Supplementary Agenda of General Meeting

Question With Notice No. QWN3/26

Date of Meeting: 10/06/2026

ITEM 14

QWN3/26 - Council Signage in Brooklyn

ASKED BY COUNCILLOR Tilbury

TO The General Manager:

What is the status of the installation of Council’s permanent signage, between the Hawkesbury River railway station and Kangaroo Point, associated with the shared pathway and Brooklyn boardwalk, that opened its last stage for public use in July 2025?

Response

Council's permanent signage associated with the Brooklyn Shared Pathway and Boardwalk project is currently in development.

Following a review of available options, Council engaged EyeJack to deliver the interpretive signage design and associated augmented reality (AR) content for the boardwalk. The development of the AR content and associated signage has taken longer than originally anticipated.

The current program is:

· Design and animation development for the interpretive signage is anticipated to be completed by mid-July 2026.

· Preliminary designs for the broader wayfinding and place signage within Brooklyn are anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2026.

· The preliminary designs will be exhibited to the Brooklyn community for consultation for approximately 4–6 weeks.

· Following consideration of community feedback, the designs will be finalised and prepared for fabrication.

· Fabrication and installation of all signage is currently anticipated to be completed by September 2026.

In addition to the Kangaroo Point Boardwalk opening, Council sought to freshen street signage in the following locations:

Location	Suburb	Description	Date completed
Opp 3 Brooklyn Rd	Brooklyn	Supply and Reinstate Traffic Mirror on existing Stem.	14/07/2025
Kangaroo Point and 3 Brooklyn Rd	Brooklyn	Install signs as shown, 2 stems per sign at 3.9 mtrs	8/08/2025
Outside 5,7,9 Bridge St	Brooklyn	Install 2 x “STAIRS SLIPPERY WHEN WET” Signs back of existing Parking Regs Signs	12/08/2025
Opp 1 Brooklyn Rd	Brooklyn	Replace 4 x Stems, 2 x Chevrons, 1600 x 400	8/09/2025
Kangaroo Point and 3 Brooklyn Rd	Brooklyn	Reinstate Stem and Sign as shown, Left Arrow	8/09/2025
Kangaroo Point Entry - Old Pacific HWY	Brooklyn	Supply and Install 2 Signs as shown on the Map	2/10/2025
Dangar Rd at int with Brooklyn Rd	Brooklyn	Replace Flexi Post, Sign is good	27/11/2025
Int Bridge Rd, Brooklyn Rd and Dangar Rd	Brooklyn	Replace Keep Left Sign, 400 mm x 300 mm, Flexi Post	27/11/2025
Int Bridge Rd, Brooklyn Rd and Dangar Rd	Brooklyn	Replace Keep Left Sign and Flexi Post in V Lock	27/11/2025
Brooklyn Rd at int with Bridge Rd	Brooklyn	Replace 2 x Blue Blades, BOAT RAMP, dssp, HEALTH CARE,	13/01/2026
Kangaroo Point Car Park	Brooklyn	Replace missing Buses, Coach Parking Sign, left arrow, grind Bolts	27/11/2025

Council will continue to update the community as the project progresses.

Fiona Leatham

Director, Infrastructure & Major Projects

Infrastructure and Major Projects Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2005/00163

Document Number: D09395029

Director's Report No. PC15/26

Planning and Compliance Division

Date of Meeting: 10/06/2026

17 EXHIBITION OF NSW GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS - DISCUSSION PAPER ON LOW-RISE HOUSING REFORMS AND TARGETED ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· On 14 May 2026, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) placed Low-Rise Housing Reforms Targeted Assessment Discussion Paper on public exhibition.

· The Discussion Paper identifies that low-rise, low-impact development is often subject to disproportionate assessment complexity, delays, and inconsistent decision-making and proposes a targeted assessment pathway for certain types of low impact, low-rise housing in locations where risk is low or can be mitigated through appropriate controls.

· The reforms represent a shift towards a more standardised, rules‑based and performance‑focused planning system, with reduced reliance on local variation and discretionary assessment. However, their effectiveness will depend on balancing efficiency gains with maintaining design quality, local character and community outcomes.

