed to report on whether the PlanFirst reforms 

announced in 2002 should be pursued either in whole or in part as a means of reforming the NSW 

planning system. 

The Terms of Reference of the Taskforce were to: 

1. Investigate and report on whether the Government should continue to pursue the 

PlanFirst reforms, either in total or in part. 

2. Advise on any changes to the PlanFirst approach which may be necessary following the 

reorganisation of planning and natural resources management in the State. 

3. Advise on how the strategic planning fee currently being collected on certain 

development applications should be used to progress reform of the planning system. 

4. Consult with stakeholders as necessary to ascertain views. 

The Minister requested that the Taskforce report within an 8 week timeframe (prior to 1 September 

2003). 

1.2 Members of the PlanFirst Review Taskforce 

The Taskforce comprised of representatives of local government, the development industry and the 

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR). 

Gabrielle Kibble (Chair) 

Bruce McDonald – Penrith City Council 

Greg Woodhams – Willoughby City Council 

Peter Woods – Local Government and Shires Associations 

Ken Morrison – Property Council of Australia 

Andrew Cappie-Wood – DIPNR 

Geoff Fishburn – DIPNR 

Kerry Bedford – DIPNR 

Secretariat: Gail Connolly – Campbelltown City Council 

Catherine Donnellan – DIPNR 

PRINT VERSION 


3

1.3 Scope of the Review 

The approach the Taskforce took was to consider the main elements of PlanFirst within the context 

of the role of the planning system in general, and the responsibilities of DIPNR in setting the 

strategic direction for land use, natural resources and infrastructure at a place level and 

providing advice on policy and strategy for key issues at a regional and State-wide level. 

The Taskforce concluded that the primary matters for examination were: 

• how the system can be made more simple and user friendly 

• the role and function of regional forums 

• the form, content and roll-out of regional strategies 

• the concept and function of a single local plan 

• the role of State agencies in the plan making and development assessment process 

• the ongoing collection and use of the strategic planning fee. 

Further components of PlanFirst that the Taskforce considered to be matters not requiring review 

included: 

• e-plan delivery of planning instruments and information to build on the technical work already 

done to integrate plan making. 

• improving practice in community engagement and participation in the plan making process. It 

was noted that the former PlanningNSW had developed a Community Engagement Handbook 

and companion website (www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/engagement/) to assist in fulfilling the need for 

practical guidance on how to conduct quality processes of community engagement. 

An interrelated issue which was canvassed in the PlanFirst White Paper (2001) was the role of 

masterplans in the plan making and development assessment process. DIPNR has established a 

separate Taskforce to review the growing reliance on masterplans by consent authorities and 

advise on circumstances when such plans are appropriate. The PlanFirst Review Taskforce was of 

the view that the requirement for and use of masterplans in the land use development process 

requires greater clarity and consequently made a submission to the Masterplans Review Taskforce 

(refer to Appendix 1). 

The Taskforce also acknowledged that DIPNR was conducting a separate review and consolidation 

of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) to ensure that they provide a clear and strategic 

framework that will guide regional and local planning. 

This report addresses the Terms of Reference as follows: 

Section 3 outlines the objectives, principles and proposals of PlanFirst. 

Section 4 examines the regional planning aspects. 

Section 5 examines the local planning aspects, including the opportunities to implement a degree of 

consistency in the structure and content of local level plans. 

Section 6 examines the administration of the strategic planning fee and suggests principles for 

using the monies collected. 

Section 7 looks at achieving the next steps in implementation of improvements to the plan making 

system. 

PRINT VERSION 


4

1.4 Process 

The Taskforce met on eight occasions during July-August 2003 and considered a number of 

discussion papers. On three occasions, the Taskforce wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and 

Planning and Minister for Natural Resources outlining some immediate decisions from their 

deliberations. Copies of the correspondence are at Appendix 2. 

In accordance with Term of Reference No. 4, the Taskforce invited the following key stakeholders 

to make presentations to draw on relevant experience and canvass views: 

• Housing Industry Association 

• NSW Urban Taskforce 

• Planning Institute of Australia (NSW Division) 

• Urban Development Institute of Australia (NSW Division) 

Written submissions were also sought and an interactive comments page was established on the 

iPlan web site and advertised through various peak group newsletters. 

Written submissions were received from: 

• Alex Davidson 

• Bathurst City Council 

• BIKEast 

• Camden Council 

• Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS) 

• Denise McConnachie 

• Healthy Rivers Commission 

• Leeton Shire Council 

• Mirvac Group 

• National Parks Association (Three Valleys Branch) 

• Riverina ROC 

• Royal Australian Institute of Architects (NSW Chapter) 

• Shellharbour City Council 

• Snowy River Shire Council 

• SoftLaw Corporation Limited 

• Sutherland Shire Council 

• Total Environment Centre 

PRINT VERSION 


5

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The principles of simplifying the planning system, providing clearer State and regional guidance for 

local planning and achieving a better connection between the range of existing planning structures 

and processes are well founded. 

However, the translation of those principles into the PlanFirst initiatives was both ambitious and 

attempted to go beyond what the environmental planning system could and should do in NSW. 

The PlanFirst Review Taskforce examined those aspects of the initiatives where it was considered 

that the most gains could be made and where the most effort was required to correct perceived 

deficiencies. This examination was undertaken in the context that the existing legislation – the 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – enables improvements to the current planning 

system to be achieved without extensive amendment. 

In particular, the Taskforce reviewed: how the system can be made more simple and user friendly; 

regional planning, including the role of regional strategies and forums; the concept and function of a 

single local plan; the role of e-planning and opportunities for implementation; the role of State 

agencies in the plan making process and the strategic planning (PlanFirst) fee. Numerous 

recommendations have been made in regard to these issues and timeframes for implementation 

have also been proposed where appropriate. 

The successful implementation and achievement of the Taskforce recommendations relies on the 

allocation of suitable resources by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural 

Resources (DIPNR). In this regard, the reforms proposed in this report must become a priority for 

the Department if certainty and direction is to be provided to a waiting community. 

Achievement of the reforms proposed in this report also relies on the support of Cabinet for the full 

engagement and participation of all relevant State agencies in the reform process, especially at a 

regional planning level. In this regard, the recent reorganisation of planning and natural resources 

management into one Department provides a significant opportunity to progress these reforms in a 

coordinated and timely manner. 

Additionally, a strong collaboration between State and local government is essential if a ‘whole of 

government’ approach is to be achieved in the preparation and delivery of regional strategies and 

integrated plans. Cooperation with the development industry is also required as it is a significant 

stakeholder and user of the planning system. 

In conclusion, the Taskforce considers that the role of the Department must become one of 

leadership at the State and regional planning levels. It is a valid and important function of the 

Department to provide leadership and direction for environmental planning at all levels in the 

planning system. 

The Taskforce urges the Minister to pursue the recommended reforms immediately. 

PRINT VERSION 


6

Summary of Taskforce Recommendations by Type of Action 

Topic and Recommendation 

The most significant planning issue for Sydney at this time is the need to 

develop a new Metropolitan Strategy. 

DIPNR should prepare non-statutory regional strategies to guide and 

direct the sustainable development, growth and change of regions and 

these strategies should address environmental, social and economic 

outcomes along with the infrastructure and programs required to support 

those outcomes. 

Regional planning must be developed to meet the needs of metropolitan, 

coastal and inland NSW. DIPNR must immediately target high priority 

areas for the commencement of regional planning initiatives. 

Regional strategies should be monitored by DIPNR and their performance 

reviewed regularly. 

Regional strategies should be delivered in an electronic format. 

In lieu of the establishment of regional forums, DIPNR should employ 

appropriate methods of consultation and involvement (including, where 

necessary, Section 22 Committees) based on the particular regional 

planning activity that is being undertaken and the priority for completion of 

that activity. 

The State government consider the consolidation of all competing 

environmental planning and natural resource legislation (as far as it 

applies to land use planning) into one coherent piece of legislation. 

DIPNR develop a suitable communications strategy, with a particular 

focus on managing the expectations of key regional stakeholders. 

The format of an integrated plan be regulated by the State government 

and be specified to contain content that is fixed by the State and 

mandatory for every integrated plan. 

DIPNR be required to further develop the Taskforce’s proposed 

integrated plan template for inclusion in the EP&A Regulation as a 

standard template before 31 December 2003. 

DIPNR develop a set of ‘Best Practice Guidelines for Integrated Plan 

Preparation’ for local councils, before 31 December 2003, to provide 

clarity and detail on the new template and ensure the efficient preparation 

of new integrated plans. 

Establish a dedicated team of staff (who will liaise with local government 

officers) to ensure the above recommendations are achieved before 31 

PRINT VERSION 


7 

Type of action 

Establishment of 

DIPNR project team 


DIPNR project teams 

DIPNR corporate plan 



Working group to 

develop model 


develop models 

Act amendment 

Communications 

consultant 

1. Regulation 

amendment 

2. Act amendment 


develop model 




DIPNR project team

December 2003. 

The EP&A Regulation 2000 be amended before 31 December 2003, and 

that all councils be advised that their integrated plans should be prepared 

in accordance with the regulated template. 

The statutory (LEP) components of the integrated plan will be required to 

comply with the regulated template to enable gazettal to occur after 31 


The non-statutory components must be adopted by councils before 31 


All new integrated plans be provided in an electronic format in every local 

government area (LGA) and that DIPNR further develop e-planning 

provisions with a view to enabling detailed property/planning information 

to become available over the internet. 

DIPNR investigate opportunities for further delegating aspects of the 

Minister’s approval role to councils, especially where the integrated plan 

provisions are consistent with State and regional planning objectives. 

