A complying development certificate (CDC) is a combined planning and construction approval, issued by a council or a registered certifier, for development that meets every one of a fixed set of published standards. The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure states that a complying development certificate (CDC) can be issued in “as little as 20 days, or 10 days for the NSW Housing Pattern Book complying development pathway”, against an average determination time for a development application (DA) of 70 days. For a property developer, that gap is not a paperwork convenience. It is two to three months of land holding cost, and on a small site it can be a full percentage point of margin.
The catch is that the complying development certificate (CDC) pathway is all or nothing. There is no merit assessment, no balancing of good design against a numerical breach, and no officer with the discretion to wave through a setback that misses by 50 millimetres. Either the scheme meets every applicable standard or it does not qualify, and a scheme that does not qualify goes back to the start of a development application (DA). The Department’s own figure for what that costs is an average of more than 60 days added to assessment.
The people who hold the inputs on this are your town planner, who works out whether the site and the scheme can sit inside a code at all, and your certifier, who is the person actually signing the certificate and carrying the liability for it. This guide sets out how the pathway works, which codes a developer is likely to use, what takes a site out of the pathway entirely, and the variations reform that NSW expects to commence in the third quarter of 2026. Figures, thresholds and instrument names in this guide were current at the date of writing and change often; the linked primary source is the place to confirm them before you rely on one.
What is a complying development certificate, and what does it actually approve?
A complying development certificate (CDC) is defined in section 4.27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) as a certificate stating that proposed development is complying development and, if carried out as specified, will comply with all applicable development standards and the other requirements prescribed by the regulations.
Two features of that definition matter commercially.
First, it is a combined approval. A development application (DA) gives you planning consent only, and you then need a construction certificate before a builder can start. A complying development certificate (CDC) carries both. That removes a whole step, and the professional fees and weeks attached to it, from the programme.
Second, the certificate can do more than authorise a building. Under section 4.27, a certificate that enables the erection of a building is generally sufficient to authorise the use of that building for the purpose specified in the application, and a certificate that enables the subdivision of land may authorise the physical works connected with the subdivision, including roads and stormwater drainage. For a developer, that means the pathway is not limited to the building envelope.
Complying development is issued either by the council or by a certifier registered under the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 (NSW). Applicants generally have the choice. A registered certifier must not carry out certification work in which they have a conflict of interest, and Building Commission NSW publishes the conflict of interest rules and the Practice Standard for Registered Certifiers that binds their conduct. Following the Practice Standard is a condition of registration.
The standards themselves sit mostly in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, which the Department calls the Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). Other instruments, including the housing policy, also permit complying development in places.
How much time does a complying development certificate save a developer?
On the Department’s published figures, the saving is roughly 50 days against an average development application (DA), and potentially more.
The NSW Planning complying development page states that fast-tracked approvals “can be issued in as little as 20 days, or 10 days for the NSW Housing Pattern Book complying development pathway”, and compares that with “the average determination time for a development application of 70 days”. Read the phrasing carefully. “As little as” describes what the pathway allows on a complete, compliant application, not what every application achieves. Your certifier is the person who can tell you what turnaround looks like on your particular application, and the usual cause of slippage is a lodgement that is not complete.
The second figure is the one developers tend to underweight. In the explanation of intended effect for the current reform package, the Department states that pushing a proposal that “may only vary slightly from development standards” into the development application (DA) process adds “on average, more than 60 days to the assessment process”. That is the cost of falling out of the pathway, and it is a risk you carry from the moment you buy the site until the certificate issues.
Both numbers are assessment time only. They do not include design, documentation, or the time it takes to resolve a problem that assessment uncovers. A developer building a programme should treat them as the floor.
What the time difference does to a feasibility
Take an illustrative two-dwelling scheme in a Sydney middle-ring suburb. The figures below are illustrative only and are not a market forecast.