· To ensure success, the framework should balance efficiency with quality outcomes in design, deliverability and decision making, clearly define where flexibility applies and maintain appropriate safeguards for constrained land and sensitive land uses.

· The implications of these proposed changes will depend on what types of development are declared as targeted assessment development, which will not be confirmed until later this year when the Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) is proposed to be exhibited. The EIE will likely specify criteria that development, or a class of development, must meet to be targeted assessment development.

· It is recommended that Council make a submission on the Discussion Paper, raising concerns regarding the impacts of the reforms and how Statewide controls may result in more uniform built form outcomes across different LGAs, with reduced ability to tailor controls to specific neighbourhood character, environmental constraints, or heritage contexts.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the submission attached to Director’s Report No. PC15/26 on the Low-Rise Housing Reforms Targeted Assessment Discussion Paper be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure in response to the exhibition to advocate for amendments prior to the drafting of the Explanation of Intended Effect.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide an overview of the Low-Rise Housing Reforms and Targeted Assessment Discussion Paper placed on public exhibition by the DPHI and seek endorsement of a submission outlining Council’s concerns with the reforms.

BACKGROUND

In November 2025 the Planning Systems Reforms Bill 2025 was passed by Parliament and provided the basis for a suite of changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Some of the key reforms include:

· Establishing a Development Coordination Authority - a single front door for advice on major projects across NSW government agencies.

· Enshrining the Housing Delivery Authority in legislation.

· Removing Regional Planning Panels.

· Expanding Complying Development pathways to introduce variation certificates for Complying Development Certificates.

· Introducing a new Targeted Assessment Pathway.

· Introducing a single, state-wide Community Participation Plan.

On 8 April 2026 the NSW Government released the proposed statewide CPP for public comment. At its meeting on 13 May 2026, Council considered Director’s Report PC12/26 on the Discussion Paper and draft Statewide Community Participation Plan and resolved that:

The submission attached to Director’s Report No. PC12/26 on the draft Statewide Community Participation Plan be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure in response to the exhibition to advocate for amendments prior to finalisation.

In accordance with Council’s resolution, a submission was forwarded.

On 14 May 2026, details of another component of the reforms were released with the NSW Government Discussion Paper on Low-rise housing reforms and targeted assessment. This report discusses the proposed low-rise housing reforms and targeted assessment pathway described in the discussion paper and the implications for Hornsby Shire.

DISCUSSION

The Discussion Paper on Low-rise housing reforms and targeted assessment (copy attached) proposes a future framework (statewide low-rise housing code) that would align assessment pathways for low-rise housing including:

· A targeted assessment pathway designed to bridge the gap between complying development and a full development application,

· Alignment and consolidation of complying development (CDC) standards and variations so that all approval pathways can be found in the one place.

· Clearly defined standards that apply to both the CDC and targeted assessment pathway to create greater consistency.

· Alignment of definitions and permissibility to make the planning system easier to navigate.

The public exhibition of the Discussion Paper concludes on 24 June 2026. The public exhibition documents state that the Discussion Paper is not an EIE and that before development can be eligible for targeted assessment, an EIE must be exhibited. At a recent presentation by Department representatives, it was indicated that feedback on this Discussion Paper will inform a future EIE which is proposed to be exhibited in quarter four later this year.

Summary of reforms

Low‑rise housing is a key part of NSW’s housing mix. The reforms are aimed at accelerating the delivery of low‑rise housing, particularly the “missing middle” typologies such as dual occupancies, terraces, and manor houses across established urban areas and to respond to housing supply constraints driven by a complex and inconsistent planning framework.

The discussion paper notes that the key limitations of the current system are:

· a gap between complying development (CDC) and full DA assessment

· over-assessment of minor variations

· fragmented controls across State and Local planning policies

· inconsistent decision-making

· low-risk proposals are often processed through full merit-based assessment unnecessarily and approvals are delayed and costs increased.

The key policy proposals are discussed below.

