WRITTEN BY Alice Menyhart
On 11 September 2026, the Land and Environment Court delivered judgment in Friends of Bucketty Incorporated v Buckettys Brewery Pty Ltd.[1] In this judgment, Pritchard J held that the question of whether a development is “integrated development” within the meaning of s 4.46(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) is a jurisdictional fact. Her Honour also held that, for integrated development, the provisions of Div 4.8 are mandatory. They are not procedures that an applicant may elect to opt out of.[2]
Both points depart from the common approach consent authorities have followed relying on Maule v Liporoni.[3] In Maule, Lloyd J treated the integrated development provisions as “beneficial and facultative”, enacted to overcome delays and duplications where more than one consent or approval is required.[4] In this context, his Honour considered that there was nothing unlawful in an applicant electing not to have an application assessed as integrated development.[5] Bucketty overturns this decision.
The Court found that whether an applicant for development “ticks the box” for integrated development on the application form does not determine whether that application is, in fact, for integrated development.[6] The Court’s conclusion in Bucketty also means that the consent authority, and the Court on any review, can decide for itself, on all of the evidence, whether or not a development is integrated development.[7]
Amendments to Div 4.8 made by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025 (EPA Amendment Act) commenced on 1 July 2026. The amendments established the Development Coordination Authority (DCA), which now perform the integrated development functions previously undertaken by a range of individual approval bodies.[8]
A development applicant can no longer opt out of the integrated development process. Consent authorities should independently consider and decide whether any other approvals listed in s 4.46(1) of the EPA Act are required as a result of a proposed development, regardless of whether or not the applicant has nominated the development as integrated development.
Developers should identify all required approvals at lodgement[9] and provide information that supports that position. If they fail to do so, the consent authority may reject the application[10] or to ask for additional information.
Under the new reforms, in most cases the consent authority will now need to refer integrated development applications to the DCA. The applicant will also be required to pay additional fees in connection with the assessment of a development application that is for integrated development.
If you have any questions or require advice on integrated development, please contact BAL Lawyers at (02) 6274 0999.
This article is current as at 25 Sep 2026. It is intended as general information only and is not legal advice.
[1] Friends of Bucketty Incorporated v Buckettys Brewery Pty Ltd [2026] NSWLEC 118 (Pritchard J, 11 September 2026).
[2] Bucketty [172]; see also [125].
[3] Maule v Liporoni (2002) 122 LGERA 140; [2002] NSWLEC 25.
[4] Ibid, at [83].
[5] Maule v Liporoni (2002) 122 LGERA 140; [2002] NSWLEC 25 at [83]–[87], discussed in Bucketty at [103]–[104].
[6] Bucketty at [125], [182], citing Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1249 at [27(7)].
[7] Bucketty at [131]–[132].
[8] Ibid fn 19. See also NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, ‘Establishing the Development Coordination Authority (DCA)’ (NSW Planning Portal), which states the DCA framework was finalised for commencement on 1 July 2026, including a single 28-day timeframe for DCA and other bodies to provide input on DAs.
[9] Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 cl.25
[10] Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 cl.39