- Gross realisation: 2 dwellings at $1,450,000 each, so $2,900,000
- Land: $850,000
- Acquisition costs: $47,000
- Construction: 2 at 180 square metres, so 360 square metres at $3,200 per square metre, or $1,152,000
- Professional fees, authority charges, contributions and contingency: $230,000
- Selling and marketing at 3 per cent of gross realisation: $87,000
- Finance and holding over a 14-month programme: $148,000
Total development cost is $2,514,000. Profit is $2,900,000 less $2,514,000, or $386,000, which is a development margin on cost of about 15.4 per cent.
Now assume the scheme misses one standard, falls out of the complying development pathway, and runs as a development application (DA) instead. On the Department’s “more than 60 days” figure, call it three additional months before construction can start. If the land and acquisition costs of $897,000 are carried at an indicative 8.5 per cent per annum, that is roughly $6,350 a month in interest, and rates, insurance and land tax might add something in the order of $900 a month. Three months at roughly $7,250 is about $21,750.
Total development cost rises to $2,535,750. Profit falls to $364,250, and the development margin on cost falls to about 14.4 per cent. One missed standard, one percentage point of margin, before anyone has drawn a new plan. Modelling the two programmes side by side, with the holding cost of each, is the kind of comparison a development cashflow model is built to answer, and Feasly’s Gantt scheduling and cashflow reporting will carry the difference through to the margin automatically. The broader mechanics of what those extra months cost are covered in our guide to land holding costs in property development.
The point of the example is not the numbers. It is that the value of the pathway is a function of your holding cost, so the more expensive the land and the tighter the margin, the more the pathway is worth to you, and the more a single non-compliance costs.
Which codes can a developer actually use?
The Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) is organised into separate codes, each with its own set of development standards and its own zone coverage. Getting the code right is the first job, because a scheme assessed against the wrong code is a scheme that will not be certified.
The Housing Code
The Housing Code covers new single or two-storey houses, alterations and additions, attached development such as garages and balconies, and detached development such as sheds. The NSW Planning Portal Housing Code page states that development under the Housing Code applies in the R1, R2, R3, R4 and RU5 zones, that the maximum building height is 8.5 metres measured from existing ground level, that the lot must be at least 200 square metres with a width of at least 6 metres at the building line, and that landscaped area requirements scale with lot size.
Treat those figures as a starting point rather than a settled position. That Planning Portal page carries a last-updated date of 14 September 2022, and the Department has since made what it describes as “over 100 amendments” to the Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) in its November 2024 essential amendments package. The instrument itself is where to confirm a number before a design decision rests on it.
The Low-Rise Housing Diversity Code
This is the code most relevant to small-scale infill developers. The Low-Rise Housing Diversity Code, formerly the Low-Rise Medium Density Housing Code, allows well-designed dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces of up to two storeys to be carried out as complying development. NSW Planning states the code “is currently operating in all local government areas across NSW”, and that this housing is only permitted as complying development in the R1, R2, R3 and RU5 zones where the council’s local environmental plan (LEP) already allows it.
That last condition is what ties the code to the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy. The reforms made dual occupancies and other low-rise housing types permissible with consent in many areas where they previously were not, which in turn opens the complying development pathway in those areas. Development must meet all the standards in the code and the design criteria in the Low-Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide. Our guide to the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing reform covers where the new permissibility applies and how the two pieces fit together.
The Greenfield, Rural and Inland Housing Codes
Three further codes cover different land types. The Greenfield Housing Code applies to one and two storey homes in new release areas. The Rural Housing Code covers the R5, RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4 and RU6 zones. The Inland Code applies west of the Great Dividing Range. A site can only use one, and a developer working across regional NSW should confirm which one before commissioning a design, because the standards differ.
