This Regulation establishes a bespoke procedure for varying the "approved scheme" that governed the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area immediately before 10 July 1998, and for making associated development applications. It defines the approved scheme as the scheme that was in force immediately before that date and permits amendment of that scheme by means of draft variations prepared under the processes set out in this Regulation (Definitions, cl 2). The Regulation sets out who initiates a variation (a person proposing development on land in the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area), what must be included in an application for a variation (cl 4(2)(a)-(c)), how the Director-General and Minister decide whether to prepare and to make a draft variation (cl 5 and cl 9), the public exhibition and submissions process for draft variations (cls 6-7), and special public notice rules where the development is not designated or advertised development (cl 8).

Mechanically, the sequence imposed by the Regulation is:

• an applicant proposing development within the Sydney Cove area may apply to the Minister for a variation to the approved scheme (cl 4(1)); the application must describe non-compliances, give reasons for the variation, and address the matters in cl 9(2) (cl 4(2));
• the Director-General decides whether to prepare a draft variation and may, with the Minister's concurrence, decline to prepare one if it would not conform with the general planning and design principles for the area (cl 5(1)-(2)); the applicant must be notified of that decision (cl 5(3));
• if the Director-General notifies the applicant that a draft variation will be prepared, the applicant must lodge a development application if not already lodged (cl 5(4)); once received, the Director-General is to prepare a draft variation that will enable consent to be granted (cl 5(5));
• the draft variation must be publicly exhibited with the development application and notice included in any notice given for the development application (cl 6);
• during exhibition, any person may inspect and copy the draft variation and make written submissions to the Minister; submissions by objection must state grounds (cl 7);
• where the development is not designated or advertised development, the application and draft variation must be exhibited and given notice as if clause 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 applied, and with a default 30 day inspection period, subject to modification by the Director-General (cl 8);
• the Minister must consider all submissions (cl 9(1)) and may make the variation if satisfied, on the Minister's opinion, that the variation will not permit development that will have certain adverse effects and will conform with the area principles (cl 9(2)); the Minister may make a variation whether or not development consent is granted (cl 9(3)).

The Regulation also supplies definitions relevant to these processes, including a specific definition of "the public domain" that expressly includes streets, lanes, squares, boardwalks, roads, playgrounds, parks, open space and pedestrian walkways (cl 2). Administrative notes and the explanatory note are expressly stated to be non‑operative (cl 3).

The Regulation revolves around a tightly defined set of concepts and powers. Key definitional anchors are:

• "approved scheme", meaning the approved scheme under the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 as it existed immediately before 10 July 1998, and as amended in accordance with this Regulation (cl 2);
• "Director-General", the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, who holds procedural decision-making functions (cl 2);
• "Sydney Cove Development Area", which adopts the meaning that "development area" had in the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 immediately before that Act's repeal (cl 2);
• "the public domain", expressly defined to include public streets, parks and similar spaces (cl 2).

Procedural concepts:

• Application for variation (cl 4): a person proposing development that does not fully comply with the approved scheme may apply for a variation. The application is content-prescriptive: it must identify non‑compliance, state reasons for the variation, and address the specific matters the Minister must consider when making a variation (cl 4(2)(a)-(c)). By linking applicant material to the Minister's decision criteria, the Regulation channels applicant preparation toward those criteria found in cl 9(2).
• Director-General's gatekeeping role (cl 5): the Director-General decides whether to prepare a draft variation and may, with Ministerial concurrence, refuse to prepare one if it would not conform with the general planning and design principles for the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area (cl 5(1)-(2)). The decision must be notified to the applicant (cl 5(3)). If the Director-General decides to prepare a draft variation, the applicant must lodge the development application if not already lodged (cl 5(4)), and the Director-General is to prepare a draft variation once the development application is received (cl 5(5)).
• Public exhibition and participation (cls 6-7): the draft variation is to be exhibited with the development application and included in any notice of the application (cl 6). During exhibition, inspection, copying and written submissions are expressly permitted, and objections must set out grounds (cl 7).
• Notice and timing for non-designated/advertised development (cl 8): where the subject development is not designated or advertised development, the Regulation prescribes that exhibition and notice are to be conducted as if clause 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 applied, with an explicit 30 day inspection period default; however the Director-General may modify that application for any particular case (cl 8(1)-(2)).

The Regulation creates duties, procedural steps and opportunities that affect a narrow set of actors.

