By Virginia Simpson-Young, June 2025, from Bulletin 4/2025 (June)

In last month’s Bulletin article on the proposed state significant development (SSD) at 2-32 Junction Street Forest Lodge (application number SSD-75493483), I expressed puzzlement that the application was submitted under the ‘seniors housing’ category (Section 28 of Schedule 1, State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 (‘the SEPP’) when part 2 of Section 28 states that Section 28 ‘does not apply to development on land within the area of the City of Sydney’. An update to the Change.org petition seemed to provide a partial explanation when it reported they’d been advised City of Sydney was to be the consent authority. However, a subsequent, recent update advised that ‘the previous update is incorrect. A Department Planning Housing & Infrastructure officer advised that City of Sydney will be consent authority under legislation changes. Apparently [this] is not the case. The consent will be managed by the Department.’

A City of Sydney planner that I know socially was similarly confused about the consent authority. Initially, she thought City of Sydney would be the consent authority, but then recalled being advised by senior planning staff that under a ‘savings provision’ in the SEPP, the Planning Minister would be the consent authority for development proposals that had reached a certain point in their SSD journey, not City of Sydney. From what I could understand of the savings provisions section in the SEPP, the Junction Street development had reached the relevant point in its SSD journey, so City of Sydney would not be the consent authority.

This state of affairs has been confirmed by ‘Mark’, who left a comment on the Glebe Society’s website: ‘Due to savings provisions … the consent authority for this application will be the Minister for Planning.’ These savings provisions are found in Part 2.5 of the SEPP.[1]

Mark continues: ‘unless there is an objection from the City of Sydney or 50 community submissions objecting to the proposed development – in either case, the Independent Planning Commission would then become the consent authority (State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021, section 2.7[1]).[2] Mark cautions that ‘petitions, and submissions with the same or substantially the same text, only count as one objection’ (section 2.7[6]).

So, it seems correct to say that, in the present planning context, City of Sydney will not be the consent authority for this development, and it may be that the Planning Minister will not be either. What is exciting is that a desirable change of consent authority is potentially within reach. If sufficient objections are made, the application could be assessed by the Independent Planning Commission. From what I’ve been hearing around the traps, having the Independent Planning Commission assess the application is preferable to it being assessed by the NSW Planning Minister.

The Glebe Society Management Committee will discuss the Junction Street proposal at its meeting next week. We’ll keep you posted.

[1] The savings provisions were added to the legislation by an amendment in December 2024. Mark references this amendment: State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) Amendment (State Significant Development) 2024, Schedule 1 at [2]. Specifically, the amendment adds ‘Part 2.5 Miscellaneous’ to the in-force SEPP (ie State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021) which is where the savings provisions are laid out.

[2] I had trouble finding this section in the SEPP, but I did, and it’s nested as indicated here: Chapter 2 State and Regional Development / Part 2.2 State Significant Development / Section 2.7 Designation of Independent Planning Commission as consent authority for certain State significant development. This section (section 2.7) is nested under Part 2.2 (not to be confused with Part 2.7, which doesn’t exist anyway).