1. Targeted Assessment Pathway

A new category of development assessment: the Targeted Assessment Development pathway is proposed and has been designed to sit between CDC and a full merit assessed DA. It is a streamlined DA pathway for low-risk development and applies where strategic planning has already resolved key issues and the development complies with core standards. The target timeframe for determining targeted assessment development (TAD) is 50 days.

The key features of the TAD pathway are reduced assessment scope, greater reliance on pre-defined standards and strategic planning decisions and limited consideration of broader merit matters.

This represents a shift from comprehensive assessment to focused, risk-based assessment.

A set of ‘Guiding Principles’ have been developed to guide the TAD pathway, which aim to provide certainty to the community about the types of development that may or may not be suitable for targeted assessment and are summarised in Table 1 below:

Principle	Further Explanation
Targeted assessment should be used to simplify the planning system, not add additional layers of complexity.	• Where possible, a targeted assessment pathway should not create additional layers of development control but should consolidate or replace existing controls. Development should only be targeted assessment if it is low-medium risk and/or low-medium scale.
Development should only be targeted assessment if it is low-medium risk and/or low-medium scale.	• Larger scale development with high-risk or complex unresolved site constraints is not appropriate for targeted assessment and should be subject to a full merit assessment. • Larger scale development is only appropriate for targeted assessment on less constrained sites. • Low-mid scale development may be appropriate for targeted assessment where some site constraints are present. • Simple development that could utilise exempt or complying development pathways is also not appropriate for targeted assessment.
Impacts should generally be understood and either resolved at the strategic level or addressed in the detailed controls, specific merit considerations and any standard or model conditions that will apply to the development.	The following are not appropriate for targeted assessment development: • rezonings of sites or precincts where important assessment issues have been deferred to the DA stage or where limited public consultation has occurred. • complex development types where the possible range of design responses vary significantly from site to site. • development on certain hazardous or highly constrained sites.
Targeted assessment is best suited to specific development types/uses (e.g. housing, commercial or industrial uses) rather than for specific locations (e.g. a precinct or area) except in limited circumstances.	Targeted assessment for a precinct/area will not be appropriate where: • it only relates to one site or a small area • a wide range of uses are permitted on any given site • the area/precinct has already been rezoned - a declaration of targeted assessment should occur at the same time as any rezoning to ensure the community is aware of the implications early. Targeted assessment for a precinct/area may be appropriate where: • the precinct or area is of a significant scale (e.g. a large master planned area) • the development of the precinct/area is identified as a state priority in a strategic plan

Table 1: Guiding Principles for targeted assessment

For targeted assessment development, certain parts of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would not apply. The consent authority is not to consider the likely significant impacts of the development, the suitability of the site or the public interest. Public submissions can be considered, with the minimum public exhibition period for targeted assessment development to be specified in a SEPP and, if not specified, will be 14 days.

Implications for Hornsby Shire

The introduction of the targeted assessment pathway reflects an appropriate shift toward a risk-based and efficient system which is supported. However, the guidelines should be expanded to emphasise design quality, deliverability, and decision-making clarity to ensure consistent and high-quality outcomes. Consideration should also be given to include monitoring and continuous improvement

The effect of these proposed changes will depend on what types of development are declared as targeted assessment development, which will not be confirmed until later this year when the EIE is proposed to be exhibited. The EIE will likely specify criteria that development, or a class of development, must meet to be targeted assessment development.

Without more detailed information that is provided in an EIE, concerns about the absence of environmental impact assessment and a full merit assessment for such development are difficult to qualify.

Recommendation - Council’s submission should raise the following concerns:

· The reforms should ensure clear differentiation between the planning pathways and align objectives across both.

· Council does not support the inability of the consent authority to take into account the likely significant impacts of the development, the suitability of the site or the public interest as part of the assessment of development within the targeted assessment pathway.

· The Guiding Principles should be expanded to emphasise design quality, deliverability, and decision-making clarity to ensure consistent and high-quality outcomes.

· Consideration should be given to include monitoring and continuous improvement to ensure the proposed targeted assessment pathway achieves its aims before further typologies are added.