The Minister for Local Government be requested to encourage councils to 

prepare a long term strategic plan for every LGA in NSW. 

The Minister for Local Government be requested to develop a set of ‘Best 

Practice Guidelines’ before 31 March 2004 (following consultation with 

local government) for the preparation of local government management 

plans and strategic plans. 

The Parliamentary Counsel's Office be requested to approve the final 

integrated plan template, including the standard set of zones, definitions 

and model provisions, upon completion of same by DIPNR. 

It be mandatory for councils to consolidate their planning instruments into 

a maximum of one integrated plan for every LGA and that DIPNR tailor a 

suitably staged timetable for this to occur, with metropolitan, coastal and 

amalgamated councils to be targeted as a priority. 

Consultation occur with local government to assist the Department of 

Local Government and DIPNR in the efficient development of best 

practice guidelines and to ensure the implementation of these 

recommendations by local government within an agreed timeframe. 

A standard set of definitions (including the 14 National Development 

Assessment Forum definitions) form a mandatory component of all new 

integrated plans, following consultation with local government. 

A contemporary version of the EP&A Model Provisions form a mandatory 

component of all new integrated plans, following consultation with local 

government on the content of such provisions. 

The s94 Review Taskforce be requested to examine the retention (or 

otherwise) of the strategic planning fee as part of the terms of reference 

of that Taskforce. 

PRINT VERSION 


8 

Regulation amendment 

Practice guide 

Practice guide 


develop model/ 

establishment of 




Discussion with DLG 

Discussion with DLG 


develop model 


develop model/ 



Discussion with 

DLG/working group to 

develop practice guide 



Refer to Taskforce

DIPNR review the retention (or otherwise) of the strategic planning fee 

after all the current planning system reviews are completed. 

DIPNR provide clarity in regard to the imposition of the strategic planning 

fee. 

Revenue collected to date should be shared equally between State and 

local government. 

DIPNR urgently develop a comprehensive strategy for spending the fee 

revenue that targets local government. 

PRINT VERSION 


9 




Advice to consent 

authorities 




DIPNR project team

3.0 BACKGROUND – PLANFIRST OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND 

PROPOSALS 

The PlanFirst proposals were first made in a White Paper released in 2001. In June 2002, the 

former Minister for Planning announced the go-ahead for PlanFirst supported by start-up 

Government funding of $4 million and introduction of the strategic planning fee. 

Since that time work has progressed on reviewing existing SEPPs and Ministerial Directions, the 

scoping of major issues in certain regions, refining the single local plan concept and developing 

options for electronic delivery of integrated planning information. 

The main objectives and principles of PlanFirst were aimed at: 

• Simplifying the system by reducing the numbers and layering of plans (and the controls and 

actions contained in them) that apply to land and as a result improve clarity and consistency of 

requirements, certainty of process and customisation of provisions for land holders. 

• Strategies and plans being explicitly founded on the principles of sustainability and monitored 

as to their performance, resulting in more informed actions on the ground. 

• A better connection between the range of existing planning structures (eg: social, 

economic, natural resource planning) and processes that often operate independently and 

ineffectively. 

• Clearer State and regional guidance to facilitate more informed local planning and allowing 

the State government to focus on strategic policy development. 

• Planning and managing regions and local areas as interconnected places not just a collection 

of issues, geographic features and land uses. 

• A point for regional collaboration allowing State significant and locally important issues to be 

addressed. 

• More meaningful opportunities for community engagement in plan making especially in 

helping to set visions and examine future scenarios rather than just comment on single issues 

or detailed controls. 

• Safeguarding Ministerial powers to intervene where required ensuring environmental 

protection or maintenance of State or regionally significant assets. 

• Improving development assessment practices and simplifying approval processes by: 

PRINT VERSION 


• streamlining the remaining concurrence requirements 

• crafting urban design and environmental controls to the characteristics of a place 

• providing a platform for considering and using a more versatile range of tools and 

incentives (like property management planning and other market based 

approaches) for tailoring the implementation of plan outcomes and getting lasting 

results. 

10

The main outputs of PlanFirst were to be: 

• A State planning framework that can be built upon over time containing an issue-based policy 

component and a single State instrument. This was designed to both, signal a shift from 

procedural detail, and deliver strategic direction to help guide integrated regional and local 

planning. 

• Up to 16 metropolitan and regional strategies dealing with settlement, growth management, 

transport and service provision issues, and identifying how catchment and natural resource 

planning could better translate to the land use planning system. 

• New local plans integrating all development requirements that apply to a place and providing a 

one-stop shop for development assessment. These plans would be founded on a sound 

strategic policy context. 

• Delivery of an electronic management system via the Internet to support plan creation, 

publishing and customer service aspects. 

The successful implementation of PlanFirst relied on: 

• A strong emphasis and commitment to strategic policy development and linkage to statutory 

control. 

• Better cross government coordination of key planning related functions. 

• An incremental approach to strategy development based on scientific and other data. 

• Better integration of various natural resource management initiatives, ideally at the catchment 

level. 

• Being able to clearly articulate ‘non-negotiable’ positions on major infrastructure investment and 

natural resource commitments. 

• A belief in the value of a strategic approach to planning for regional and rural communities and 

the skills and resources being available to support this. 

• Practical advice on how to implement sustainability in the process of plan making. 

• A common digital cadastre to meet defined business requirements of electronic delivery. 

• The strategic planning fee to assist in funding the ongoing implementation of the planning 

reforms. 

• Development of a successful partnership with local government. 

PRINT VERSION 


11

4.0 REGIONAL PLANNING 

4.1 Issues Examined 

Under PlanFirst, it was proposed that up to 16 regional strategies would be prepared dealing with 

settlement and growth management, transport and service provision and natural resource 

management issues, as relevant to regional centres and their hinterlands. By mid 2007 it was 

envisaged that regional strategies would apply to the whole State. 

Regional strategies were to play a key role in identifying how catchment and natural resource 

planning approaches could better translate to the land use planning system and in particular, to 

local planning. Clarifying the relationship between natural resource planning instruments and 

environmental planning instruments, both in terms of policy relationships and land use controls was 

to be a core function in preparing regional strategies. 

Role of DIPNR in Regional Planning 

It is acknowledged by the Taskforce that the regional planning system in NSW is in need of an 

overhaul – therefore the principles of PlanFirst that place greater emphasis on the importance of 

regional planning are supported. 

In particular, the role of DIPNR in regional planning is critical. The Taskforce considers that 

DIPNR’s role can be summarised as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To link together other planning and management processes relevant to the region such as 

catchment planning, transport and infrastructure planning, social and economic development 

planning. 

• To reconcile catchment and natural resource planning approaches and allow easy translation 

into the local land use planning system. 

• To guide decision making across the region. 

• To secure the involvement of local government as a key authority in the region. 

To implement State planning policies and regional environmental plans (REPs) which respond 

to the needs and priorities of the community. 

To develop a broad strategic land use/environmental planning context for regions including the 

regional objectives, or intended outcomes, of State agencies. 

To develop policies and actions that will assist in achieving regional objectives, or intended 

regional outcomes, including an implementation plan. 

To develop criteria for measuring, evaluating and reviewing the extent to which regional 

objectives, or intended outcomes, have been achieved. 

• To identify regions in which regional planning issues are a priority and target those areas for 

immediate work. 

• To undertake or conduct research that will support regional planning. 

PRINT VERSION 


12

Regional Strategies 

The preparation of a regional strategy for every DIPNR region in NSW, in the manner proposed 

under PlanFirst, is considered to be inappropriate. A “one size fits all” approach is not suitable for 

every region. Regions and their boundaries need to be flexible to suit the particular regional 

planning issue that is being examined or developed. 

The Taskforce considers that the nature and complexity of issues facing each region are such that 

they could not be coherently incorporated into an all encompassing regional strategy. Additionally, 

the proposed timeframe for simultaneous delivery of the regional strategies in every region under 

PlanFirst was considered to be ambitious and unachievable. 

Rather than attempt to incorporate all State and regional planning outcomes, SEPP and REP 

provisions and proposed actions into a regional strategy, a different and targeted approach should 

be pursued by DIPNR. However, the objective of locating all State and regional policies is valid 

and should be pursued. 

Regional strategies under the reforms proposed in this report should be prepared to guide and 

direct the sustainable development, growth and change of regions and should address 

environmental, social and economic outcomes along with the infrastructure and programs required 

to support those outcomes. 

The preparation of new (and non-statutory) regional strategies should be undertaken having regard 

to the following principles: 

• DIPNR should provide strategic environmental planning direction for regions through the 

formulation of regional strategies. 

• DIPNR should retain its ability to prepare SEPPs and REPs on a geographic or thematic basis, 

and these instruments should support and give effect to any regional strategies. 

• State agencies should establish their strategic land use/environmental planning objectives for 

regions which should then be supported by more specific requirements in SEPPs and/or REPs 

as necessary. The full engagement and participation of all relevant State agencies at a regional 

planning level is required to achieve a ‘whole of government’ approach. 

• Regional strategies should coordinate the environmental planning objectives for inter-regional 

issues to ensure consistency across regions. 

• 

Regional strategies should provide a clear and succinct source of information that expresses 

the key State and regional environmental planning objectives and issues relevant to the region. 

• Regional strategies should provide performance indicators to measure the level of success in 

achieving regional objectives and include processes for monitoring and review. 

Priorities for Regional Planning 

It is recognised that further regional planning and plan making at a State level must be developed 

to meet the differing needs of metropolitan, coastal and inland NSW. 

The Taskforce is aware that several regions in coastal and inland NSW are currently subject to 

critical and competing issues such as population growth or decline, employment, natural resource 

management and local government amalgamation. These regions should be identified and 

PRINT VERSION 


13

targeted by DIPNR as high priority areas for regional planning initiatives to commence in the 

immediate future. 

