FACT CHECK: What is Kate's Position on the Character Statements?

In NSW, character statements are typically located within Development Control Plans (DCPs). These statements describe the existing built environment, streetscape features, and the desired future character of an area.

They do not appear in Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), which are the primary legal instruments that set zoning, building height, density, and land use controls.

While DCPs provide helpful design guidance, they are non-statutory and cannot override the provisions of the LEP or the Building Code of Australia.

Character statements in a DCP are used by council planners to evaluate whether a proposed development is generally consistent with the local area’s visual identity and community expectations.

However:

• Character statements are advisory, not enforceable.
• Councils must assess DAs primarily against the LEP, the building code, and applicable state policies.
• Aesthetic disagreement alone—based on a character statement—cannot be grounds for rejecting a compliant development.

They may influence decisions on building design, setbacks, or materials, but only if the proposal is otherwise open to design negotiation.

Kate supports the intent behind character statements—particularly when they are:

• Developed through inclusive and consultative community planning processes.
• Framed to encourage high-quality design that responds to local context.
• Applied flexibly, allowing for adaptive reuse, sustainability features, disability accessibility and contemporary expression within a heritage or village setting.

In these cases, character statements can help enhance place identity, guide compatible infill development, and celebrate local distinctiveness.

Kate is concerned that character statements are increasingly being overused or Kate is concerned that character statements are increasingly being misrepresented as veto tools against any development perceived as “out of character.” This misuse can:

• Create community confusion, giving the false impression that character controls offer stronger legal protections than they actually do.
• Increase objections, delays, and costs for small-scale or locally driven proposals, where developers are caught in subjective disputes over aesthetics instead of clear planning standards.
• Disincentivise investment and innovation, as the perceived risk of coordinated objections—even to compliant, low-risk proposals—can deter smaller players from pursuing quality developments or adaptive reuse opportunities.
• Incentivise wealthier or larger developers to bypass local planning by:
  • Escalating proposals to the NSW Land and Environment Court, where appeals are judged on legal compliance—not aesthetics; or
  • Designing projects that exceed the threshold for State Significant Development (SSD), removing them from council assessment entirely.

In all cases, local community input is diminished, and character statements carry minimal legal influence in higher-level planning decisions.

While smaller builders may face disproportionate burdens navigating vague or rigid character guidelines, larger developers may also oppose them because:

• They add complexity, uncertainty, and time to the DA process.
  They limit architectural flexibility, especially for mixed-use, affordable housing, or contemporary builds.
• They can reduce yield, increasing project risk in already expensive development markets.

Ironically, this can push developers toward larger projects that bypass local planning entirely, reducing the very community input such character statements were intended to uphold.

Sometimes. Kate supports:

• Local, independent, and community-led development that respects heritage, supports housing diversity, encourages architectural innovation and increases housing supply.
• Small-to-medium infill development and adaptive reuse of existing buildings to meet local housing and economic needs.
• Clear, fair, and transparent planning rules that give communities confidence and reduce unnecessary red tape—especially for local business, smaller operators and local families.

Kate does not support:

• Overly speculative or exploitative development that puts profit ahead of community outcomes, heritage, stated charitable purpose or environmental values.
• Large-scale developers bypassing local assessment by using loopholes in the system (like SSD thresholds or the Land and Environment Court) to avoid accountability or avoid community input.
• Planning settings that unintentionally privilege well-resourced developers over local small businesses, community housing providers, or first-time builders.