The Industrial and Business Buildings Code
Complying development is not a residential-only pathway, and this is the part the competing pages generally skip. NSW Planning states that complying development “applies to homes, businesses and industry”, including “new industrial buildings” and “changes to a business use”. The February 2022 business and industrial reforms expanded this further, introducing what the Department describes as “new and larger building allowances”, changes to allow quicker adaptation to new uses such as entertainment facilities, indoor recreation facilities and creative industries, and a Business Zone Design Guide to support the design of complying development for new buildings in some business zones.
For a developer looking at a small industrial or business building, a change of use, or a tenancy fit-out that would otherwise need consent, this is worth testing before defaulting to a development application (DA). The Department has flagged that the Industrial and Business Buildings Code is a candidate for a future stage of the variations reform, but it is not in the first stage.
Subdivision, strata and demolition
The Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) also carries complying development provisions for strata subdivision and for demolition. On a build-to-sell scheme, being able to strata a completed dual occupancy without a separate development application (DA) removes a step from the settlement critical path, and it is worth confirming the route at feasibility rather than discovering it at completion.
The Pattern Book Development Code 2025
The newest pathway, and the fastest. NSW Planning states that the Pattern Book Development Code 2025 was introduced to provide a faster approval process for low-rise homes developed using pattern book designs, that the approval process takes 10 days, and that neighbours must be notified at least seven days before an approval can be issued. The pathway became available on 30 July 2025.
The designs themselves are endorsed by the Government Architect and cover terrace, townhouse and manor house types. The trade-off is obvious and should be priced honestly: you are taking a standardised design in exchange for halving the approval clock and removing design risk from the certification process. On a repeat product across multiple small sites, that trade may be worth a great deal. On a site where the sale price depends on a distinctive product, it may not. More detail sits on the NSW Housing Pattern Book page.
What land is excluded from complying development?
This is the question to answer before you exchange, not after. Some exclusions are absolute, some are conditional, and a site that trips an absolute one is simply not a complying development site no matter how compliant the building is.
The NSW Planning Portal states that complying development generally cannot be carried out on:
- land in a heritage conservation area or a draft heritage conservation area, with some exceptions in the relevant standards
- land reserved for a public purpose
- class 1 or 2 land on the council’s acid sulfate soils map
- land in a buffer area, a riverfront area, an ecologically sensitive area or a protected area
- environmentally sensitive land, or land in an environmentally sensitive area
- land affected by a coastline hazard, coastal hazard or coastal erosion hazard
- land in a foreshore area
- land in the 25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast contour or higher
- unsewered land in a drinking water catchment identified in an environmental planning instrument
- land declared as a special area
Separately, the Portal states that complying development cannot be carried out on land that comprises an item listed in the State Heritage Register, is subject to an interim heritage order, or is identified as an item of environmental heritage or a heritage item in an environmental planning instrument, in each case unless an exemption under section 57 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) has been granted. Critical habitat and wilderness areas are also excluded.
Two constraints that developers often assume are fatal are not. The Portal states that complying development can be carried out on bush fire prone land and on flood control lots, in each case subject to the requirements of the relevant code. Under the Housing Code those sit at clauses 3.4 and 3.5 respectively. So a bushfire or flood constraint is a design and documentation problem rather than an automatic exclusion, which is a materially different answer for a feasibility.
The practical due diligence step is the planning certificate. Most of these layers show up on a section 10.7 certificate, and our guide to the section 10.7 planning certificate covers what each part tells you and what it does not. Treating the certificate as the first test of whether a site can use the pathway, before the contract, is cheaper than discovering a heritage conservation area listing after settlement.
Why does the certifier have no discretion?
Because the statutory test is compliance, not merit. A certifier is certifying that the development complies with all applicable development standards. If it does not, there is nothing to certify.
This is the single most consequential difference between the two pathways, and it cuts both ways. In a development application (DA), a competent planner can argue that a 300 millimetre setback breach produces a better outcome than compliance would. In complying development, that argument has nowhere to go. The certifier cannot accept it, the council cannot accept it on the certifier’s behalf, and there is no variation mechanism in the current framework. The proposal is amended to comply, or it becomes a development application (DA).