When establishing these priority areas, DIPNR should have regard to the available resources in the 

region (including local government and State agency resources) and existing work programs such 

as the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment. It is critical that the targeted high priority areas have 

the capacity (adequate staff resources and funding) to deliver regional strategies in an appropriate 

timeframe. 

In particular, the Taskforce considers that the most significant planning issue at this time is the 

need to develop a new Metropolitan Strategy. The preparation of such a Strategy is considered to 

be of critical importance for guiding the future development of the metropolitan region and for 

ensuring that the objectives of State agencies are delivered in a coordinated manner. 

Regional Forums 

Under PlanFirst, regional forums were intended to bring together key government and community 

interests in a region and advise the Minister on the preparation of the regional strategy. Generally, 

each regional forum was proposed to consist of an independent chair, five community 

representatives, five representatives from State agencies in the region and five representatives 

from local government in the region. The Minister could also appoint up to four additional members 

to represent particular interests of that region. Regional forums were to have no statutory power 

and were not recognised under the EP&A Act. 

The creation of regional forums was generally not considered by stakeholders to be the most 

appropriate model to assist in the delivery of a regional strategy. DIPNR has been criticised by 

some stakeholders (particularly local government) for the non-representative nature of the forums 

and for setting the unachievable goal of obtaining consensus from forum members on the final 

content of regional strategies. In addition, the validity of some the proposed regional boundaries 

(which directly affected membership of the forums throughout NSW) was questionable. 

The Taskforce has therefore concluded that the regional forums as proposed under PlanFirst 

should be abandoned in their current form. 

DIPNR should instead pursue a more targeted approach to meet the different needs of 

metropolitan, coastal and inland NSW. In this regard, it is the experience of Taskforce members 

that in the best regional planning initiatives, the State and local stakeholders have worked together 

to facilitate regional outcomes. 

DIPNR must employ appropriate methods of consultation and involvement (including, where 

necessary, the establishment of Section 22 Committees) based on the particular regional planning 

activity that is being undertaken and the priority for completion of that activity. The specific method 

of consultation, including whether a committee or working group or other planning team is formed, 

will vary according to the issue being addressed. In some instances it will be appropriate for 

DIPNR to form a small core team to work with limited stakeholders to pursue a regional planning 

outcome. In other circumstances it will be appropriate to form a larger and more representative 

committee and to consult widely on a particular regional planning initiative. 

Whilst the Taskforce considers that the regional forums should not be pursued, it is acknowledged 

that the current work occurring on various regional planning initiatives will provide the basis for 

continuing regional planning in those regions. Hence, the work currently being undertaken by some 

Regional Organisations of Councils and other stakeholders should be encouraged to continue. 

PRINT VERSION 


14

To avoid any potential confusion or concern arising from key regional stakeholders regarding the 

preparation of regional strategies and the abandonment of regional forums, it is recommended that 

a suitable communications strategy be developed by DIPNR, with a particular focus on managing 

the expectations of those stakeholders. 

Role of State Agencies 

The need for a ‘whole of government’ approach to regional planning is an issue that has been 

consistently raised by stakeholders and is endorsed by the Taskforce. (It is interesting to note that 

the urgent need to prepare a new Metropolitan Strategy has been reinforced by numerous 

stakeholders in their submissions). 

Of particular concern to the Taskforce and stakeholders is the ongoing and often contradictory role 

of State agencies in the local plan making process. This role should be elevated to a regional level 

and State agency objectives for environmental planning should be incorporated into regional 

strategies, SEPPS and REPs. 

Agencies should have an early and strategic input at regional strategy preparation stage rather than 

at a local planning and/or development assessment stage (as currently occurs). This would require 

agencies to reconcile competing or conflicting interests at a regional level and would enable DIPNR 

to coordinate clearly defined objectives for a region. DIPNR would also be able to implement those 

objectives through the active engagement of State agencies and local government in the regional 

planning process. A council’s integrated plan would then provide the appropriate mechanism to 

give effect to agency objectives and provisions. 

Elevating State agencies involvement to a regional level will enable councils to undertake local 

level planning within a known and agreed context of State and regional parameters. It would also 

significantly reduce the extensive delays that are currently experienced at local plan making stage. 

Additionally, State agencies would have clearly defined environmental planning objectives at a 

regional level which would assist in preventing reactive and speculative development that could 

impact on the future provision of infrastructure and services in a region. 

Environmental Planning and Natural Resource Management 

The Taskforce considers that the planning system can play a vital role in resolving natural resource 

management issues in a timely and coordinated manner. The reorganisation of planning, 

infrastructure and natural resources management into a State agency (DIPNR) provides an 

excellent opportunity for the Government to develop a coordinated vision to guide regional and 

local level planning. 

There currently exists a range of catchment management blueprints and other related and 

associated natural resource management plans throughout NSW. DIPNR now has the opportunity 

to reconcile the critical objectives and provisions of those plans within the provisions of SEPPs, 

regional strategies and REPs. 

In some circumstances (eg: where regionally significant vegetation exists) it may be appropriate to 

introduce the provisions of a particular recovery plan or catchment management plan as a SEPP or 

REP to provide it with appropriate statutory weight. Alternatively, the provisions of natural resource 

management plans could inform the preparation of SEPPs, REPs and regional strategies without 

necessarily becoming an explicit statutory component of those plans. A council’s integrated plan 

would then be required to give statutory effect to the natural resource management provisions 

contained in SEPPs, REPs and regional strategies. 

PRINT VERSION 


15

In order to achieve the abovementioned integration of natural resource management and land use 

planning in a practical manner, the Taskforce considers it vitally important to resolve conflicting 

issues at the plan making stage. The consolidation of the separate Acts that deal with natural 

resource management (such as the Threatened Species Act) and environmental planning (the 

EP&A Act) should be pursued to enable effective integration to occur. 

4.2 Responses from Key Stakeholders 

Due to the restricted timeframe of the Review, only a limited number of key stakeholders were 

invited to present to the Taskforce. Additional written submissions were invited via the iPlan web 

site and through other media such as the weekly Local Government & Shires Association circular 

and industry newsletters. 

A summary of the main concerns of stakeholders in relation to regional planning issues is shown 

below. 

Main Concerns – Regional Planning Raised By 

Importance of regional planning - it must be elevated and DIPNR must 

allocate appropriate resources and commitment to regional planning 

initiatives in NSW. 

There is an urgent need to prepare a new metropolitan strategy for 

Sydney. 

DIPNR needs to identify and fund high priority areas for regional planning 

initiatives (immediate recommendations include a state plan, coastal plan 

and metropolitan strategy for Sydney). 

State agencies must have a strategic input at a regional level during REP 

and regional strategy preparation – DIPNR must ensure integration 

across agencies in the process. 

There is a need for a comprehensive single strategic plan for each region 

(supported by financial and other commitments) which gives a framework 

and direction to local plans. 

The Minister should consider the establishment of a Ministerial Sub- 

Committee of Cabinet comprising the Ministers for Roads, Transport, 

Environment, Agriculture and the Treasurer to support the preparation 

and funding of State and regional plans. 

Councils must be required to incorporate regional planning objectives 

and provisions into their local plans. 

Regional forums as proposed under PlanFirst should not proceed – 

alternative models are recommended. 

SEPPs and REPs should be retained and used as a planning tool where 

the development of a site/locality is of state or regional significance. 

PRINT VERSION 


16 

Industry/local 

government/PA 


government/PA 


government/PA 


government/PA/ 

NGO/SPI 


government/PA/SPI 

PA 

Industry/PA 

Industry/PA 

Industry/PA

Regional boundaries should be reviewed having regard to firstly, 

catchment boundaries and secondly, LGA boundaries. Regions 

proposed under PlanFirst were too large. 

Councils should be required to establish regional housing and residential 

development strategies and work cooperatively to meet regional targets. 

DIPNR should develop models to fund regional infrastructure and 

implement regional planning projects. 

The NPWS should be incorporated into DIPNR and become engaged in 

the planning process in a cooperative manner. 

SPI = Special Interest Group NGO = Non Government Organisation 

PA = Professional Association 

4.3 Recommendations 


government/PA 

Industry 

Industry 

Industry 

1. Regional planning is an integral and critically important element of the planning system and 

considerable effort must be made to appropriately balance environmental planning, social, 

economic and natural resource management systems in NSW. 

2. The EP&A Act provides for State and regional planning as a legitimate and core function of the 

State government. Therefore, DIPNR should provide leadership and direction for State 

agencies, local government and other stakeholders in the areas of State and regional 

environmental planning. 

3. The most significant planning issue for Sydney at this time is the need to develop a new 

Metropolitan Strategy. The preparation of such a Strategy is considered to be of critical 

importance for State and regional planning and should be pursued immediately. 

4. The systematic rollout across the State of the regional strategies as proposed under PlanFirst, 

should not be pursued. Rather, DIPNR should prepare non-statutory regional strategies to 

guide and direct the sustainable development, growth and change of regions and these 

strategies should address environmental, social and economic outcomes along with the 

infrastructure and programs required to support those outcomes. 

5. DIPNR should retain its ability to prepare SEPPs and REPs on a geographic or thematic basis, 

and these instruments should support and give effect to any regional strategies. 

6. Regional planning must be developed to meet the needs of metropolitan, coastal and inland 

NSW. DIPNR must immediately target high priority areas for the commencement of regional 

planning initiatives in consultation with the councils and stakeholders in these areas. 

7. Regional strategies must be implemented where necessary by the provisions of SEPPs, REPs 

and Integrated Plans and other policies and actions. These instruments should be consistent 

with and give effect to any regional strategies. 