2. Single Statewide Low-Rise Housing Code

The reforms propose developing a consolidated code that combines standards from the Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), the Housing SEPP; and LEPs and DCPs. The Low-Rise Housing Code would apply to both complying development and targeted assessment.

The policy seeks to align definitions and permissibility across planning instruments and consolidate controls into a single, accessible framework, whilst reducing interpretive inconsistency and reliance on complex variation mechanisms.

It is proposed to achieve this through the following key elements:

· standardised development controls (e.g. setbacks, height, FSR)

· typology-specific standards

· objectives-based criteria to assess variations

Implications for Hornsby Shire

The introduction of a single statewide low-rise housing code is likely to override or limit local development controls for low‑rise housing typologies and may reduce Council’s discretion in setting detailed planning standards or responding to local context.

The policy seeks to align definitions and permissibility across planning instruments and consolidate controls into a single, accessible framework which is a positive outcome. However, the reforms also represent a shift from comprehensive assessment to focused, risk-based assessment, resulting in tension between state housing targets and local planning priorities.

The reforms could result in oversimplification of complex issues and reduced scrutiny where site constraints exist. This is a concern for Council noting that Hornsby Shire has site constraints including bushfire, flood, steep topography and infrastructure capacity.

Constrained Land

Land affected by mapped hazards (coastal hazard, flooding, bushfire) is often ineligible for CDC. As a result, the discussion papers indicates that targeted assessment could apply to low-rise housing within areas potentially affected by natural hazards, where risks can be appropriately managed through development and construction standards.

The discussion paper notes that heritage affected land cannot access the CDC pathway and is not suited to a standardised code. However, rollout of the code may allow councils to consider whether existing assessment requirements reasonably facilitate appropriate development and whether a more consistent approach is possible across LGAs.

Recommendation - Council’s submission should raise the following concerns:

· The code should focus on standardised, repeatable controls, while leaving complex, site-specific and locally responsive matters to existing planning instruments.

· Hazard-affected land should only be eligible for targeted assessment where risks are clearly manageable. A risk-based approach is recommended, which excludes high-risk areas (e.g. flood ways, extreme bushfire exposure)

· Clearer guidance on cumulative impacts and evacuation capacity is required should hazard affected land be incorporated into the targeted assessment pathway.

· Council does not support the inclusion of heritage items and heritage conservation areas (HCAs) as part of the reforms. This development should retain full merit assessment due to site-specific complexity and the inability of the code to appropriately include character-based controls and design criteria for HCAs on a statewide basis.

Non-standard residential zones and typologies

Conservation zones are intended to protect land with high environmental, scientific, or aesthetic value. Two of these zones, C3 Environmental Management and C4 Environmental Living, permit dwelling houses under the Standard Instrument. These zones are applied to a wide range of different land use conditions across rural and metropolitan areas and occur in parts of Hornsby Shire.

The reforms are proposing to exclude conservation zones at this Stage which is supported. However, the Discussion Paper considers whether there could be a targeted assessment pathway for permissible low-rise housing in conservation zoned land that has a predominantly residential character and is not subject to significant site constraints.

The reforms are also proposing to exclude certain specialised low‑rise housing types such as group homes, boarding houses and rural workers’ dwellings at this stage which is supported. However, the Discussion Paper considers whether they should be included as part of consolidation and simplification.

The discussion paper notes that some forms of low-rise housing (dual occupancies that are located one behind another on non-corner allotments and villa type development that is accessed via a private road) currently do not have access to a CDC pathway and must proceed through a DA but would benefit from a Targeted Assessment pathway.

Recommendation - Council’s submission should raise the following concerns:

· Conservation zones should remain excluded from the reforms.

· Certain specialised low‑rise housing types such as group homes, boarding houses and rural workers’ dwellings should be excluded from the code.

Implementation of the Code

The code is proposed to be introduced in stages to ensure that overlapping or duplicative provisions are repealed:

· Stage 1 is likely to focus on residentially zoned land with minimal constraints and a subset of low-rise housing including dual occupancies, manor houses and multi dwelling housing.

