By Neil Reilly - Unpacking bureaucracy, regulation, political will and community psychology. An essay and some suggestions.

The term Invisible Architecture is often used in literary and poetic discussion to describe the underlying, unseen frameworks that give a work its form and meaning.

In my retirement, I’ve taken up some writing and literature courses, where I first encountered the phrase. I found it a powerful and versatile metaphor, apt not just for novels and poetry, but also for the planning system in NSW.

Our system is shaped by layers of rules, assumptions, and relationships that influence every decision, yet are rarely visible to the public.

This invisible architecture determines how, where, and why our communities grow, or don’t.

What’s more, I’ve come to believe that the complexity of the NSW planning system is not accidental. It is, in many respects, by design. It isn’t just bureaucratic inefficiency; it is a structure that privileges certain players while locking out others.

Land use planning shapes every street, suburb, skyline, park, and paddock. Yet, for most citizens, its workings are obscure, buried beneath acronyms, shifting strategies, and often unintelligible documents. While some see this complexity as necessary, I see an architecture that is long overdue for redesign.

Who benefits from the complexity?

In NSW, planning complexity often functions more as a feature than a flaw. It benefits some while burdening the rest.

Professional intermediaries, planning consultants, lawyers, and lobbyists are among the biggest winners. Their livelihoods depend on navigating ambiguity. When legislation is open to interpretation, their services become indispensable.

Simplification would threaten their market.

Large developers also benefit. With the financial resilience to absorb delays and the legal firepower to push through disputes, they are well positioned to exploit loopholes or negotiate Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs). Smaller operators are often drowned in paperwork or priced out of participation.

The state government plays referee and participant. Ambiguity allows it to override local planning frameworks under the guise of housing supply or state significance. This flexibility means state intervention can be politically convenient but procedurally opaque.

Councillors and political actors who understand the system’s grey zones can wield quiet but significant influence. Amendments, referrals, and procedural delays become tools of strategy rather than governance.

Certain residents’ groups, often well organised and resourced, also use complexity to their advantage, objecting through appeals, exploiting obscure planning clauses, or delaying projects indefinitely. Heritage, character and overshadowing concerns, while sometimes valid, can be used tactically rather than constructively.

Access to influence in planning often depends less on merit than on one’s capacity to engage the system.

Are there better models?

To reimagine planning, we must look outward. Globally, planning systems fall into three broad categories: mixed, decentralised-flexible, and centralised-directive models. Each offers lessons, some cautionary, others inspiring.

Mixed models: Comparable but cumbersome

Victoria & Queensland: These states are structurally similar to NSW. Victoria’s “Planning Schemes” and Queensland’s Planning Act mirror our layered approach. While intended to offer clarity, both systems are equally prone to delay and interpretation. For instance, Melbourne’s inner-north has seen compliant developments dragged through months of VCAT proceedings, often over design minutiae.

United Kingdom: The UK combines local development plans with national policy oversight. Ministers can “call in” major developments, overriding local objections. In 2021, a new coal mine in Cumbria was approved this way, despite strong opposition and environmental concerns. However, the North West Cambridge Development shows the system’s potential: a well-planned innovation precinct delivered quickly thanks to consistent policy alignment and community engagement.

Canada (Ontario, British Columbia): Canada balances municipal autonomy with provincial oversight. Toronto’s “Eglinton Connects” project rezoned entire corridors around new transit lines to allow mid-rise development, executed through clear planning rules and community involvement. In Vancouver, projects like Olympic Village demonstrate how performance zoning and design review can create sustainable, high-density communities.

The lesson is mixed systems like ours can deliver good outcomes, but only when roles are clearly defined, policies are stable, and community trust is maintained.

Decentralised and flexible systems: Fast but uneven

United States: Planning is highly local. In Houston, there is no formal zoning, just development codes and deed restrictions. This has allowed rapid, low-cost development, but also inconsistency and urban sprawl. By contrast, Portland, Oregon uses tight growth boundaries and a “20-minute neighbourhood” model to deliver compact, walkable communities, driven by strong civic values and participatory planning,.

Japan: They use uses only 12 zoning types nationally, permitting mixed-use by default. Development approvals are quick - often taking weeks, not months. Despite being the world’s largest city, Tokyo remains surprisingly affordable and liveable. This is a result of low barriers to development, minimal local veto power, and emphasis on small-lot flexibility. The result is vibrant, evolving streetscapes with housing supply that keeps up with demand.

The lesson is flexibility and speed are possible, but only if rules are simple, political interference is limited, and development rights are respected.

Centralised and directive systems: Clear but authoritarian

Singapore: Planning is governed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), which controls land use down to the block. The Marina Bay precinct, built from reclaimed land, is a masterclass in state-led planning: integrated transport, high design quality, and flawless delivery. Yet public consultation is minimal, and dissent is rare.

China: Planning is rapid, hierarchical, and economic-growth-driven. Shenzhen transformed from a fishing village to a tech powerhouse in a generation. But speed has come at the cost of transparency. Projects like Ordos, a city built with no residents, highlight what can go wrong when planning is disconnected from community need.

The lesson is centralisation ensures coherence, but at the cost of democracy, adaptability, and human-scale nuance.

The psychological layer: Community expectations and political will

Planning is not just procedural; it’s emotional and political. Communities expect fairness, clarity, and a chance to be heard. When they instead encounter jargon, delays, or abrupt overrides, frustration sets in. Trust is slowly eroded.

Councillors are caught in a three-way tug-of-war: constituent expectations, legal constraints and political alliances. Planning becomes performative, motions deferred, reports commissioned, decisions postponed, not to resolve issues, but to delay accountability.

Meanwhile, constant reform, often sold as progress, breeds fatigue. Those with resources adapt; others fall behind. Reform churn makes long-term thinking impossible.

Highly visible corrections to the invisible architecture

Over years of observing, debating, and working within the system, I’ve kept notes on changes that might help. 

Reduce discretion: Shift from subjective assessments (“no unreasonable impact”) to clear, objective criteria.

Commit to stability: Establish a 10-year legislative horizon with scheduled reviews, avoid reactive, piecemeal reforms.

Improve access: Fund plain-language guides, digital planning assistants, and training for community members and councillors.

Clarify roles: Define decision-making boundaries across councils, panels, departments, and courts. Too many think they’re the "planning Lion King."

Borrow from others: Streamline zoning like Japan. Embrace local autonomy like Canada. Seek clarity like Singapore, but keep our democracy.

Pathways to reform

The people of NSW deserve a planning system that is transparent, efficient, and fair, one that delivers housing without endless delay, empowers local voices without silencing innovation, and eliminates the backroom trade-offs that undermine trust.

To achieve this, we need a bold reform agenda:

• Merge LEPs and DCPs into a unified zoning code.
• Establish an independent Planning Commission to depoliticise decisions.
• Expand fast-track approvals (CDCs), backed by objective, measurable rules.
• Digitise the entire planning process, from application to appeal, and enforce strict timelines.
• Introduce penalties for unjustified delay and enforce transparency in developer contributions.

These steps would shift power away from NIMBYs, consultants, and bureaucratic gatekeepers, restoring integrity and clarity to a system too long lost in its own maze.

Rebuilding the foundation

Land use planning is more than a technical exercise; it reflects how we understand community, growth, and fairness. 

Today, NSW’s system mirrors the values of caution, complexity and control. But that is a choice, not a necessity.

We can design something better: a planning framework that reflects transparency over opacity, stability over churn, and accessibility over exclusion. 

The Invisible Architecture does not need to stay hidden. We can, and should, bring it into the light.