State significant development (SSD) is a New South Wales planning pathway that takes your development application away from the local council and gives it to the Minister for Planning or the Independent Planning Commission (IPC). Your consent authority changes, the assessment documentation gets heavier, third party appeal rights largely disappear, and the clock runs on a different set of timeframes. For a developer, the practical question is not what the pathway is called. It is what it does to your programme, your consultant budget and the margin at the end.
Two people hold most of the answers on your particular site. The planning consultant works out whether the project is captured by the state significant development schedules or could be declared into them, and what the environmental impact statement (EIS) will actually need to cover. The quantity surveyor (QS) produces the estimated development cost (EDC) report that decides which threshold you sit above, which in turn decides the pathway and the fee. Most developers on a site like this engage both before exchange rather than after, because both answers bear directly on what the land is worth.
Everything below was current in August 2026. Thresholds, contribution rates and assessment targets in New South Wales have changed repeatedly over the last two years and the state is midway through implementing the Planning System Reform Act 2025. Each figure links to the government page or the legislation it came from, and that link is where to confirm it on the day you need it.
What is state significant development in New South Wales?
State significant development is a class of development that the state, rather than the council, assesses and determines. It sits under Division 4.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and the NSW Department of Planning coordinates the assessment, pulls together input from state and Commonwealth agencies, and works with the relevant council so local issues still get a hearing.
A project becomes state significant in one of three ways.
By type or by site. The categories and the sites are listed in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021. The Department’s summary of what is captured includes certain large housing developments, new education facilities, hospitals and correctional centres, chemical and manufacturing industries, data centres, mining and extraction, tourist and recreation facilities, some port, airport and rail facilities, waste management facilities and energy generating facilities. Nominated sites such as the Sydney Opera House, Darling Harbour and Sydney Olympic Park are captured too. Chapter 5 of the Transport and Infrastructure state environmental planning policy (SEPP) identifies further categories.
By ministerial declaration. The Minister for Planning can call a project in and declare development on specified land to be state significant, using a ministerial planning order under section 4.36(3) of the Act. Orders are published on the NSW Planning Portal. This is the mechanism behind the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway, covered below.
By threshold. Most of the type-based categories in Schedule 1 turn on a dollar figure, a size, or an environmentally sensitive location. Which side of the line you land on is a function of the estimated development cost (EDC) your quantity surveyor (QS) certifies.
One thing state significant development is not: state significant infrastructure (SSI). That is a separate stream under Part 5 of the Act for public infrastructure such as rail and road, assessed and approved rather than consented. Where an agency is calling your project infrastructure, the stream you are actually in is worth establishing early, because the process and your rights differ.
How do you know whether your project is state significant development?
The starting point is Schedule 1 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 and your project type, then the estimated development cost against the threshold that applies to that type. There is no single dollar figure that makes a project state significant. Each category in the Schedule sets its own trigger, and some categories have no dollar trigger at all.
The Department also runs a pre-application consultation step. Before you apply for assessment requirements, the Department’s own guidance says applicants should consult with it to confirm the assessment pathway, confirm whether the project is eligible for industry-specific assessment requirements, clarify what other approvals are needed, and understand what has to go in the application. That conversation is generally cheaper than guessing wrong.
Which housing projects can be state significant development?
Housing is where most private developers now encounter the pathway. The Department’s faster assessments programme lists the housing streams by their clause references, which is the most reliable way to check your own project:
- In-fill affordable housing, Schedule 1 section 26A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021
- Housing development carried out by certain public authorities, Schedule 1 section 26
- Build-to-rent housing, Schedule 1 section 27
- Seniors housing, Schedule 1 section 28
- Development in accelerated Transport Oriented Development precincts, Schedule 2 section 19
- Residential development declared state significant under section 4.36(3) of the Act following advice from the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA)
For build-to-rent, the Department publishes the figure directly. Its build-to-rent housing page states that the provisions include “a state-significant development pathway for build-to-rent housing developments that have a capital investment value of more than $50 million for the Greater Sydney region (except in the City of Sydney) and more than $30 million for development on other land”. Note that the Department’s terminology has since shifted from capital investment value to estimated development cost across the system, so read that figure against the current definition.
