A new coordination lever in NSW planning reform

In Breif: The NSW Government has established the NSW Development Coordination Authority (DCA) to address post-consent delivery delays arising from fragmented state-agency approvals. The reform signals a further shift towards centralised coordination rather than statutory overhaul.

The policy trigger

The DCA emerges from sustained criticism that the NSW planning system, despite repeated reform, continues to under-deliver housing. While assessment pathways under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) have been streamlined for State Significant Development (SSD) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI), delays increasingly occur after development consent is granted.

These delays are typically associated with infrastructure, servicing and sequencing approvals administered by multiple state agencies, often operating sequentially and without a clear escalation mechanism.

Why the DCA was established

The NSW Government has expressly framed the issue as one of coordination rather than planning permissibility. The policy position is that development consent is no longer the binding constraint on housing supply.

Key drivers include:

• persistent housing undersupply and affordability pressures

• commitments under the National Housing Accord

• industry evidence that approved projects stall due to unresolved agency conditions

• limited accountability for whole-of-government delivery timeframes

The DCA is intended to operate as a coordination overlay rather than a replacement for existing consent authorities or statutory processes.

What the DCA does (and does not do)

The DCA is an administrative mechanism, not a new consent authority or tribunal. It does not issue development consents, modify conditions, or override statutory decision-makers.

Its role is to:

• convene relevant state agencies for priority projects

• resolve conflicts between agency requirements

• escalate unresolved issues to senior decision-makers

• enforce parallel, rather than sequential, assessment timeframes

The focus is on post-consent infrastructure, utilities and servicing approvals that sit outside the direct control of consent authorities.

Industry response

Peak bodies including the Property Council and Urban Development Institute have welcomed the DCA, describing it as a practical response to long-standing delivery failures.

Industry commentary has consistently noted that:

• planning approvals alone do not deliver housing

• agency misalignment is now the primary source of delay

• housing targets lack credibility without delivery mechanisms

The Planning Institute has supported improved coordination but cautioned against undermining local strategic planning and called for transparent criteria governing DCA intervention.

Implications for local government

Local councils remain consent authorities under the EP&A Act and retain responsibility for strategic planning and community engagement. However, according to some criticisms, the DCA further constrains council influence once state infrastructure agencies become the critical path item.

According to these criticisms, councils may experience:

• compressed post-consent negotiation timeframes

• reduced leverage over infrastructure sequencing

• increased state involvement in delivery-critical decisions

This reflects a broader NSW trend towards state-led delivery control while councils continue to manage local impacts.

How NSW compares with other states

Unlike Victoria’s Development Facilitation Program or South Australia’s State Commission Assessment Panel, the NSW DCA does not exercise statutory approval powers. Queensland’s Economic Development Queensland goes further again by acting as both developer and regulator.

The NSW model is narrower but arguably politically safer: it targets coordination failure without reopening the statutory planning framework.

Risks and limitations

Critics argue the DCA addresses symptoms rather than structural causes. It cannot resolve:

• infrastructure funding shortfalls

• construction cost escalation

• labour and skills constraints

• market feasibility issues

There are also concerns about transparency, discretionary project selection, and the risk that non-priority projects experience slower processing.

Practical takeaways

For practitioners:

• Expect increased state involvement in post-consent delivery for priority projects.

• Early infrastructure and servicing strategies will become more critical.

• Councils should prepare for tighter coordination timeframes and reduced negotiation windows.

• Developers should treat DCA engagement as a delivery risk-management tool, not a substitute for robust project planning.

The DCA represents a targeted recalibration of NSW planning governance. Its effectiveness will ultimately be measured not by faster coordination meetings, but by completed dwellings.