Applicants and proponents

• Primary obligations fall on persons proposing development on land within the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area whose proposals do not fully comply with the approved scheme. Such persons may apply for a variation to the approved scheme (cl 4(1)). They must supply certain documentary information: descriptions of non‑compliance, reasons for the proposed variation, and material addressing the matters in cl 9(2) (cl 4(2)). If the Director-General decides to prepare a draft variation, the applicant is required to lodge the development application if it has not been lodged already (cl 5(4)). Therefore applicants bear the preparation costs of the variation application and the development application and must prepare evidence to respond to the Ministerial criteria.
• Applicants also face timing, publicity and potentially reputational costs because draft variations are exhibited publicly with the development application and notices are included in the public notice for the development application (cl 6).

State decision makers and bureaucrats

• The Minister holds the legal authority to make variations to the approved scheme, subject to forming the opinions required by cl 9(2), and must consider all submissions made during exhibition (cl 9(1)-(3)).
• The Director-General, as principal administrative actor, decides whether to proceed to prepare a draft variation, may decline (with Ministerial concurrence) if the variation would not conform with the general planning and design principles, must notify applicants of the decision, and, upon receipt of a development application after notifying the applicant of intention to prepare a draft variation, is required to prepare a draft variation enabling consent to be granted (cl 5(1)-(5)). The Director-General also has the power to modify the public exhibition procedure for any particular application with respect to the application of clause 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 (cl 8(2)).

Members of the public and objectors

• During the exhibition period, any person may inspect, take extracts from or copy the draft variation, and make written submissions to the Minister (cl 7(1)(a)-(b)). Objectors must set out the grounds of objection (cl 7(2)). The Minister is required to consider all submissions (cl 9(1)). Thus the process creates a pathway for community and stakeholder engagement and for objectors to record reasons for refusal or modification.

This Regulation prescribes specific duties for applicants, the Director-General and the Minister, and confers rights on members of the public.

Applicant duties

• Eligibility and initiation: A person proposing development within the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area that does not comply in all respects with the approved scheme may apply to the Minister for a variation (cl 4(1)). This is a permissive right, not an obligation, for non-compliant proponents.
• Content requirements: The application must describe how the proposed development departs from the approved scheme, state the reasons for the variation sought, and address the matters referred to in cl 9(2) which the Minister must consider (cl 4(2)(a)-(c)). By requiring applicants to address cl 9(2) matters at the application stage, the Regulation places the substantive core of Ministerial consideration explicitly on the applicant to demonstrate compatibility with the Minister’s decision criteria.
• Procedural sequencing: If the Director-General notifies the applicant that a draft variation will be prepared, the applicant must make a development application if it has not yet been made (cl 5(4)). This is a firm procedural duty linking the variation process to the development consent process.

Director-General duties and discretions

• Decide on preparing draft variation: On receipt of an application under cl 4, the Director-General must decide whether to prepare a draft variation (cl 5(1)).
• Decline with Ministerial concurrence: The Director-General may decide not to prepare a draft variation if of the opinion it will not conform with the general planning and design principles for the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area, but this requires the concurrence of the Minister (cl 5(2)). This creates a shared executive gatekeeping function.
• Notification duty: The Director-General must notify the applicant of the decision whether to prepare a draft variation (cl 5(3)).
• Preparation duty: If the Director-General has notified the applicant that he or she will prepare a draft variation and has received the development application, the Director-General is to prepare a draft variation that will enable development consent to be granted (cl 5(5)). This is a positive duty to prepare a draft variation once conditions are met.
• Modify exhibition procedure: The Director-General may modify how clause 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 is applied in relation to any particular application (cl 8(2)). That confers flexibility over exhibition mechanics.

The text of this Regulation does not create new criminal offences, civil penalties, or explicit administrative sanctions, and it contains no enforcement provisions or schedules imposing fines or penalties. The Regulation focuses on process and decision-making for drafting and making variations to the approved scheme and for exhibition and submissions. Relevant features to note are:

Absence of internal sanctions

• The Regulation sets out duties and procedural steps but contains no express penalty provisions for failure to comply with those duties by an applicant, the Director-General, or the Minister. For example, the duties to notify (cl 5(3)), to prepare a draft variation once the conditions are met (cl 5(5)), or to consider submissions (cl 9(1)) are stated as obligations but no enforcement mechanism (such as fines, injunctions, or administrative penalties) is specified in the provided text.

Decision-making standards and discretion

• Enforcement in practice will therefore be primarily administrative, exercised through the Director-General’s and Minister’s discretionary functions. The Minister’s power to make a variation is conditional on forming the requisite opinions (cl 9(2)). The Director-General’s power to decline to prepare a draft variation requires concurrence of the Minister (cl 5(2)); this internal check is a procedural control rather than a sanction.

