Medieval Planning Reform

Its full steam ahead for Frank and the robber barons.
Undeterred by over 180 individual citizens and 71 community groups who put pen to paper, objecting to their being removed from local planning processes, NSW Labor continues to shaft the public interest. Subverting and/or supplanting local Councils, we are to have at least two extra layers of (Ministerially appointed) planning authorities (PACs & JRPPs) who may be delegated the less juicy pickings from the Minister's greedy table laden as it is with the lucrative and sleazy spread of the NSW development industry. Have only skimmed the 'Explanatory Note' as I have to go to work tomorrow but here's a bit of what's on the menu for Development Assessment:

S.23N includes provisions requiring councils to provide access to records and use of council staff and facilities to assist the PAC, a JRPP or a planning arbitrator in the exercise of their functions. Offences apply to council staff and general managers in relation to failure to provide such assistance.
S.23O requires councils to pay the costs of the PAC, a JRPP, planning arbitrator or an IHAP where those bodies are exercising functions with respect to development under Part 4 which is located in the relevant council’s area

and, re Complying Development (the matters your Private Certifiers will take care of):

Schedule 2.1 [15] currently section 76A(6) of the principal Act provides that development cannot be complying development if the development is critical habitat, part of a wilderness area, land subject of a interim heritage order or an item of environmental heritage. The proposed amendment will remove these legislative restrictions
Schedule 2.1 [21] removes section 85A(2) so that the public notification requirements are provided for in the EP&A Regulation rather than in the council’s DCP.(i.e. not a Council matter - haven't found the EPA Reg as yet)
Schedule 2.1 [22] amends section 85A of the principal Act to allow a council or an accredited certifier to issue a complying development certificate, even if the proposed development does not comply with the relevant standards and conditions
That one really takes the cake - don't you think?

I've not yet seen reference to participation except where it's being reduced or removed...opportunities for Applicant reviews appear to be generously extended whilst we must wait to find out what they may be in the case of Objectors :
Schedule 2.1 [34] (proposed section 96E) It is proposed to amend the principal Regulation to make provision with respect to the persons who are qualified to apply for an objector review.