8. Regional strategies should be monitored by DIPNR and their performance reviewed regularly. 

PRINT VERSION 


17

9. Regional strategies should be delivered in an electronic format. 

10. The regional forums proposed under PlanFirst should not be pursued. In lieu of the 

establishment of regional forums, DIPNR must employ appropriate methods of consultation and 

involvement (including, where necessary, Section 22 Committees) based on the particular 

regional planning activity that is being undertaken and the priority for completion of that activity. 

11. That the State government consider the consolidation of all competing environmental planning 

and natural resource legislation (as far as it applies to land use decisions) into one coherent 

piece of legislation. 

PRINT VERSION 


18

5.0 LOCAL PLANNING 


The local plan under PlanFirst was originally proposed to be the strategic whole of council plan. It 

was to provide a single mechanism that coordinated a council’s planning activities, it would replace 

all of a council’s local environmental plans (LEPs), development control plans (DCPs) and policies 

and was to establish the council’s direction for the next 3-5 years. 

In addition to the above, the local plan was to be consistent with state and regional plans and 

strategies and would implement those provisions locally. The statutory force of SEPP and REP 

provisions was to come from local plans. Local plans would provide a framework to bring together 

all of a council’s planning controls, social programs, Section 94 plans, state of the environment 

reporting, heritage plans, cultural plans, budgeting programs, asset management plans and the 

like. 

Since publication of the PlanFirst White Paper, DIPNR has reviewed the role of local plans and has 

amended the proposed direction for local plans (in response to submissions to the White Paper and 

ongoing discussions with council practitioners). DIPNR’s amended position retreated from the 

proposed role of a local plan as an instrument that presided over a council’s corporate governance 

and land use planning functions. Rather, a local plan was now proposed to form only one part of 

an overall local planning framework which included the council’s management plan and broader 

strategic plan or vision for a local government area. This revised position has not been publicised 

for comment. 

Role of a Local Plan 

It is acknowledged by the Taskforce that the principle of providing a single and coherent source of 

environmental (land use) planning information at a local level is well founded. 

However, the original intention for local plans as proposed under PlanFirst, far exceeded the role 

that an environmental planning instrument should and could have within the system of local 

government. 

Specifically, the Taskforce considered that the role of a local environmental planning instrument is: 

• A plan that has a known and certain position in a hierarchy of planning documents that are 

produced by government (eg: State planning policies, regional strategies, REPs). 

• A plan that is consistent with and gives effect to state planning policies, regional environmental 

plans and regional strategies. 

• A statutory planning and land use control document that provides a single source of all land use 

controls applying to a particular parcel of land. 

• A plan that is consistent with, displays clear links to, and where relevant gives effect to other 

council management, strategic and operational plans. 

• A plan that provides a consistent (standard) set of definitions and/or provisions that are 

common to all local government areas and provides certainty to the community. 

PRINT VERSION 


19

The Taskforce’s comments are generally consistent with the submissions received from 

stakeholders in response to the public exhibition of the White Paper. Local government, in 

particular, did not consider it to be the domain of a local plan to guide decision-making across all of 

a council’s daily activities and responsibilities. 

Therefore, having regard to the above, the Taskforce considers that the use of the term ‘local plan’ 

is a misnomer and does not accurately reflect the legitimate and core function of an instrument 

intended to guide environmental planning at a local level. The term ‘local plan’ should be replaced 

by ‘integrated plan’ as it more accurately reflects the function of a local environmental planning 

instrument – to integrate with a broad range of council plans and strategies and also to integrate 

with State government planning objectives at a State and regional level. 

Integrated Plans 

The Taskforce considers that integrated plans should be prepared having regard to the following 

principles: 

• An integrated plan should have a known and certain position in the hierarchy of planning 

documents that are produced by government, such as State planning policies, regional 

strategies and REPs. 

• It should be consistent with and give effect to State planning policies, REPs and regional 

strategies. 

• It is a statutory planning and land use control document that provides a single source of all 

land use controls applying to a particular parcel of land. 

• It should be consistent with, display clear links to, and where relevant give effect to other 

council management, strategic and operational plans. 

• It should provide a consistent (standard) set of definitions and provisions that are common 

to all local government areas to provide a level of certainty to the community. 

An integrated plan should have components that link to a council’s broader strategic objectives for 

an LGA and also to the regional and State planning objectives for that area. The Taskforce 

considers that to improve transparency and public participation in the planning process, a minimum 

level of consistency should be provided across all LGAs and it should be provided in a single 

location. 

Therefore, when a local council undertakes the preparation of its integrated plan, it should be in 

accordance with a regulated template and should be specified to contain: 

Content that is fixed by the State and mandatory for every integrated plan including: 

• The title of the plan. 

• State and regional planning objectives/provisions. 

• Standardised definitions. 

• Model provisions (a contemporary version). 

• An appropriate core set of exempt and complying provisions. 

• Monitoring and review provisions (to be reviewed once in every council term). 

• Standardised zones - a standard set of zones to be developed (following consultation with 

local government) and implemented in those LGAs that have not moved towards locality 

statements. 

PRINT VERSION 


20

Content that is flexible and tailored for the particular LGA including: 

• LEP maps and provisions (development standards, etc). 

• Locality statements or placed based provisions. 

• DCP and other specific planning policy provisions such as notification requirements. 

• Supporting information such as DA lodgement notes/advice. 

• Clear links to other council plans, including its strategic plan, management plan and various 

operational plans (capital works, social plan, etc). 

• Indicators to measure the performance of the plan. 

The proposed introduction of standard zones is supported by the Taskforce, subject to consultation 

with local government. The system of zoning is considered to provide greater clarity to the 

community and a transparency of process that is not necessarily apparent in place based controls. 

The pursuit of placed based approaches to land use planning should occur only in an environment 

where increased certainty can be provided to the community. The Taskforce considers that the 

system of zoning, supported by placed based locality statements, will provide the greatest certainty 

for users of the planning system. In this regard, DIPNR should guide this ongoing debate through 

the preparation of best practice guidelines for placed based planning in integrated plans. 

In addition to the above, the Taskforce recommends that it should be mandatory for councils to 

consolidate their planning instruments and policies into one integrated plan for every LGA. The 

ongoing development of e-plan technology by DIPNR will allow for greater ease of preparation of 

integrated plans. Delivery of these consolidated plans should occur in a coordinated manner and 

DIPNR should tailor a suitably staged timetable for this to occur, with metropolitan, coastal and 

amalgamated councils to be targeted as a priority. 

Integrated Plan Template 

To further assist in clarifying the role and content of an integrated plan, the Taskforce has 

developed a standard template which could be used during the preparation of integrated plans. 

The template requires further refinement by DIPNR and final approval by the Parliamentary 

Counsel's Office prior to its inclusion in the EP&A Regulation 2000. However, once the final format 

is approved, it would become a mandatory template for use by local government within a specified 

period. 

A copy of the integrated plan standard template is at Appendix 3. 

The integrated plan would contain statutory and non-statutory components. The statutory 

component of the integrated plan that is approved by the Minister is known as the LEP and the 

existing provisions of the EP&A Act apply to that component. 

Within the LEP component is content that is fixed by the State and mandatory for every LEP 

including all the provisions of applicable SEPPs and REPs and natural resource planning 

provisions that have been incorporated into those instruments. 

Standardised zones, standard definitions, model provisions, core exempt and complying provisions 

would also be included in the LEP as mandatory elements. They should be included in the 

standard template following consultation with local government and further development by DIPNR. 

These matters are addressed in greater detail in later parts of this report. 

It should be noted that the regulation of standard templates would not prevent the locally 

appropriate adoption of planning and development controls. Choice and flexibility at a local level 

21 

PRINT VERSION 

1 September 2003

would remain, with councils continuing to adopt their own LEP controls to guide development within 

their LGA. In this regard, the LEP component would also contain flexible content that is tailored for 

the particular LGA and may include provisions such as development standards, special provisions 

(eg: heritage) and performance indicators. The LEP component of an integrated plan would 

continue to enjoy the same statutory weight as is currently provided under the EP&A Act. 

The non-statutory content of the integrated plan would contain the strategic state, regional and local 

context of the plan, DCP type provisions to guide development, additional definitions and any 

explanatory notes and related information necessary to assist in implementation of the integrated 

plan. 

It is considered that the introduction of a mandatory template for the preparation of integrated plans 

will assist in extending the range of plan making activities for which councils have delegated 

approval. In this regard, upon completion of the standard template DIPNR should investigate 

opportunities for delegating further aspects of the Minister’s (Section 70) approval role to councils, 

especially where the integrated plan provisions are consistent with State and regional planning 

objectives. Councils that have consistently demonstrated proper planning practices and have 

worked in partnership with DIPNR to achieve the objects of the EP&A Act could be immediately 

targeted for increased delegations. 

Model Provisions and Standard Definitions 

The Taskforce raised the issue of standardisation of integrated plan form and content as a means 

of improving the quality, legibility and simplicity of planning instruments. 

As a way of providing consistent interpretation across plans, minimising administration costs and 

improving accessibility for all users it was also suggested that integrated plans could have common 

content - definitions, land use zones/descriptors and/or suite of statutory clauses. 

The Taskforce noted that there has been little change to the EP&A Model Provisions since their 

gazettal in 1980 (despite a number of reviews carried out by the Department) and hence councils 

had developed a raft of new and varying definitions and clauses to overcome the dated and often 

irrelevant clauses contained in the Model Provisions. 

The Taskforce thought it important to have a set of standard definitions relating to measurement ie: 

height, floorspace ratio, etc. and that the work undertaken by the National Development 

Assessment Forum (DAF) provided a useful starting point. 