Public participation as indirect enforcement

• The Regulation gives members of the public the right to inspect and make submissions (cl 7). The requirement that the Minister consider all submissions (cl 9(1)) creates an accountability channel, since public submissions become part of the administrative record upon which the Minister forms opinion. However, the Regulation does not prescribe judicial review pathways or specify remedies for failure to consider submissions; such remedies, if available, would depend on general administrative law principles and other statutes, which this Regulation does not address.

Relation to development consent

• The Regulation allows the Minister to make a variation whether or not development consent is granted (cl 9(3)). The ability to make a variation independent of consent may have compliance consequences for subsequent development consents, but the Regulation does not itself prescribe enforcement measures for non‑compliant development once a variation is or is not made.

Cross-reference to other instruments

This Regulation is tightly linked to two instruments mentioned within its text: the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994. The interplay must be read from explicit textual cross-references only.

Relationship to the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968

• Definitions and continuity: The Regulation defines the "approved scheme" as that scheme for the purposes of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 as it was in force immediately before 10 July 1998, and as amended in accordance with this Regulation (cl 2). It also defines "Sydney Cove Development Area" by reference to how "development area" was defined in the 1968 Act immediately before its repeal (cl 2). Those cross-references indicate the Regulation operates as a savings and transitional instrument for the approved scheme and redevelopment area following repeal of that Act, preserving continuity by enabling amendment of the pre‑existing approved scheme through the processes set out here.
• The Regulation does not reproduce or restate the body of the 1968 Act; rather it imports particular legal constructs and the operative approved scheme from that earlier statute, and it provides an amendment and exhibition process to alter that scheme. The Regulation does not, within its text, state the contents of the approved scheme or the broader powers in the 1968 Act.

Relationship to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994

• Public notice and exhibition: Clause 8(1) requires that where the development subject to an application under cl 4 is not designated development or advertised development, the application must be publicly exhibited and notice given as if clause 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 applied, and with an inspection period of 30 days from the day after publication. Clause 8(2) then empowers the Director-General to modify the application of clause 65 of the EPA Regulation 1994 in relation to any particular application as the Director-General thinks fit.
• Operational consequence: Because the Regulation explicitly imports the mechanism of clause 65 of the EPA Regulation 1994 for notice and exhibition (subject to Director-General modification), practical notice processes are linked to that external provision. This Regulation does not state the content of clause 65, only that it is to be treated as applying for the purposes described, with a stated default inspection period and a Director‑General power to adapt that application.

The Regulation contains a limited set of temporal and transitional cues; it does not, in the provided text, include a schedule of amendments or a chronology of legislative changes. What the Regulation does state about temporal matters is as follows:

Date references and transitional purpose

• The Regulation expressly anchors the "approved scheme" to the version that was in force immediately before 10 July 1998 (cl 2). This indicates the Regulation’s function is to preserve and manage that pre‑10 July 1998 approved scheme through savings and transitional arrangements, permitting amendments to that historic approved scheme in accordance with the process set out in this Regulation.
• The Regulation refers to the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 and treats the "development area" definition as it stood immediately before the repeal of that Act (cl 2). That shows the Regulation operates in the context of the repeal of the 1968 Act and is designed to maintain continuity for the Sydney Cove scheme after that repeal.

Absence of subsequent amendment entries

• The printed text provided contains no subsequent amendment clauses, no lists of instruments that have amended the Regulation since its making, and no marginal notes indicating later legislative changes. The Regulation therefore, as provided, appears to be the original savings and transitional instrument setting the process for variations to the particular approved scheme as it existed on the date indicated. The document does not chronicle later amendments or consolidation notes.

Practical consequence for users

• Because the Regulation fixes the approved scheme to its state immediately prior to 10 July 1998 and contemplates amendments to that scheme only "in accordance with this Regulation" (cl 2), any user seeking to understand the current content of the approved scheme will need to read the pre-10 July 1998 approved scheme together with any variations that have been made under this Regulation. The Regulation itself provides the mechanism for making such variations but does not list those variations or provide a history of changes.

Limit on available information in the text

• The Regulation does not provide a legislative timeline of any variations actually made under it, nor does it include notes of amendment or repeal of parts of itself. If a reader requires a chronological amendment history, that material is not in the text provided and would have to be sought in legislative records or consolidated versions outside this Regulation. The Regulation only establishes the mechanism and temporal anchor points described above.

The provided text of the Regulation contains no references to court decisions, adjudications, judicial interpretations, or any litigation pertaining to the Regulation, its operation, the approved scheme, or decisions made under it. There are no named cases, no citations to judicial authorities, and no recitation of litigation outcomes.