· Future stages would progressively expand the low-rise housing code to cover other forms of low-rise housing, including dwelling houses, secondary dwellings and alterations and additions, and more complex locations.

The scope and details of the proposed first stage will be the subject of a detailed EIE following consideration of feedback received on the Discussion Paper. As such, concerns not currently identified may be raised when more detailed information is placed on exhibition later this year.

Increased development activity in established areas would result in increased pressure on local infrastructure, open space, and services and a greater need for proactive infrastructure planning and contributions frameworks. Without appropriate planning, this would likely have significant impacts on the provision of community facilities, parks, traffic infrastructure and other Council delivered infrastructure.

Recommendation - Council’s submission should raise the following concerns:

· Stage 1 should focus on high-volume, low-complexity housing types eg; detached dwellings, dual occupancies and simple terraces in low-risk areas established residential zones and locations with adequate infrastructure and in the absence of constraints.

· To strengthen the proposed framework, consideration of the following points is recommended:

o Introduce a clear pathway selection tool

o Improve statewide consistency and guidance

o Explore digital assessment tools and automation

o Clarify the role of merit-based DA assessment

o Embed ongoing monitoring and performance evaluation

· Increased development activity in established areas would result in increased pressure on local infrastructure, open space, and services and a greater need for proactive infrastructure planning and contributions frameworks. Without appropriate planning, this would likely have significant impacts on the provision of community facilities, parks, traffic infrastructure and other Council delivered infrastructure.

· The State Housing Contribution Fund should be available to be spent in the local government area in which it is collected to assist address the demands associated with anticipated housing growth.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications associated with this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONCLUSION

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure has placed the Low-Rise Housing Reforms Targeted Assessment Discussion Paper on public exhibition, with comments due by 24 June 2026. The Discussion Paper outlines proposed reforms that feature a new ‘middle tier’ assessment pathway that bridges the gap between fast-tracked CDC and a traditional full merit-based DA and would override council’s local planning controls.

Council has identified several issues related to the proposed reforms, with recommendations to address those issues. It is recommended that Council make a submission outlining the issues and recommendations and encourage the NSW Government to balance efficiency with quality outcomes and maintain appropriate safeguards for sensitive land and uses and better long-term outcomes for communities.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Development Assessments - Rod Pickles who can be contacted on 9847 6731.

Katherine Vickery

Director - Planning and Compliance

Planning and Compliance Division

Attachments:

1.	Low-Rise Housing Reforms and Targeted Assessment Discussion Paper
2.	Submission - Targeted Assessment

File Reference: F2004/07218-006

Document Number: D09380309

Director's Report No. PC14/26

Planning and Compliance Division

Date of Meeting: 10/06/2026

18 EXHIBITION OF NSW GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS - EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECT: VARIATIONS AND CHANGES TO COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· On 14 May 2026, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure placed Explanation of Intended Effect: Variations and changes to complying development (EIE) on public exhibition.

· The EIE outlines planned housing reforms designed to streamline approvals for low-risk, low-impact development by introducing greater flexibility in the complying development framework.

· The EIE proposes a new application process for variation certificates for complying development. Under the proposal, applicants could request minor variations to complying development standards and avoid the need to lodge a Development Application.

· This report presents an overview of the EIE and outlines the key issues and implications for Hornsby Shire.

· Proposed variation certificates would add another layer of complexity to the approval process. For adjoining neighbours, applications that include up to four minor variations to complying development standards could potentially lead to greater amenity impacts because of reduced side and rear boundary setbacks and increased floor area of development.

· Of significant concern are the proposed changes to setbacks from trees. The proposed variation for setbacks of buildings to trees is likely to lead to damage, instability and ultimately loss of trees.

· Reviewing and approving variation certificates would adversely impact on Council resources. The requirement for officers to determine variation certificate in 10 calendar days is unreasonable and would require planners to be allocated solely to this process including undertaking a site inspection, consulting other teams and issuing the variation certificate. Further, the proposed fees and charges are not sufficient to cover Council’s cost and time by professional staff to undertake a site inspection and review each variation.