Consistent DA definitions throughout Australia is seen by DAF as being a critical component of its 

agenda to harmonise DA practices and systems. A discussion paper setting out a number of 

proposed definitions was released for comment in 2001. 

At the Planning Ministers' meeting held in November 2002, the Ministers adopted 14 definitions 

(refer Appendix 4) and agreed to progress work on 5 "disputed" definitions (ie: allotment, building, 

net floor area, frontage and floor space ratio). NSW committed to the implementation of the 

adopted set of definitions through PlanFirst. 

The Taskforce also noted that most other States were moving towards common planning scheme 

templates and in some cases standard legal and administrative provisions (definitions, zones and 

clauses) in order to provide greater consistency in the format, structure and basic provisions of 

schemes. 

PRINT VERSION 


22

The Taskforce was of the view that the mandatory application of the DAF definitions in all new 

integrated plans would assist in achieving a level of consistency in planning instrument terminology 

and DA assessment processes. 

The Taskforce also gave consideration to the need or otherwise for model clauses relating to other 

issues and the application of standard zones. 

In preparing the PlanFirst White Paper, the Department commissioned the Centre for Natural 

Resources Law and Policy at the University of Wollongong in 2000 to examine the approaches 

taken to natural resource management in LEPs and document the experience of councils in relation 

to implementation of such provisions. 

The research found that a number of councils had taken tentative steps to translate natural 

resource policies into LEPs, or, in the absence of any codified catchment/natural resource plan, 

develop provisions at a local level. It was recommended that the Department undertake further 

work to develop model clauses and/or advice to assist councils in this relatively new area of linking 

land use planning with natural resource management. 

An option would be for DIPNR to pursue further work in this area to provide a practical link between 

catchment blueprints and integrated land use plans. A similar exercise has been undertaken in 

Victoria, to attempt to better align catchment management strategies and local planning schemes. 

The Taskforce also noted that the Regulation Review - Local Development Taskforce is also 

examining the possibility of standardising local plan content (such as definitions, provisions relating 

to exempt and complying development, etc) as far as it affects the development assessment 

process. 

Timetable for Reform 

The Taskforce considers that DIPNR should specify a timeframe for the implementation of the 

abovementioned reform proposals to ensure their timely and effective implementation. 

Specifically, the Taskforce recommends that the EP&A Regulation 2000 be amended before 31 

December 2003 and all councils be advised that their integrated plans should be prepared in 

accordance with the regulated template. 

To provide a further imperative to councils, they should also be advised that the statutory 

components of their integrated plans will be required to comply with the regulated template to 

enable gazettal to occur after 31 December 2006. 

This will provide DIPNR and councils with an achievable 3 year timeframe in which to move 

towards the reformatting of new LEPs into the integrated plan template. If councils currently have 

draft LEPs that are well advanced in the plan making process, they may choose to continue to 

proceed to gazettal under the existing LEP format. However, if a council resolves to prepare a new 

comprehensive LEP, they could immediately adopt the standard template and work towards 

gazettal of their LEP in the new format. 

The approach taken by councils will vary on a case by case basis. However, it is anticipated that 

most councils will seek to utilise the new format for any future LEP preparation, especially when the 

LEP is a consolidated instrument or involves a major rezoning and/or amendment. This staggered 

approach to implementation should ensure that DIPNR has the necessary resources to achieve the 

efficient implementation of the integrated plan template. 

PRINT VERSION 


23

When preparing new integrated plans in advance of regional strategy development, councils need 

to collaborate with State agencies to ensure that the full range of State issues is considered. Any 

emerging regional issues will need to be incorporated within the strategic component of the 

integrated plan to ensure consistency with regional objectives is achieved. 

In addition to the above, the non-statutory components of an integrated plan must be adopted by 

councils before 31 December 2008 and all new integrated plans must be provided in an electronic 

format in every LGA. 

In order to ensure the effective delivery of integrated plans in the timeframes stipulated above, 

DIPNR must further develop its e-planning provisions to enable detailed property/planning 

information to become available over the internet. 

Strategic Framework for Integrated Plans 

The success of integrated plans depends on councils developing informed strategic positions in 

regard to a range of environmental planning, social, economic, natural resource and other policy 

issues. 

The development of a long term (20 year) strategic plan by local councils is necessary to guide the 

preparation of shorter-term strategies, integrated plans and operational plans in each LGA. Whilst 

the Local Government Act 1993 and the Department of Local Government (DLG) provides 

guidelines for councils to prepare management plans (Management Planning for NSW Guidelines, 

February 2000), it does not specifically require councils to prepare a long term whole of LGA 

strategic plan. 

The content of such a strategic plan should be arranged around the council’s key program areas 

and should address matters such as the regional context, sustainability indicators (economic, 

social/cultural and environmental) and supporting infrastructure. There should be clear links 

between the council’s long term strategic plan, its management plan, its integrated plan and its 

range of operational plans. 

In this regard, the Taskforce recommends that the Minister for Local Government should be 

requested to: 

(a) encourage councils to prepare a long term strategic plan for a sustainable future for 

every LGA; and 

(b) develop a set of ‘Best Practice Guidelines’ (following consultation with local government) 

for the preparation of local government management plans and strategic plans, to 

ensure that councils provide clear links between the management plan and the council’s 

strategic plan. 

In order to ensure the effective development of councils’ strategic plans, the DLG and DIPNR 

should consult with local councils during development of the best practice guidelines. This 

consultation should occur immediately and the DLG and DIPNR should be required to complete the 

guidelines before 31 March 2004. 

It is noted that many of the stakeholders have raised concern with the Taskforce regarding the lack 

of skilled town planners within local government. The town planning profession, especially within 

local government, is recognised to be suffering from a lack of experienced planners to undertake 

both strategic environmental planning and development control activities. Anecdotal evidence 

suggests that planners are leaving local government to pursue work in the private sector or within 

PRINT VERSION 


24

State agencies. The Taskforce considers that PIA, the LGSA and the relevant universities should 

be offering cadetships, scholarships or similar, to attract and retain planners within the local 

government system. The need for highly skilled and experienced planners within local government 

is critical if DIPNR is to achieve successful implementation of these reforms. DIPNR should 

therefore pursue the development of these options further with all relevant parties. 


A summary of the main concerns of stakeholders in relation to local planning issues is shown 

below. 

Main Concerns – Local Planning Raised By 

Local plans should be a single environmental planning document 

(containing all relevant SEPP, REP, LEP, DCP and policy provisions) 

applicable to an LGA. 

That local councils be provided with additional delegations to approve 

LEPs that are consistent with State and regional objectives. 

Councils should be required to regularly review and update their local 

plan and housing strategies. 

DIPNR should further develop its e-planning work to facilitate electronic 

plan delivery, e-lodgement and provide a single up to date data source of 

property information. 

Local plan provisions must be consistent with regional and State planning 

objectives and provisions. 

State agency input into local plan making should be based on defined 

and agreed regional and State objectives. 

Exempt and complying development provisions within local plans should 

be standardised – resulting in regional planning gains. 

Tools such as the model provisions, standard zones and BASIX should 

be legislated to introduce consistency across LGAs and to eliminate 

worst practice. 

DAF definitions should be introduced across all LGAs for consistency and 

certainty. 

State agency involvement at regional plan making stages will reduce the 

need for concurrence and referral provisions in local plans. 

It is not the role of an LEP to attempt to try and do everything – DIPNR 

should explore alternative models to achieve integration. 

Council DCPs and policies should remain as non-statutory instruments 

and should not become part of an LEP. 

PRINT VERSION 


25 


government/PA 


government/PA 

Industry 

Industry/PA 

Industry 


government/PA 

Industry 

Industry 

Industry 

Industry/PA 

Local government 

Local 

government/PA

DIPNR should regulate the form and content of LEPs and DCPs. 

DIPNR should pursue the development of a framework for integrated 

planning at a local level. 

DIPNR should take a more active role in working in partnership with 

councils, rather than just a regulator of plans. 

Councils should be required to set their local strategic direction and LEPs 

should give effect to those directions. 

Reform of the planning system does not require a major change to the 

existing legislation. 

The principles of PlanFirst – to improve the quality and consistency of 

plan making at a local level – are supported. 




Industry 





government 

Local 

government/NGO 

1. That local plans as proposed under PlanFirst not be pursued and be replaced with integrated 

plans that contain an LEP (statutory) component as provided for under the Environmental 

Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

2. The role of an integrated plan be recognised to be: 

a) An instrument that has a known and certain position in a hierarchy of planning 

documents that are produced by government (such as State planning policies, regional 

strategies and REPs). 

b) An instrument that is consistent with and gives effect to State planning policies, REPs 

and regional strategies. 

c) A statutory planning and land use control document that provides a single source of all 

land use controls applying to a particular parcel of land. 

d) An instrument that is consistent with, displays clear links to, and where relevant gives 

effect to other council management, strategic and operational plans. 

e) An instrument that provides a consistent (standard) set of definitions and provisions that 

are common to all local government areas and provides certainty to the community. 

3. The format of an integrated plan be regulated by the State government and be specified to 

contain: 

a) Content that is fixed by the State and mandatory for every integrated plan including: 

i. The title of the plan. 

ii. State and regional planning objectives/provisions. 

iii. Standardised definitions. 

iv. Model provisions (a contemporary version). 

v. An appropriate core set of exempt and complying provisions. 

vi. Mandatory monitoring and review provisions (to be reviewed once in every council 

term). 