Consequences for legal research

• The Regulation itself does not report or cite any judicial decisions. Therefore, any enquiry into litigation about the application of this Regulation, challenges to decisions by the Director-General or the Minister made under it, or disputes concerning the approved scheme or particular variations would require searching external legal databases, court records, and administrative law reports. None of those materials appear in the Regulation’s text.

Implication for practitioners

• Because the Regulation sets out a process with opinion-based discretionary decisions and with public participation, practitioners should be aware that review of decisions under this Regulation (for example by judicial review on public law grounds) is conceptually possible in the broader legal system. However, the Regulation provides no internal appellate or merits review procedure and contains no litigation guidance; any legal challenge or review would have to rely on general principles outside the text, which are not described here.

This Regulation contains several discrete features that give rise to implementation risks, procedural traps for applicants, and potential sources of uncertainty. The following points are grounded in the Regulation’s text and specify where practitioners should be attentive.

Applicant burden to address Ministerial criteria at application stage (cl 4(2)(c))

• The Regulation requires an application for variation to set out reasons for the variation and to address the matters referred to in cl 9(2) that the Minister must form an opinion on. That means applicants must prepare substantive material that engages the Minister’s opinion criteria (effects on adjoining development, heritage significance, public domain quality, natural or built environment, social or economic impacts, and conformity with general planning and design principles). Failing to address these matters at the application stage may leave the Director-General without the material the Regulation links to the decision process.

Director-General gatekeeping and Ministerial concurrence (cl 5(2))

• The Director-General may decide not to prepare a draft variation if of the opinion it will not conform with the general planning and design principles, but this requires the concurrence of the Minister. The dual requirement can create procedural delay or uncertainty about whose opinion prevails in practice. The Regulation does not set time limits for the Director-General’s decision or for securing Ministerial concurrence.

Mandatory development application after Director-General notification (cl 5(4))

• If the Director-General notifies the applicant that a draft variation will be prepared, the applicant must lodge a development application if not yet lodged. This sequencing can be operationally awkward: applicants who expect variations to be sought in order to enable consent must be prepared to lodge and fund a development application promptly once notified. The Regulation does not state what happens if an applicant fails or delays in lodging the development application.

No internal appeal or review mechanism in the Regulation

• The Regulation contains no internal review or appeal procedure for the Director-General’s decision whether to prepare a draft variation, nor for the Minister’s decision to make or not to make a variation. The text is silent on remedies or review avenues within the instrument itself; any review rights would derive from external administrative law mechanisms outside the Regulation.

To comply with the Regulation and to present the strongest possible case for a proposed variation, a structured compliance workflow is advisable. The steps below are derived directly from the statutory sequence and requirements in clauses 2-9.

1. Confirm applicability and preparatory review

• Establish whether the land in question lies within the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area, as that term is defined by reference to the repealed Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 immediately before its repeal (cl 2). Confirm the content of the "approved scheme" as it was in force immediately before 10 July 1998 and any variations previously made under this Regulation, because the Regulation only permits amendments to that version of the approved scheme (cl 2).
• Identify the "general planning and design principles for the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Area," since both the Director‑General’s decision not to prepare a draft variation (cl 5(2)) and the Minister’s conformity requirement (cl 9(2)(c)) turn on those principles. The Regulation itself does not set them out, so you must obtain them from the adopted materials that sit with the approved scheme.

2. Prepare the variation application (cl 4(2))

• Ensure the applicant’s written application to the Minister describes the respects in which the proposed development does not comply with the approved scheme (cl 4(2)(a)). This should be a clear, itemised mapping between the proposed development and the specific clauses or controls in the approved scheme.
• Set out the reasons for the variation being sought (cl 4(2)(b)). Provide planning, design and technical justification for each departure, including pragmatic alternatives considered and why a variation is the appropriate mechanism.
• Address the matters referred to in cl 9(2) in the application (cl 4(2)(c)). Specifically, prepare evidence and argument on:
  • whether the proposed variation will permit development that would adversely affect development on adjoining land (cl 9(2)(a)(i));
  • whether it will adversely affect the heritage significance of buildings, structures or sites in the locality (cl 9(2)(a)(ii));
  • whether it will adversely affect the quality of the public domain in the locality (cl 9(2)(a)(iii)), remembering the regulation’s definition of public domain (cl 2);
  • whether it will permit development that will have an adverse impact on the natural or built environment or an adverse social or economic impact in the locality (cl 9(2)(b));