· It is recommended that Council make a submission to the Department regarding the EIE outlining the above concerns and requesting amendments to the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the submission attached to Director’s Report No. PC14/26 on the exhibition of the Explanation of Intended Effect: Variations and Changes to Complying Development be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure in response to the exhibition to advocate for amendments prior to finalisation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide an overview of the EIE: Variations and changes to complying development placed on public exhibition by DPHI and seek endorsement of a submission outlining Council’s concerns with the reforms.

BACKGROUND

In November 2025 the Planning Systems Reforms Bill 2025 was passed by Parliament and provided the basis for a suite of changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Some of the key reforms include:

· Establishing a Development Coordination Authority - a single front door for advice on major projects across NSW government agencies.

· Enshrining the Housing Delivery Authority in legislation.

· Removing Regional Planning Panels.

· Expanding Complying Development pathways to introduce variation certificates for Complying Development Certificates.

· Introducing a new Targeted Assessment Pathway.

· Introducing a single, state-wide Community Participation Plan.

In accordance with Council’s resolution, a submission was forwarded.

On 14 May 2026, details of another component of the reforms were released with the NSW Government EIE: Variations and changes to complying development. This report discusses the EIE and implications for Hornsby Shire.

DISCUSSION

Under current planning legislation, “Complying Development” is permitted through State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that apply across NSW. The Codes SEPP is the main SEPP that enables complying development.

Complying development offers a fast-track approval process, generally taking 10 to 20 days for straightforward residential, commercial and industrial development.

There are several general requirements that must be met for development to be eligible as complying development. These include that complying development may only be carried out on land with minimal environmental constraints, and that the proposed development must comply with all applicable development standards set out in the relevant SEPP.

Under the current complying development process, if a proposed development doesn’t meet these standards, no matter how minor the departure is, the entire development must be assessed through the development application process.

On 14 May 2026, the NSW Government placed the EIE: Variations and changes to complying development (copy attached) on public exhibition. The EIE outlines reforms that aim to make it easier for more development to use the complying development pathway, even if it does not strictly comply with the development standards.

The public exhibition of the EIE concludes on 24 June 2026. The public exhibition website suggests the reforms will take effect in the 2026 calendar year. At a recent presentation by Department representatives, it was indicated the changes are likely to come into effect in the third quarter of the year and at this stage, no further exhibition of the draft legislation is scheduled.

1. Summary of Reforms – Variation Certificates for CDCs

The EIE provides the following context for the reforms:

· create greater flexibility within the complying development framework without compromising on good planning outcomes,

· speed up the assessment of low-risk, low-impact development,

· give applicants’ greater certainty of assessment timelines,

· retain council oversight in assessing variations from existing development standards,

· allow councils to re-focus their resources on more complex matters with bigger impacts.

The EIE proposes the introduction of a new application process for ‘variation certificates’ which must be assessed and determined by councils within 10 calendar days for applicants to request minor variations to complying development standards, such as setbacks and amenity standards.

It is proposed that an application for a variation certificate may be made both:

· when an applicant lodges a CDC application, and

· after a CDC application is lodged, if a certifier or council assessing the CDC identifies a variable standard that is not complied with.

Council would be required to provide a determination on the variations within a set timeframe, or it will be deemed approved. Council will have 10 calendar days to assess the variation when the CDC is referred from a private certifier or 20 calendar days when council is assessing both the variations and the CDC. These timeframes would not apply to the two-week period around Christmas.

Where variations are supported, council would issue a variation certificate and the certifier or council can continue assessing the proposed development against the remaining complying development standards.

If the variations are refused, an applicant would either need to amend their plans to meet all complying development standards to continue to be assessed as a CDC or alternatively submit a development application to council.

The first stage of the reforms focus on low-rise housing to assist with the delivery of more housing. The EIE proposes variations would apply to the following parts of the Codes SEPP which are relevant to Hornsby Shire:

· Part 3 Housing Code

· Part 3A Rural Housing Code

· Part 3B Low Rise Housing Diversity Code

A summary of the types of complying developments standards that may be varied is outlined below.