PRINT VERSION 


26

vii. Standardised zones (a standard set of zones to be developed, following 

consultation with local government, and implemented in those LGAs that have not 

moved towards locality statements). 

b) Content that is flexible and tailored for the particular LGA including: 

i. LEP maps and provisions (development standards, etc). 

ii. Locality statements or placed based provisions. 

iii. DCP and other specific planning policy provisions such as notification 

requirements. 

iv. Supporting information such as DA lodgement notes/advice. 

v. Clear links to other council plans, including its strategic plan, management plan 

and various operational plans (capital works, social plan, etc). 

vi. Indicators to measure the performance of the plan. 

4. That DIPNR be required to: 

a) Further develop the Taskforce’s proposed integrated plan template for inclusion in the 

EPA Regulation as a standard template before 31 December 2003. 

b) Develop a set of ‘Best Practice Guidelines for Integrated Plan Preparation’ for local 

councils, before 31 December 2003, to provide clarity and detail on the new template 

and ensure the efficient preparation of new integrated plans. 

c) Establish a dedicated team of staff (who will liaise with local government officers) to 

ensure the above recommendations are achieved before 31 December 2003. 

5. That the EP&A Regulation be amended before 31 December 2003, and that all councils be 

advised that their integrated plans should be prepared in accordance with the regulated 

template, and: 

a) The statutory (LEP) components of the integrated plan will be required to comply with 

the regulated template to enable gazettal to occur after 31 December 2006; 

b) The non-statutory components must be adopted by councils before 31 December 2008; 

c) That all new integrated plans be provided in an electronic format in every LGA and that 

DIPNR further develop e-planning provisions with a view to enabling detailed 

property/planning information to become available over the internet. 

6. That DIPNR investigate opportunities for further delegating aspects of the Minister’s approval 

role to councils, especially where the integrated plan provisions are consistent with State and 

regional planning objectives. 

7. That the Minister for Local Government be requested to: 

a) encourage councils to prepare a long term strategic plan for every LGA in NSW. 

b) develop a set of ‘Best Practice Guidelines’ before 31 March 2004 (following consultation 

with local government) for the preparation of local government management plans, 

integrated plans and strategic plans, to ensure that councils provide clear links between the 

management plan, integrated plan and the council’s strategic plan. 

8. That Parliamentary Counsel's Office be requested to approve the final integrated plan template, 

including the standard set of zones, definitions and model provisions, upon completion of same 

by DIPNR. 

9. That it be mandatory for councils to consolidate their planning instruments into a maximum of 

one integrated plan for every LGA and that DIPNR tailor a suitably staged timetable for this to 

occur, with metropolitan, coastal and amalgamated councils to be targeted as a priority. 

PRINT VERSION 


27

10. That consultation occur with local government to assist the Department of Local Government 

and DIPNR in the efficient development of best practice guidelines and to ensure the 

implementation of these recommendations by local government within an agreed timeframe. 

11. That a standard set of definitions (including the 14 National Development Assessment Forum 

definitions adopted by the Planning Ministers on 7 November 2002) form a mandatory 

component of all new integrated plans, following wide consultation with local government. 

These definitions to be included in the EP&A Regulation. 

12. That a contemporary version of the model provisions form a mandatory component of all new 

integrated plans, following wide consultation with local government on the content of such 

provisions. These model provisions to be included in the EP&A Regulation. 

13. That DIPNR being asked to immediately pursue the adoption of the standard definitions and the 

updating of the model provisions, with some of the strategic planning fee revenue being 

directed towards this exercise. This work should be completed by 31 March 2004 for inclusion 

in the EPA Regulation. 

PRINT VERSION 


28

6.0 THE STRATEGIC PLANNING FEE 


From 1 November 2002, NSW consent authorities began collecting a 'strategic planning fee' on 

certain development applications to assist in rolling out PlanFirst and implementing planning 

system reform. The EP&A Further Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2002 authorises the collection of 

the additional fee as part of the development application fee. 

The fee is payable on development applications valued at over $50,000 that involve the erection of 

a building, the carrying out of work, or the demolition of a building or work. The fee does not apply 

to complying development. 

The fee is 64 cents for every $1000 of the estimated cost of the proposed development. Consent 

authorities are able to retain a $5 administration fee per development application (DA) that the 

additional fee applies to, to assist in transfer/remittal. 

All councils and four State government consent authorities are responsible for collecting the fee 

and remitting the amount collected (minus the $5 per DA that may be retained), on a monthly basis 

to the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. 

Consent authorities are also responsible for submitting a monthly report to the Department that 

provides details of the DAs that the additional fee was applicable to, the amount retained by 

consent authorities and the total amount remitted to the Department. 

As at 31 July 2003, $8.5 million had been collected (substantially more than the $6 million originally 

projected). 

Original Purpose for Collecting the Fee 

The EP&A Regulation authorises the collection of the fee and what it can be used for - that is - 

• monitoring and review of the provisions of environmental planning instruments that control 

development or are required to be considered by consent authorities when dealing with DAs. 

(For the purpose of assessing their effectiveness in achieving their intended effect and making 

recommendations for improvement). 

• monitoring and review of the efficiency and effectiveness of practices and procedures followed 

by consent authorities in dealing with DAs. 

Revenue from the fee was to be used to part fund the development of regional strategies and to 

provide funding assistance to local councils to undertake strategic planning and encourage 

innovation in the delivery of new local plans. 

In particular, it was envisaged that funding could be made available for: 

• developing key local planning components - eg: a strategic position on major development and 

land management issues; review and consolidation of controls or development of indicators. 

• demonstration projects - eg: electronic delivery of plans; collaborative proposals involving two 

or more councils; projects testing 'new' planning methods such as the translation of regionally 

focussed natural resource planning information into local plans. 

PRINT VERSION 


29

Options for Ongoing Collection and Use of the Fee 

During deliberations regarding the strategic planning fee, the Taskforce formed the view that the 

EP&A Act provides for State and regional planning as a legitimate and core function of the State 

government. Hence, a stand alone, additional fee on development is not necessarily the most 

equitable way to fund this fundamental and central role of government. Accordingly, it is more 

appropriate that DIPNR source funding for these core functions from Treasury during the annual 

budget process. 

Notwithstanding this, the Taskforce examined a range of possibilities for the continued collection of 

the fee, including: 

• maintaining the fee as applied and identifying a fuller range of reform and improvement projects 

it could be applied to - eg: piloting the e-delivery of local plans at particular councils. 

• changing the contribution rate and/or cap and/or base threshold to which the fee applies. 

• continuing the fee until the outcomes of the Section 94 Review Taskforce are known. 

• increasing the $5 administration fee to enable consent authorities to recover the true costs of 

remittance to DIPNR. 

The Taskforce concluded that: 

• the fee should be retained in the short term and at least until the end of the 2003/04 financial 

year. 

• the abolition or retention of the fee should be explored once a review of Section 94 and all other 

levies under the EP&A Act is completed. 

• DIPNR should source funding for the continuous reform and improvement of the planning and 

development assessment system from the annual budget process. 

• the current application of the fee to small and large developments alike was the most equitable 

approach. 

• the fee should be capped such that it is never greater than 50% of the DA assessment fee. 

• revenue collected to date and during the remainder of this financial year should be shared 

equally between State and local government. 

• a comprehensive strategy needs to be developed that targets local government for early 

spending of the fee revenue collected to date. This may include piloting e-planning and other 

initiatives to streamline and simplify planning at the local level. The targeting of regional 

cooperation between councils to achieve uniformity in planning outcomes and to facilitate new 

integrated plans in council areas likely to amalgamate should also be considered. 

• an increase in the $5 administration fee to $25 was warranted. 


A summary of the main concerns of stakeholders in relation to the strategic planning fee is shown 

below. 

Main Concerns – Strategic Planning Fee Raised By 

General support for continuation of strategic planning fee, however funds 

need to be clearly quarantined and applied to the reforms, with 

accountability directed to results rather than process. Release an annual 

report on the fee revenue with details of all expenditure, results and 

outcomes. 

PRINT VERSION 


30 


government/PA

Main funding for State and regional planning should come from the 

Government, as benefits derive to the population at large, not just 

applicants of new development. 

Commit to the sunsetting of the fee once the targeted program of reform 

is achieved. 

Strategic planning fee has on average doubled the fees incurred on DAs. 

First priority for the funds should be removing unnecessary layers of 

controls and establishing a single set of controls and requirements for 

any site and developing priority regional plans - beginning with growth 

areas, coastal areas and the metropolitan region. 

Funds raised from the fee in a region should be allocated primarily for 

regional and local planning in that region. 

Some priority should also be given to those regions where local councils 

are prepared to cooperate on regional planning exercises and contribute 

funds for components of their local plans. 

Clear guidelines need to be established to enable councils to propose 

and receive funding. 

Mechanisms should be put in place to enable councils to ultimately add 

the costs of preparing strategic and statutory plans to planning 

administration costs, when setting fees. 




PA 

Industry 

Industry 


government/PA 

PA 

PA 


1. The strategic planning fee be retained until the end of the 2003/04 financial year. 

2. The Section 94 Review Taskforce be requested to examine the retention (or otherwise) of 

the strategic planning fee as part of the terms of reference of that Taskforce. 

3. DIPNR review the retention (or otherwise) of the strategic planning fee after all the current 

planning system reviews are completed. 

4. DIPNR source funding for the continuous reform and improvement of the planning and 

development assessment system from the annual budget process as a priority. 

5. A cap be placed on the strategic planning fee, such that the fee is never greater than 50% 

of the DA assessment fee, and that the EP&A Regulation be amended as required for 

implementation as soon as possible. 

6. That the EP&A Regulation also be amended to provide clarity in regard to the imposition of 

the strategic planning fee as follows: 

PRINT VERSION 


31 

PA

• DAs that are withdrawn prior to determination shall be entitled to a refund of the fee 

from DIPNR, exclusive of the administration fee which DIPNR shall be entitled to 

retain to cover the administration cost associated with preparing refunds. 