The flip side is certainty. Because the test is objective, the outcome is knowable before lodgement. A scheme designed against the code by someone who knows the code well is approvable with a degree of confidence that no merit-assessed application can offer. For a developer pricing planning risk into a purchase, that certainty may be worth more than the time saving.
The construction phase carries the same rigidity. The Department states that where development is not carried out in accordance with the approved complying development certificate (CDC) and plans, it “may constitute unauthorised development”, the principal certifier may be unable to issue an occupation certificate, and the building cannot be lawfully occupied until compliance is achieved, with compliance or enforcement action also possible. Certifiers are required to issue written notice directions when they become aware of non-compliance during construction, and to notify the owner and the council if a direction is not complied with. The trap is the site instruction that quietly departs from the approved drawings.
What is changing: the complying development variations pathway
The rigidity above is exactly what NSW is now reforming, and a developer planning a 2027 programme should understand what is coming.
The Department exhibited an explanation of intended effect for variations and changes to complying development between 14 May and 24 June 2026. As at the date of writing, the Department states it is reviewing feedback before finalising the changes, and that “it is expected the reforms will commence in the 3rd quarter of 2026”. Confirm the current status on the Department’s page before relying on any of this; the position may have moved.
What is proposed:
- A variation certificate, issued only by council. Councils would be the sole approver of variations, retaining council oversight. Once a variation certificate is issued, the complying development certificate (CDC) itself can continue to be assessed by a registered certifier or by council.
- A cap on how much can be varied. The Department proposes that “no more than 3 to 4 development standards may be varied for a single development”, applying to the development as a whole, including the original application and any later modifications.
- Short clocks with deemed approval. Where the complying development certificate (CDC) is being assessed by a private certifier, council would need to determine the variation within 10 calendar days, and if it is not refused within that time the variations would be deemed approved. Where council is assessing the certificate itself, the period is 20 calendar days. The two-week Christmas break would be excluded from the deemed approval period.
- Deemed approval has limits. The Department is explicit that deemed approval would not apply where the application does not comply with the requirements, including where the standard is not one that can be varied, where the cap on the number of variations is exceeded, or where a variation exceeds the numerical limits in the instrument.
- Fees. Two options were exhibited: a set fee of 4 fee units, which the Department states “equates to $456 in the 2025/26 financial year”, or a scaled fee of 3 fee units ($342) for one variation, 4 units ($456) for two, and 5 units ($569) for three or four. Refunds for refused or withdrawn applications were not proposed.
- No review or appeal rights, at least at this stage.
- First stage is low-rise housing only, covering the Housing Code, Rural Housing Code, Low-Rise Housing Diversity Code, Greenfield Housing Code and Inland Housing Code. The Industrial and Business Buildings Code and the housing policy are flagged for possible future stages.
- Not retrospective, and not available once construction has started. The Department states the new process will not apply to applications already lodged but not determined, and that variations will not be available to fix a non-compliance that arises during construction.
Which standards could be varied is the commercially interesting question. The Department states the focus is on “the most common types of standards where minor non-compliances are currently preventing applications from proceeding”, and that these “may include controls such as setbacks, heights, maximum gross floor area and vehicle access requirements”. Separately, it has proposed permanent changes to the Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) including expanded complying development for sloping sites, modern designs and garages, front setbacks that can align with an adjoining dwelling, reduced internal separation between two detached dwellings, and simplified balcony and privacy screen requirements.
A related change sits in the proposed statewide Community Participation Plan. The Department proposes to mandate a seven-day notification before works commence for new buildings, additions and demolitions carried out as complying development in every local government area, and to remove the 14-day written notice requirement that currently applies in 34 local government areas. If that proceeds, the pre-approval notification step disappears from the critical path in those areas, which is a real programme saving on top of the variation pathway.
