The Bugle App
The Bugle App
Your local news hub
FeaturesLatest issueSportsSigna Fundraising24 Hour Defibrillator sitesSocial MediaKCR
The Bugle App

Can Kiama lead the change in planning reform

The Bugle App

Lynne Strong

29 November 2024, 12:00 AM

Can Kiama lead the change in planning reformPhoto source: Kiama Municipal Council

Michael Koziol, departing Sydney Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, recently delivered a blistering critique of the NSW planning system:

"The more I’ve learnt about the planning system, the more I am convinced the entire apparatus should be dismantled. It is essentially a cottage industry for academics and bureaucrats whose raison d’être is to restrict, not enable,,, "


It’s a damning assessment—and one that resonates deeply in Kiama.



Leslie A. Stein, an Adjunct Professor of Planning Law at the University of Sydney, offers further validation for this critique. In his extensive research across 80 countries, detailed in Comparative Urban Land Use Planning: Best Practice, Stein described NSW’s planning system as one of the worst globally. He noted that traditional planning tools—such as zoning maps and development controls—fail to address core urban challenges and instead impose restrictions that stifle solutions. His findings align with the Housing Industry Association’s Planning Blueprint Scorecard, which gave NSW’s planning system a mere 1.5 out of 5, citing delays and inefficiencies that impede housing development.


The message is clear: NSW’s planning system is not just flawed—it is fundamentally broken.


But the solution isn’t reform. It’s change—to both regulations and regulatory culture.


The Miller Review of Kiama Municipal Council's Draft Growth and Strategy Housing Strategy and broader recommendations from planning experts make it clear: the current system cannot be tweaked into functionality. Incremental improvements will only perpetuate a system that stifles growth, delays housing, and prioritises bureaucracy over outcomes. What’s needed is a wholesale shift—a streamlined, simplified system that enables development while maintaining the checks and balances communities expect.



In its critique of Kiama’s draft Growth and Housing Strategy, the Miller Review pointed to systemic failings emblematic of broader issues in NSW’s planning apparatus. After nearly a decade, Kiama’s Growth and Housing Strategy is still incomplete, housing targets remain unmet, and key actions lack timelines or accountability measures. The process has been bogged down by delays, over-regulation, and a culture of policy-making designed to avoid criticism—stifling innovation and adaptability.


These issues are not unique to Kiama. Across NSW, planning has become a bottleneck, discouraging small and medium developers, frustrating communities, and failing to deliver housing in the quantities needed to address the state’s growing crisis.



To move forward, Kiama Council—and councils across NSW—must adopt bold measures. The first step is to abandon piecemeal fixes and focus on building a new system from the ground up. This includes clear timeframes for all stages of the planning process, including rezoning and DA approvals, with automatic approvals if deadlines are not met. It requires empowering decision-makers to enable growth rather than restrict it, and removing unnecessary layers of review that serve little purpose beyond delaying outcomes.


Kiama’s experience highlights the urgent need for structural change. Eight years to produce a draft strategy that still fails to meet housing targets is unacceptable. Councillors must lead the charge by asserting their authority, challenging bureaucratic inertia, and committing to building a planning process that prioritises outcomes over endless procedures.


This isn’t about abandoning oversight or community input. It’s about simplifying processes, holding decision-makers accountable, and ensuring that the system delivers what it promises: housing, infrastructure, and development that benefits everyone.



Koziol’s critique and Stein’s findings resonate because they reflect the frustrations of communities across the state. But Kiama has a chance to demonstrate what change looks like. By adopting a new approach—one that replaces dysfunction with efficiency, restriction with enablement, and delay with action—it can become a leader in rethinking what local planning can achieve.


The time for reform has passed. It’s time for change.