15th October, 2025.
As the member for Wollondilly, I represent a community where green hills meet the edges of Sydney's growth—a place where families thrive amid bushland and farmland, but with the ever-present reality of bushfire risk. Wollondilly and Wingecarribee councils both know the delicate balance between building homes and protecting what makes our regions special. Today, I speak on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025, acknowledging its intent to address housing needs but urging caution about its risks, particularly the shift of power away from expert agencies like the Rural Fire Service and the challenges it poses to our local councils' ability to guide sustainable growth.
The bill aims to streamline planning with tools like the Housing Delivery Authority, a single community participation plan and expanded complying development certificates. It promises faster approvals, which would benefit areas like Wilton in my electorate, where sprawling housing estates have already transformed paddocks into neighbourhoods. Wilton's rapid growth, with thousands of houses approved in the past decade, show what is possible but also what is at stake—roads strained by traffic, schools stretched thin and bushfire risks demanding rigorous oversight. The bill's new Development Coordination Authority and targeted assessment development pathway, while designed for efficiency, raise concerns about sidelining the expertise we rely on, especially from the RFS, and could strain our councils' ability to manage development thoughtfully.
Let me start with the RFS, an agency woven into the fabric of the Wollondilly electorate. With over 80 per cent of our shire bushfire prone, its expertise is non-negotiable. From Black Summer's scars in Buxton to the fire trails safeguarding Tahmoor, the RFS ensures developments meet strict standards like those in the Planning for Bush Fire Protection guidelines. Yet, the DCA centralises agency referrals under the Planning secretary, issuing general terms of approval for bodies like Sydney Water, Dams Safety NSW, and the RFS. That risks diluting the specialised input of the Rural Fire Service, potentially allowing homes on high-risk land without adequate fireproofing. The bill's removal of sections 4.14 and 10.3, which mandate bushfire consultation and compliance, further weakens those protections. In a shire where fire is a lived reality, not a hypothetical, we need the voice of the RFS to be undiminished.
The bill also reshapes how councils like Wollondilly and Wingecarribee operate. As an Independent member, I have the ability to consult with my community about what it thinks. I sincerely thank both councils for their thoughtful contributions, which have shaped this speech, and our community's response. Wollondilly Shire Council, led by Mayor Matt Gould, provided a detailed submission to me that welcomes the bill's streamlining potential and flags its challenges. It sees value in the Development Coordination Authority [DCA] for faster approvals in growth areas, like Wilton, where integrated referrals could cut red tape for the 15,000 homes planned. It also supports standard conditions to reduce appeal risks and a single community participation plan for consistency. But it is clear-eyed about the risks: tighter 14-day modification time frames could strain staff resources; deemed approvals risk hasty decisions; and infrastructure, like roads and schools, may lag behind Wilton's sprawl. Its call to broaden the DCA to planning proposals shows forward-thinking pragmatism, ensuring our unique semirural character is not lost to globalised rules. It seeks to put what is important—that is, essential infrastructure like sewer services—before homes.
I also thank Wingecarribee Shire Council under Mayor Jesse Fitzpatrick's leadership for its views on the bill. Wingecarribee's submission digs into the bill's fine print, raising critical questions about process and accountability. It queries section 4.55 modifications. Who decides what is minor or what has no environmental impact—the applicant or the consent authority? The council is rightly concerned that 14-day caps could see approvals slip through without scrutiny. It also seeks clarity on regional panels: Are they staying or going? I am pretty sure that they are going. It worries about councils being left to handle complex State significant developments alone. Mayor Fitzpatrick's focus on timelines, like the seven-day response window for draft consents under section 4.17, highlights a practical concern: These reforms could add bureaucratic steps, not remove them. Together, both councils remind us that planning is not just about policy; it is the lived experience of our communities, from Wilton's new estates to Bowral's heritage streets.
The broader shifts in the bill also give pause. The bill reorients the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act towards promoting development over community and environmental wellbeing. It changes the test in section 4.15 from "likely" to "significant" impacts—undefined and open to interpretation. The targeted assessment development [TAD] pathway, where the Minister can designate projects at their discretion, prohibits considering environmental, social or climate impacts, conflicting with the net zero Act and the New South Wales Court of Appeal climate ruling. Clause 65A bans assessing cumulative impacts, ignoring how Wilton's sprawl strains roads and ecosystems when viewed holistically. With no community consultation and a rushed parliamentary timeline, the bill risks sidelining the very people it affects.
I am grateful for the amendments proposed by my colleagues, particularly the member for Wakehurst and the member for Sydney. Their suggestions, perhaps limiting TAD and the DCA to residential projects, restoring environmental protections in the Act's objects and removing the vague "significant" threshold in section 4.15, offer a path to balance. But we need more. I urge the House to listen to the crossbench concerns and accept the amendments. If the amendments are not heard and voted on, perhaps there is time to send the bill to a multi-party committee for scrutiny, and delay the vote until a later point.
I have to take a balance. Hopefully, some amendments will allow me to support the bill. Wollondilly and Wingecarribee are not anti-growth. We have embraced housing, from Wilton's estates to Mittagong's expansion. But growth must respect our land's limits. We have a chance to streamline the planning process—but not weaken the agency roles—and build a planning system that delivers homes without sacrificing safety or sustainability. The biggest thing I was told is to plan for tomorrow and not just for today. I thank the Minister for looking at reform of a very outdated system.