• The fee shall apply to the original DA and shall not be applied to subsequent Section 

96 modifications. 

• The fee shall apply to the original DA and shall not be applied to subsequent staged 

DAs where the total estimated value of the original DA includes the value of all 

subsequent stages. 

• The $5 'administration fee' that is able to be retained by consent authorities be 

increased to $25 and shall be collected once per application. 

6. Revenue collected to date should be shared equally between State and local government. 

7. DIPNR urgently develop a comprehensive strategy for spending the fee revenue that targets 

local government and is based on the following criteria: 

PRINT VERSION 


• councils in metropolitan, coastal and inland NSW that have indicated an interest to 

DIPNR in testing e-plan delivery. 

• councils that are undertaking a consolidation of LEPs in local government areas that 

have recently amalgamated or have agreed to amalgamate. 

• councils undertaking the consolidation and streamlining of paper based plans. 

Allocation of funds would be subject to - 

• councils who have already begun consolidation work and those proposing to start from 

scratch. 

• councils piloting different elements of e-plan delivery. 

• councils agreeing to implement the standard template for integrated plans as developed 

by the Taskforce. 

32

7.0 NEXT STEPS - IMPLEMENTATION 

7.1 Legislative Change 

The Taskforce considers that the EP&A Act in its existing form provides a suitable base for the 

introduction of planning system reforms. There is an inherent flexibility in the Act that provides for a 

variety of planning tools to be implemented. It is the manner in which DIPNR and local government 

uses these tools in the future that will influence the success and impact of any reform. 

On this basis, the Taskforce approached the terms of reference from the viewpoint that minor 

amendments (if any) to the EP&A Act would be necessary to implement recommended reforms. 

Essentially, very few of the recommendations require immediate or substantial legislative change. 

Recommendations that do require legislative amendments (to the Act or the Regulation) are 

categorised below. 

Short Term 

• Integrated plan standard template (including standard zones, definitions and model provisions): 

requires amendment to the EP&A Regulation before 31 December 2003). A Section 71 

Determination can be used as an alternative mechanism in the interim if necessary. 

• Strategic planning fee: clarifying administration and application of the fee will require an 

amendment to the EP&A Regulation. 

Longer Term 

These amendments are not required immediately, however they should be undertaken as part of 

any future comprehensive amendments to the EP&A Act. 

• Consolidation of competing environmental planning and natural resource legislation into one 

Act. 

• The requirement to prepare the statutory components of integrated plans in accordance with 

the standard template after 31 December 2006 will require an amendment to the Regulation. 

• The requirement for councils to adopt the non-statutory components of integrated plans in 

before 31 December 2008 will require an amendment to the Regulation. 

• The mandatory requirement for councils to consolidate their planning instruments into a 

maximum of one integrated plan for every LGA will require an amendment to the Act. DIPNR’s 

timetable for this to occur in metropolitan, coastal and inland LGAs will require an amendment 

to the Regulation. 

• The difference between the role and function of LEP and DCP components of integrated plans 

must be clearly maintained. However, the provision of greater certainty and statutory weight to 

the DCP provisions of integrated plans must be achieved. 

PRINT VERSION 


33

7.2 Electronic Delivery Demonstration Projects 

One of the fundamental aspects of providing a simpler, integrated and more accessible planning 

system is that all State, regional and local plans will be delivered electronically via the iPlan 

website. 

iPlan already exists as a whole of government State-wide internet tool delivering digital local 

environmental plan maps (and respective legal instruments) and current SEPPs and REPs. 

Electronic plan delivery involves process development to create electronically searchable State 

planning policies and integrated plans, development of a technical architecture to help councils do 

more consistent and standard plans, delivery of standard data sets so that councils are all 

operating off the same, consistent data knowledge, templates for councils’ plans and public access 

systems that will access the underlying databases of the new integrated plans. 

This area offers significant opportunities for pilot and prototype work with individual councils over 

the next two years. 

The Taskforce fully supports a number of demonstration projects, related to the electronic delivery 

of the integrated plan, being pursued as a matter of priority. 

Consideration needs to be given to suitable local council candidates who could pilot small projects 

that would directly contribute to the ultimate delivery of the integrated plan, while at the same time 

test concepts and approaches. These councils should be representative of the different areas of 

the State, be engaged in (or about to commence) a comprehensive review of their planning 

instrument, require an updated plan because of recent (or likely) amalgamations and have varying 

internal degrees of technological sophistication and staffing support. 

Projects could be consistent with the phased development process required to deliver electronic 

plans, such as: 

• Complete definition of business, operational and technical requirements for electronic delivery - 

working with a sample of councils to define business processes, workload, timings and 

technical options. 

• Develop a thesaurus (defined list) of planning controls - for use in State, regional and local 

planning and their values (eg: what value should be given to the clause “high density 

residential”) using a sample of local councils experience. 

• Acquire pilot internet-based system to support electronic plan making - initially on a proof of 

concept basis for different council types, then incrementally growing in capacity to cater for all 

councils in NSW. 

• Support for councils to develop new integrated plans - by selecting a range of councils and 

taking them through the new planning process from beginning to end. The full funding plan 

includes allocation of monies for planners to create/convert plans in the new manner and for the 

provision of training and support to councils using the new system. Following the pilot, funds 

could be allocated for implementation by 25% of councils each year beginning in 2004/05. 

PRINT VERSION 


34

PRINT VERSION 


APPENDIX 1 

Submission to the Masterplan Review Taskforce 

35

Mr Evan Jones 

A/Executive Director Metropolitan Strategy 

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources 

20 Lee Street 

SYDNEY NSW 2000 

Dear Evan 

PlanFirst Review Taskforce 

8 August 2003 

As you are aware the PlanFirst Review Taskforce has, as one of its terms of reference, to 

investigate and report on whether the Government should continue to pursue the PlanFirst reforms, 

either in total or in part. 

At its last meeting, the Taskforce considered plan making under Part III of the Act, and in particular, 

the role and content of local plans under the proposed PlanFirst reforms. The Taskforce’s 

deliberations included discussion on the role of masterplans, the reasons behind their emergence 

in popularity, whether they provide certainty in the land use development process, the legal status 

of masterplans, and whether staged development applications and site specific DCPs provide a 

more viable alternative. 

The Taskforce has requested that I raise the following issues with the Masterplans Review 

Taskforce for its consideration: 

PRINT VERSION 


1. Masterplans were originally intended to provide broad strategic outlines/concepts for the 

development of large or significant sites. They were not intended to provide detailed 

design guidelines for the development of a site. Rather, they were intended to function 

as an in-principle type of approval for matters such as height, bulk and scale (building 

envelopes), setbacks, land uses, parking and the proposed staging of construction of 

the development. 

2. Since their introduction, consent authorities have used masterplans as an adopted 

strategic planning instrument (similar to a DCP) or as an approved development consent 

(similar to a staged development application). This inconsistent approach, sometimes 

occurring within the same consent authority, has resulted in a common misinterpretation 

of the role of masterplans and their function under Parts III and IV of the Act. 

3. In addition, the lack of detail provided at masterplan stage has generated criticisms of 

uncertainty from both consent authorities and the community and has lead to questions 

36

about the value of masterplans. The response to this criticism has resulted in consent 

authorities requiring an ever increasing amount of detail to be incorporated into 

masterplan applications (with associated procedural requirements), thus defeating their 

original purpose. 

4. It is considered that the provisions of the Act that enable site specific DCPs to be made 

and staged development consents to be granted are adequate mechanisms to enable 

the development of large or significant sites to proceed in an orderly and economic 

manner. Hence, the retention and use of masterplans as another layer in the land 

development process is not supported by the PlanFirst Taskforce. 

5. DIPNR has increasingly incorporated masterplan provisions in REPs and LEPs. In 

particular, the mandatory requirement to prepare a masterplan before any development 

may occur on a site is becoming a common provision in planning instruments. It is 

considered that DIPNR should be extremely cautious in its imposition of such 

provisions, as they are generally only appropriate for large or significant sites that will be 

the subject of major redevelopment and/or change in land use activity. For sites that 

have little or no redevelopment potential, these provisions should be repealed. 

6. It is recommended that the Masterplans Taskforce examine the existing legislation and 

the need (or otherwise) for masterplans to continue as another type of planning system 

approval. Should this examination reveal that the Act provides adequately for this type 

of approval via site/location specific DCPs or staged development consents, the Minister 

should be advised accordingly and appropriate directions (including clarification of the 

intent and purpose of the Act’s provisions) issued to consent authorities. 

I would appreciate if you would include this submission on the agenda for the next meeting of the 

Masterplans Review Taskforce. I would be pleased to attend the next Taskforce meeting to 

discuss this matter in further detail if required. 

Yours sincerely 

Gabrielle Kibble 

Chairperson 


PRINT VERSION 


37

PRINT VERSION 


38 

APPENDIX 2 

Taskforce Letters to the Minister

The Hon Craig Knowles MP 

Minister for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resource 

Level 33 

Governor Macquarie Tower 

1 Farrer Place 


Dear Minister 

7 July 2003 


As you are aware, the Taskforce has commenced its review of PlanFirst and is currently engaged 

in vigorous discussions centring on the various Terms of Reference. 

As part of those discussions, the role of regional strategies and plan making at a State level has 

been considered. 

In particular, the Taskforce has agreed that the most significant planning issue for Sydney at this 

time is the need to develop a Metropolitan Strategy. The preparation of such a Strategy is 

considered to be of critical importance. 