· Swimming pool standards

· Tree protection

Complying development standards proposed for variation

Setbacks

· Front setbacks

· Side setbacks

· Rear setbacks

· Primary rod articulation zones

Amenity standards

· Maximum building height

· Maximum Gross Floor Area

· Privacy screens

Site requirements

· Dual occupancies widths and requirements

· Habitable windows on ground floor on narrow lots

Vehicle access and arrangements

· Maximum width of garage doors

· Access requirements for dual occupancies on narrow lots

Other

It is proposed that up to 3 or 4 of the above complying development standards may be varied for any single development.

The variation certificate must be supported by a justification document prepared on behalf of the applicant which outlines the complying development standards in the relevant SEPP being varied and provide reasons and justification why a variation to the complying development standard is appropriate. The justification document may be prepared by the applicant or their building designer, architect or planner.

The NSW Government is considering two possible fee structures for applications for variation certificate to be paid to councils. This will be either a set fee of $456 per variation certificate or a variable fee based on the number of variations to complying development standards being considered by council. This could be scaled as follows:

· one variation = 3 fee units ($342)

· two variations = 4 fee units ($456)

· three or four variations = 5 fee units ($569)

This fee would be in addition to any other fees payable to the registered certifier or council for assessment of the CDC and would be subject to annual indexation in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.

Council would be able to refuse a variation certificate where:

· The complying development standards proposed for variation are standards which can’t be varied in the SEPP.

· The variations sought are not consistent with the way or extent the SEPP prescribes how the standard may be varied.

· The development is located on land on which complying development is not permitted.

· No justification or insufficient information has been provided to support the variation.

· The application has not been made in accordance with the SEPP or regulation.

If council does not provide a decision on the variation within the required timeframe, the variation certificate will be deemed approved, and the CDC can continue to be assessed in the complying development pathway.

2. Summary of Reforms – Other changes to the Codes SEPP

Other changes to the Codes SEPP are also proposed including:

· Enabling remedial works under the Housing Alterations Code to allow genuine, like -for-like remediation of apartments and multi -dwelling housing.

· Enabling demolition on bushfire prone land classified as BAL‑40 and BAL‑FZ, provided demolition does not occur on days when a Total Fire Ban is declared.

· Allowing minor internal alterations on flood control lots provided the works:

o do not increase habitable floor area,

o do not add or modify parking arrangements,

o do not alter access arrangements, and

o do not change the floor level or existing footprint of the building.

2. Implications for Hornsby Shire Council

The proposed changes would lead to an increased use of the Codes SEPP for number of small-scale developments that can progress through the complying development pathway rather than having to submit a Development Application with Council. This would lead to time and cost savings for applicants. However, variation certificates would add another layer of complexity to the approval process

Concern is raised with the proposal to allow more than one variation for a single proposal, as it could be considered that the proposal is too far from achieving complying development standards and a DA should be lodged. The cumulative impact of up to 3 or 4 variations for one proposal would lead to amenity impacts for neighbouring properties. Council’s assessment would be limited only to variations sought and not the whole CDC application.

Applications that include minor variations to complying development standards could potentially lead to greater amenity impacts to neighbouring properties because of reduced side and rear boundary setbacks and increased floor area (GFA) of development.

Under the proposal, new additions would be permitted to align with the existing detached structure’s setback, provided the proposal meets the design and amenity tests for the relevant code. This could result in second floor additions built to a 900mm side boundary setback, where the existing structure is built close to the boundary. Impacts to neighbours could include additional overshadowing impacts, visual bulk and scale impacts, further loss of privacy and restrict the ability to provide screen landscaping between the development and neighbours.

The proposal to permit a variation of up to 10% to the maximum GFA for all development types would further exacerbate the bulk and scale of dwellings and lead to further amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

The proposed height variations would not be applicable within Hornsby Shire as Council’s height control for the Low Density R2 residential zone is 8.5m under the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan. The EIE is proposing to allow minor height variations from 8.5m to 9m for dwellings, dual occupancies, manor homes, and 9m to 9.5m for multi-dwelling housing (terraces) where this is consistent with a council’s LEP height controls. Any variation would be inconsistent with Hornsby Local Environmental Plan and therefore could not be permitted as a Complying Development Variation. In this situation, a Development Application including a Clause 4.6 Variation would still be required.