For a developer, the honest read is that this reform, if it commences in the form exhibited, would move a category of near-miss schemes back into a fast pathway and out of the development application (DA) queue. It does not make complying development discretionary. The cap, the numerical limits, and the exclusion of already-lodged and already-commenced projects are all real constraints.
What does a complying development certificate not get you out of?
A common and expensive misreading is that the pathway exempts a project from everything else. It does not.
Development contributions. Contributions under sections 7.11 and 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) can be imposed as a condition of a complying development certificate (CDC), in the same way they are imposed on a development consent. Section 7.12 levies are commonly set as a percentage of the cost of works above a threshold, with the applicable rate and threshold set in the relevant council’s contributions plan. Payment is typically required before work commences or before occupation. The certifier generally carries responsibility for confirming payment before the relevant certificate issues. Check the council’s current contributions plan, because this is a real line in a feasibility and it does not shrink because the approval was fast.
Private covenants and restrictions on title. NSW Planning is explicit that “complying development does not override private covenants or similar legal instruments”, giving the example of a covenant requiring a specific construction material or limiting building height. A restriction on title survives a complying development certificate (CDC), and it is a title search question, not a planning question.
The National Construction Code. All works must comply with the building code, be structurally adequate, and be installed in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. The certificate does not change any of that.
Trees and vegetation. Removing or pruning existing trees may need separate approval from the council, and the Housing Code sets setbacks from protected trees. On a tight site, a protected tree can be the constraint that decides whether a compliant envelope exists at all.
Works on public land. Structures on or over a public road, including temporary structures, need separate approval from the council or the roads authority under the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) or the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). Hoardings, crane oversail and driveway crossings all sit here.
Residential building insurance obligations. Where the work is residential building work above the relevant threshold, the statutory home building compensation requirements apply regardless of the approval pathway. Our guide to home warranty insurance in NSW covers how that sits in a development budget.
Neighbour notification: what the clock really looks like
There are two separate notifications, and only one of them sits on the approval critical path.
The NSW Planning Portal states that in metropolitan areas, a certifier or council must inform neighbours within a 20 metre radius that an application for a complying development certificate (CDC) has been made, 14 days before it can be approved. That is pre-approval notification. It is not required in residential release areas or most rural and regional areas.
The second is pre-construction notification. Once the certificate has been issued, the applicant must notify neighbours within 20 metres of the boundary before any work starts: at least seven days’ notice in metropolitan areas, and two days in rural, regional and residential release areas.
The important commercial point is the limit of what notification buys the neighbour. The Portal states plainly that the pre-construction notice “is for their information only, neighbours cannot make a submission on a neighbouring complying development”. Neighbours can ask to see the plans, but the Portal states there is no obligation on the applicant to make them available. There is no submission period, no notification of objections to weigh, and no third-party merit appeal. For a developer used to the submissions phase of a development application (DA), that is a different risk profile entirely.
The proposed statewide Community Participation Plan would change this shape, as noted above, by mandating seven-day pre-commencement notification everywhere and removing the 14-day pre-approval notice in the 34 local government areas where it currently applies.
How long does a complying development certificate last, and can it be modified?
Under section 4.29 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), a complying development certificate (CDC) lapses five years after the date endorsed on the certificate, unless the development to which it relates is physically commenced on the land within that five-year period. The section also provides that no proceedings may be taken before a court or tribunal to extend the five-year period, which makes the physical commencement test genuinely load-bearing. There is no equivalent of an extension of time application to fall back on.
Complying development certificates can be modified, under section 4.30 of the same Act, and a modification is assessed on the same compliance basis as the original: the modified development must still meet every applicable standard. The Department’s reform material confirms that under the proposed variations pathway, a modification that does not affect an approved variation could be dealt with by the certifier, while one that does affect an approved variation would need to go back to council for a new variation certificate and a new fee.
