Controversial planning system changes - stripped of what the opposition called their "worst excesses" - have passed the NSW upper house.
After two marathon sittings in which MPs debated streams of amendments, the government's planning bill passed the upper house 33 votes to five on Wednesday night.
Labor MP Luke Foley said the opposition worked hard to change the bill.
"Many of the worst excesses in the government's bill have been addressed by way of the amendments," he told the upper house.
He said although the bill was "far from perfect," Labor would not oppose it in parliament.
But Greens MP David Shoebridge said the amended bill should still not be supported, describing it as a "historical failure of planning reform that will come back to haunt this government".
Removed was a provision that stated economic benefits should be the principal consideration when assessing mining developments.
Labor, the Greens and the Shooters and Fishers Party also united to vote against code assessable developments.
Under this system, if a development met the requirements of a code agreed to by the community, it would be fast-tracked, allowing little to no input from the public.
An affordable housing provision was also reinstated, which Mr Shoebridge said was a welcome advance.
However, the Greens lost a bid to have an independent body employ private certifiers to approve buildings, rather than the present model in which developers choose certifiers.
A push by Labor to stop the planning minister from having the final word over approval of significant state developments, such as mines and high-rise buildings, also failed.
Planning Minister Brad Hazzard introduced the laws to the lower house last month, following more than two years of public consultation.
The laws had faced strident opposition from residents groups, environmentalists and heritage advocates who said they reduced the community's ability to fight bad decisions.
Meanwhile, the upper house amendments have raised the ire of the Property Council of Australia, which argues they will add to the cost, time and risk of projects by imposing red tape and complicating the system.
"Their amendments would firmly tilt the balance towards deep green obstructionism and ditch any prospect of a sensible approach to planning for sustainable growth," the council's NSW executive director Glenn Byres said in a statement.
The bill will now go back to the lower house to review the amendments.
Share