Of significant concern for Hornsby Shire are the proposed changes to setbacks from trees. Currently, complying development must be setback at least 3m from each protected tree on the lot and an adjoining lot. A variation to the 3m setback from a tree on the lot or a neighbouring lot is proposed, if the proposal is supported by an Arborist Report prepared by an AQF Level 5 arborist. The Arborist Report would determine an appropriate setback from the tree trunk in accordance with AS4970:2025, where the Notional Root Zone and the Structural Root Zone are identified. This provision would not apply to heritage items and Heritage Conservation areas, as complying development is not permitted under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

The current 3m setback is already inconsistent with Council’s DCP which requires tree protection zones of 4 metres for a tree with a diameter at breast height of 400mm or less. The recommended variation of setback of buildings to trees is likely to lead to damage, instability and ultimately loss of trees.

These trees would not be afforded any protection in the future once the dwelling is built as section 1.2.6.1 - Tree Preservation of the Hornsby DCP exempts tree removal or pruning of a tree where the base of the trunk of the tree at ground level is located within 3 metres of the foundation of an approved building (excluding detached garages, carports and other buildings ancillary to a dwelling house).

The review and issuing of variation certificates would adversely impact on Council staff resources and add another layer to the approval process for small scale developments. This would require Council’s town planning staff to determine the variation certificate in 10 days, where the CDC is submitted by a Private Certifier or 20 days where both the variation certificate and CDC are submitted to Council. The requirement to determine variations for private CDCs in 10 calendar days is unreasonable and will require town planning staff to be allocated solely to this process which will include undertaking a site inspection, consulting with other teams and issuing the variation certificate.

In addition, the proposed fees and charges are not sufficient to cover Council’s cost and time by professional staff to undertake a site inspection and review each variation. The fees need to account for other experts required to consider the proposed variations. As an example, the CDC variation proposes to amend development to be allowed in tree zones, which would require Council arborist in addition to planners’ consideration of the variation.

In summary, while the objectives of the explanation of intended effect for a minor variation to a complying development standard may be appropriate, it should not extend to up to 3 or 4 variations for a single proposal and should not permit variations to side setbacks, floor area or tree protection.

If there is a view that the complying development standards should be changed, it would be simpler for the Department to amend the Codes SEPP for transparency and certainty rather than create an additional process of approval through ‘variation certificates’ which has unreasonable resource and cost implications for Council.

CONSULTATION

The EIE was placed on public exhibition on 14 May 2026 via the NSW Planning Portal. Submissions close at 5pm on 24 June 2026.

During the exhibition period, DPHI staff hosted an online briefing to present the details of the EIE.

BUDGET

As discussed above, reviewing and approving variation certificates would adversely impact on Council resources and the proposed fees and charges are not considered sufficient to cover Council’s cost and time by professional staff to undertake a site inspection and review each variation.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONCLUSION

This report provides an overview of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Explanation of intended effect: Variations and changes to complying development which is on public exhibition until 24 June 2026. The EIE outlines proposed reforms that would allow for Council to be able to approve minor variations to complying development standards, such as setbacks and amenity standards and avoid the need for applicants to lodge a Development Application.

The proposed amendments to the Codes SEPP are intended to increase the number of small-scale developments, that can progress through the complying development pathway

Council has identified several issues related to the proposed reforms, including variation of building setbacks, floor area, setbacks to trees, and insufficient timeframes and fees for variation certificates.

It is recommended that Council endorse the submission attached to Director’s Report No. PC14/26 for forwarding to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for consideration.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Development Assessments - Rod Pickles who can be contacted on 9847 6731.

Katherine Vickery

Director - Planning and Compliance

Planning and Compliance Division

Attachments:

1.	Variations and changes to complying development - Explanation of Intended Effect
2.	Submission - Variations and Changes to Complying Development

File Reference: F2004/07218-006

Document Number: D09379711