For completeness, section 4.30 is a different mechanism from the section 4.55 route used to modify a development consent. Our section 4.55 modifications guide covers that pathway, which is the one that applies to a project approved by development application (DA) rather than by certificate.
How the other states and territories handle fast-tracked approval
Every jurisdiction has some form of streamlined pathway, but the NSW model is unusual in two respects: a private certifier can issue the planning approval, and planning and construction approval come in the same certificate. Most other jurisdictions keep the planning decision with the council.
Victoria. VicSmart is the closest analogue, and it is a permit process rather than an exemption. Planning Victoria states that VicSmart applications are decided within 10 business days, are not advertised, and carry no third-party review rights. The decision is made by the council chief executive under section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), and may be delegated to council officers. There is no private certifier equivalent. Three prerequisites apply: every permit trigger must be a VicSmart class in the scheme, the permit must not breach a registered restrictive covenant, and any referral authority consent must be obtained before lodgement and be no more than three months old. Failing any one pushes the application back to the standard 60-day process. From 16 October 2025, Amendment VC288 extended VicSmart to two dwellings on a lot in most residential zones and to two-lot residential subdivision, which is the change most relevant to small-scale developers. Our Victorian subdivision guide covers how the subdivision side fits together.
Queensland. The Planning Act 2016 (Qld) sets three categories applied through local planning schemes: accepted development, which needs no development approval at all, assessable development, and prohibited development. Assessable development is either code assessable or impact assessable. Code assessment is described as bounded, meaning the assessment manager may only assess against what is clearly expressed in the code. The council is the assessment manager in the ordinary case. Exemption certificates are available where a proposal is inappropriately categorised or its effect is inconsequential. The statutory decision period for code assessment sits in the Development Assessment Rules made under section 68 of the Act, currently version 3.0, published and commenced 18 July 2025.
South Australia. The Planning and Design Code sets four classifications: exempt, accepted, code assessed and impact assessed. Code assessed development splits into deemed-to-satisfy and performance assessed. Deemed-to-satisfy is the closest thing in Australia to the NSW pathway on both counts: it is fast-tracked, it cannot be refused, approval must be granted after five business days of assessment, and it is decided by an accredited professional rather than by the council. South Australia is also the one state where councils are no longer a relevant authority in their own right for planning consent. Planning, building and land division consents remain separate, with the council issuing the final development approval.
Western Australia. Planning approval remains with local government, either by council resolution or under officer delegation, with Development Assessment Panels and the Western Australian Planning Commission taking certain categories. The Residential Design Codes are subsidiary legislation under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) and set the deemed-to-comply standards that a compliant single house or grouped dwelling is assessed against. Volume 1, April 2026 is the current version, and the transitional arrangements introduced in 2024 ceased on 10 April 2026, with one exemption for solar orientation running to 10 April 2030. There is no private certifier issuing planning approval in Western Australia.
Tasmania. Each zone use table in the Tasmanian Planning Scheme classifies a use as No Permit Required, Permitted, Discretionary or Prohibited. The state planning guidance states that an application for a use or development that is Permitted in its zone and relies wholly on the measurable Acceptable Solutions “must be approved and does not require consultation”. That is structurally the same bargain as the NSW pathway: meet the quantitative standard and the discretion disappears. Statutory periods are 28 calendar days for a Permitted application and 42 for a Discretionary one, with the clock stopping on a request for further information. The council is the planning authority; there is no private certifier route.
Australian Capital Territory. The Planning Act 2023 (ACT) replaced the Planning and Development Act 2007. Exempt development, set out in the Planning (Exempt Development) Regulation 2023, is the pathway that avoids a development application entirely; the Territory Planning Authority decides applications that do need one, and building approval is a separate process. Developers should note that in designated areas the National Capital Authority, not the ACT Government, is the approving body.
Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is closer to the NSW model than any other jurisdiction on one specific point. Where a use is Permitted, no development permit is required, and planning compliance is confirmed inside the building approval process by a registered building certifier under the Building Act 1993 (NT). The certifier must be satisfied that the proposed works comply with all requirements in the planning scheme, and may seek confirmation from an independent planning professional or a government planner. A Permitted use becomes merit assessable if an overlay applies or if any development requirement needs to be varied, which is the same all-or-nothing structure as the NSW pathway.
Does New Zealand have an equivalent?
The nearest equivalent is permitted activity status under a district plan. If a proposal meets every permitted activity standard, no resource consent is required under the Resource Management Act 1991, and there is no notification and no submitter role. Building consent under the Building Act 2004 is a separate approval that is still required. Our guide to resource consent in New Zealand covers the consent categories in more detail.
The programme number that matters is the building consent clock. Building Performance states that the council has 20 working days from receipt of a complete application, that a request for information suspends the clock and the suspension does not count toward the 20 days, and that an amendment to a granted consent can also take up to 20 working days. Work must start within 12 months of consent or the consent lapses, with two years to complete before the council considers a code compliance certificate.
The reform position is moving. The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which together replace the Resource Management Act 1991, were introduced on 9 December 2025, and Parliament’s Environment Committee completed its scrutiny of both in July 2026. The Ministry for the Environment states the intent is that more activities will be permitted without consent, and that where consent is needed most will be restricted discretionary activities with assessment limited to criteria listed in the plan. That is a shift toward the code-assessed model, and it is worth tracking. Our Resource Management Act reform guide follows the detail. As at the date of writing the Bills are not law, so the current district plan remains the operative test.
What to ask your town planner
These are the questions that decide whether the pathway is available on your site, and they turn on facts a planner has to check rather than on anything a guide can tell you.
- Which code does this site fall under, and is the site in a zone where that code operates?
- Does the council’s local environmental plan (LEP) permit this housing type with consent on this land? For dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces this is a precondition to the complying development pathway, not an alternative to it.
- What does the section 10.7 certificate disclose, and does anything on it fall into the excluded land list?
- Is any part of the site in a heritage conservation area, a draft heritage conservation area, or affected by a heritage listing that would need a section 57 exemption?
- If the site is bushfire prone or a flood control lot, what does the relevant code require, and what does that do to the build cost and the documentation programme?
- Are there restrictions or covenants on title that survive the certificate, and do they constrain the envelope, the materials or the height?
- Is the scheme currently compliant on every applicable standard, and if not, which ones does it miss and by how much?
- If it misses a standard, is that standard one the proposed variations pathway would allow to be varied, and what is the Department’s current commencement position?
- Would the Pattern Book pathway suit this site, and what would a standardised design do to the achievable sale price against the 10-day approval?
- What are the section 7.11 or section 7.12 contributions under the current council contributions plan, and when do they fall due?
What to ask your certifier
Your certifier is the person who carries the liability for the certificate and who will be on site during construction. These questions are worth asking before you appoint one.
- On a complete application for a scheme like this one, what turnaround do you actually achieve, and what most commonly delays it?
- What documentation do you need at lodgement for the clock to start cleanly?
- Do you have any conflict of interest in relation to this project, the designer, the builder or the land, and is any exemption in place?
- Which standards on this scheme are you least comfortable with, and where do you see a risk of the application failing to qualify?
- If a non-compliance emerges during construction, what is your process, and at what point are you required to notify the council?
- Will you be the principal certifier for the construction phase as well, and what are your inspection requirements?
- What conditions will be attached to the certificate, and which of those carry a payment or a pre-commencement obligation?
- Who issues the occupation certificate, and what needs to be resolved before it can be issued?
- If the variations pathway commences, are you set up to refer a variation certificate application to council on our behalf?
Sitting between those two conversations is the commercial question a developer has to answer alone: whether the certainty and the speed of a code-compliant scheme are worth more than the extra yield a merit-assessed scheme might deliver. That trade is different on every site, and it is the reason both pathways still exist.