The Taskforce has therefore requested that I raise the development of a Metropolitan Strategy with 

you as a matter of priority. I would be pleased to discuss this matter in further detail with yourself 

and the Director General at your convenience. 


Mrs Gabrielle Kibble 

Chairperson 


PRINT VERSION 


39


Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources 

Level 33 




Dear Minister 

17 July 2003 


I refer to my previous letter dated 7 July 2003 regarding the role of regional strategies and the need 

to develop a Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. 

The Taskforce has recently debated the issue of regional planning in greater detail. In particular, 

the Taskforce examined the work that is being undertaken on catchment management authority 

models and the potential implications of the outcomes of that work. In this regard, the Taskforce 

considers regional planning to be an integral and critically important element of the planning system 

and that considerable effort must be made to dovetail the two systems. 

Furthermore, given that the Taskforce has already recommended the preparation of a Metropolitan 

Strategy, the systematic rollout across the State of the all encompassing regional strategies, as 

proposed as part of PlanFirst, should not be pursued, and further regional planning (to be finalised 

as part of the Taskforce’s deliberations) must be developed to meet the needs of metropolitan, 

coastal and inland NSW. The Taskforce therefore requests that the Department of Infrastructure, 

Planning and Natural Resources examine priorities for regional planning initiatives in these three 

areas. 

The Taskforce has also examined the intended role and functions of the proposed regional forums 

to be established under PlanFirst. It is the Taskforce’s recommendation that the regional forum 

approach not be pursued, and a more targeted model be developed to meet the needs of 

metropolitan, coastal and inland NSW. In this regard, it is the experience of Taskforce members 

that in the best regional planning initiatives, the State and local stakeholders have worked together 

to facilitate regional outcomes. 

Whilst the Taskforce considers that the Regional Forums should be abandoned in their current 

form, it is acknowledged that the current work occurring on various regional planning initiatives will 

provide the basis for continuing regional planning in those regions. Hence, the work being 

undertaken by some Regional Organisations of Councils and other stakeholders should be 

encouraged to continue. 

To avoid any potential confusion or concern arising from key regional stakeholders regarding the 

above issues, it is recommended that a suitable communications strategy be developed, with a 

particular focus on managing the expectations of those stakeholders. 

PRINT VERSION 


40

The Taskforce has requested that I raise these regional planning issues with you and seek an 

immediate announcement on the future of the regional forums. I would be pleased to discuss this 

matter in further detail with yourself and the Director General at your convenience. 



Chairperson 


PRINT VERSION 


41


Minister for Infrastructure and Planning 

Minister for Natural Resources 

Level 33 




Dear Minister 


28 July 2003 

As you are aware from 1 November 2002, NSW consent authorities began collecting an additional 

'PlanFirst' fee on all development applications valued at over $50,000. 

Revenue from the fee was to be used to part fund the development of regional strategies and to 

provide funding assistance to local councils to improve strategic planning and delivery of new local 

plans. Allocation of a certain proportion of the fee revenue to local government was seen as critical 

in implementing the 'new' system at the local level. The intention was that the State government 

would also provide funding, for the implementation of the reforms, equivalent to that collected 

through the fee. 

Term of Reference No. 3 of the PlanFirst Taskforce is to: 

'Advise on how the strategic planning fee currently being collected on certain development 

applications should be used to progress reform of the planning system'. 

At its last meeting, the Taskforce examined the current state of play in relation to collection of the 

fee and considered possible options for the ongoing collection and use of the fee. 

The Taskforce was of the view that the EP&A Act provides for State and regional planning as a 

legitimate and core function of the State Government and that a stand alone, additional fee on 

development is not necessarily the most equitable way to fund this fundamental and central role of 

government. Accordingly, funding for these core functions is more appropriately sourced from 

Treasury during the annual budget process. 

However, the Taskforce considered that the fee should be retained in the short term and at least 

until the end of the 2003/04 financial year. The abolition or retention of the fee in a different form 

PRINT VERSION 


42

should be explored once the review of all levies under the EP&A Act is completed. Without preempting 

the outcomes of that review, one option would be to impose a single flat rate levy under 

the Act to fund a range of initiatives relating to community infrastructure and continuous reform and 

improvement of the planning and development assessment system. 

In the interim, the Taskforce will continue to develop work on two important aspects: 

1. A comprehensive strategy targeting local government, for early spending of the fee 

revenue collected to date. This may include piloting e-planning and other initiatives to 

streamline and simplify planning at the local level. In particular, the targeting of regional 

cooperation between councils to achieve uniformity in planning outcomes and the 

facilitating of new local plans in council areas likely to amalgamate will be considered. 

2. Restructuring the fee formula including determining the impact of increasing the $50,000 

threshold to avoid capturing minor building works, and/or possibly capping the upper 

limit of the fee, so that it does not exceed the actual DA assessment fee, and/or 

decreasing the current contribution rate. 

The Taskforce has requested that I raise these issues with you as a matter of priority. I would be 

pleased to discuss this matter in further detail with yourself and the Director General at your 

convenience. 



Chairperson 


PRINT VERSION 


43

PRINT VERSION 


44 

APPENDIX 3 

Integrated Plan Template

Integrated Plan Content 

PART I - Strategic context 

� state 

� regional 

� local 

PART II - State and Regional Provisions 

� SEPP provisions (geographically based 

SEPPs) 

� SEPP schedule (process based SEPPs) 

� REP provisions 

� REP schedule (process based REPs) 

PLANFIRST REVIEW TASKFORCE 

Integrated Plans - Proposed Standard Template 

Comment Approval 

Authority 

Sourced from: 

� Metropolitan Strategy 

� Regional Strategies 

� The local council’s strategy/vision (long term plan) 

Includes non-statutory natural resource management 

links to and informs: 

� catchment blueprints, recovery plans, environmental, 

social and economic plans 

Includes links to infrastructure planning: 

� transport, water, energy infrastructure, etc 

Includes content that is fixed by the State and 

mandatory for every LEP including: 

� all provisions of geographically based SEPPs and 

REPs 

� references, in accompanying schedules, to all 

process based SEPPs and REPs 

� includes natural resource management provisions 

that have been incorporated into SEPPs and REPs 

Council 

(non-statutory) 

Minister 

(statutory) 

Page 45

PART III – LEP Provisions 

� standard zones 

� model provisions 

� standard definitions 

� exempt and complying 

� aims and objectives 

� maps 

� locality statements or placed based provisions 

(optional) 

� development controls 

� heritage provisions 

� additional definitions 

� other special provisions 

PRINT VERSION 


Includes content that is fixed by the State and 

mandatory for every LEP such as: 

� the title of the plan 

� land use zones – permissible and prohibited 

development 

� model provisions (a contemporary version) 

� standardised definitions 

� a standard set of exempt and complying provisions 

� monitoring and review provisions (at least once every 

council term) 

Also includes content that is flexible and tailored for the 

particular LGA such as: 

� it may include development standards such as 

heights, FSR, parking, etc 

� controls/schedule of European and indigenous 

heritage items 

� special provisions/incentives to implement the 

council’s strategic visions 

� performance indicators to measure the success of 

the LEP 

46 

Minister 

(statutory)

PART IV - Development Guidelines 

� design guidelines for buildings 

� environmental management 

� vehicle parking controls 

� advertising controls 

� public consultation/notification provisions 

� locality statements 

PART V - Explanatory Notes and Related 

Information 

Optional content such as: 

� Section 94 plan 

� DA lodgement requirements 

� Detailed links to other council strategic and 

operational plans 

Includes content that is non-mandatory, (formerly DCP 

style provisions) flexible and tailored for the particular 

LGA: 

� it may include development guidelines – height, FSR, 

setbacks, access, subdivision standards, etc 

� environmental controls – erosion, salinity, flora, 

fauna, water, landscaping, demolition, waste, 

bushfire, etc 

� neighbour notification provisions 

Includes content that is flexible and tailored for the 

particular LGA such as: 

� S94 plan – developer fees and charges 

� pre-DA lodgement and assessment services 

� Links to/schedule of other council strategic and 

operational plans – management plan, social plan, 

asset management plan, capital works program, etc 

Council 

(statutory) 

Council 

(non-statutory) 

Page 47

PRINT VERSION 


APPENDIX 4 

National Development Assessment Forum Definitions 

48

National Development Assessment Forum Definitions 

Item Definition 

Building height The vertical distance from natural ground 

level to the roof or parapet at any point 

Basement A storey either below ground level or that 

projects no more than one metre above 

finished ground level 

Building line or setback The minimum distance from any 

allotment boundary to a building 

Dwelling A building or part of a building used as a 

self contained residence which must 

include: food preparation facilities; a bath 

or shower; a closet pan and wash basin. 

It includes out-building and works normal 

to a dwelling 

Gross floor area The total floor area of the building 

measured from the outside of the 

external walls or the centre of a common 

wall 

Ground level (natural) The natural level of a site at any point 

Ground level (existing) The existing level of a site at any point 

Habitable room Any room of a dwelling other than a 

bathroom, laundry, toilet, pantry, walk-in 

wardrobe, corridor, stair, lobby, 

photographic darkroom, clothes drying 

room and other space of a specialised 

nature occupied neither frequently nor for 

extended periods. 

Ground level (finished) The finished level of a site at any point 

Private open space An outdoor area of land or dwelling for 

the exclusive use of the occupants 

Site coverage The proportion of a site covered by 

buildings 

Mezzanine An intermediate floor within a room 

Storey That part of a building between floor 

levels. If there is no floor above, it is the 

part between the floor level and the 

ceiling 

Swimming pool Any structure capable of being filled with 

water to a depth of more than 300 

millimetres and primarily used for 

swimming, wading or paddling 

Page 49

Final Report PlanFirst Review Taskforce - Department of Planning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?