For in-fill affordable housing, seniors housing and the other streams, the trigger sits in the numbered section of Schedule 1 shown above. The figures move, so the section itself is more reliable than any summary of it. Separately, the in-fill affordable housing provisions themselves require a minimum of 10 per cent of the development to be used for affordable housing, encourage 15 per cent, and offer a floor space ratio bonus of 20 to 30 per cent and a height bonus of 20 to 30 per cent proportional to the affordable component. The affordable portion must stay affordable and be managed by a registered community housing provider for a minimum of 15 years.
What is the Housing Delivery Authority pathway?
The Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) is an expression of interest route into state significant development for major residential projects that would otherwise sit with a council. You submit an expression of interest, the Department evaluates it against published criteria, the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) recommends, and the Minister declares by order.
The eligibility settings published by the Department are:
| Location | Estimated development cost | Minimum homes |
|---|---|---|
| Greater Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong | about $60 million | 100 |
| Elsewhere in New South Wales | about $30 million | 40 |
The Newcastle and Wollongong figure moved up to $60 million on 13 May 2026, following the 12 month review of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA). The same review formalised land use exclusions, including the commercial cores of the Sydney, North Sydney and Parramatta central business districts and regionally significant industrial land, and tightened the affordable housing expectation so an offering aligns with or exceeds existing council or state policy and, where a concurrent rezoning is proposed, is proportionate to the uplift.
Several points matter commercially:
- A declaration is not an approval. The Department is explicit that projects declared state significant on this pathway still go through a full merit assessment including public consultation, which may change yield or controls.
- You cannot run two pathways at once. A proposal with a rezoning or development application (DA) already lodged elsewhere will not be declared, and must be withdrawn before it will be.
- There is no appeal. The Department states that decisions of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) are final and not subject to appeal. An unsuccessful applicant can revise and resubmit.
- Timing on the expression of interest. From 1 July 2026 the Department says all expressions of interest will be considered within 60 days.
- The assessment requirements have a short shelf life. On this pathway the assessment requirements expire nine months after issue, with extensions of up to three months available where you can show substantial progress, nominate a lodgement date and show the delay was outside your control. That is far tighter than the general state significant development position, and it is a real programming constraint on design and consultant procurement.
As at 13 May 2026 the Department reported 351 proposals declared under the pathway, representing more than 117,000 potential homes, with six approved and state significant development applications lodged for a further 46 projects.
What is a concurrent rezoning, and who can use one?
A concurrent rezoning lets you seek a change to the planning controls at the same time as consent, rather than finishing a planning proposal with the council first and then starting a development application. It can take a serial process and make it parallel, which is where the real time saving sits.
The Department states that the concurrent rezoning pathway is only available to proposals that came in via a Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) expression of interest. Standalone rezonings are not supported on that pathway. Where a proposal includes a complex concurrent rezoning, the Department holds a planning focus meeting before issuing assessment requirements, which can push the start date out. Applications proposing both must pay a state significant development fee and a rezoning fee.
The statutory basis sits in section 4.38 of the Act, which is set out under prohibited development below, along with the consequence that matters most: who ends up determining the application.
How is estimated development cost worked out, and why does it decide the pathway?
Estimated development cost (EDC) is the figure the Department uses to set your approval pathway and to calculate your assessment fee. It replaced both capital investment value and cost of development across the New South Wales planning system.
The Department’s estimated development cost guidance sets out what the report has to be and what goes in it. For state significant projects specifically, the report must be prepared by a chartered quantity surveyor (QS) who is a member of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), follow the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) practice standard, use the state significant projects form, and be dated within 30 days of submission.
What the figure captures:
- Designing and erecting the building and associated infrastructure
- Carrying out work, and demolition of a building or work
- Fixed or mobile plant equipment
What it excludes:
- Developer contributions and planning agreement costs
- The cost of any development requiring separate approval
- Land costs
- Goods and Services Tax (GST)
- Ongoing maintenance and operating costs
The trap here is timing and staleness. The report has to be dated within 30 days of submission, so a cost plan you commissioned during due diligence will need refreshing before lodgement. The second trap is the boundary between costs that count and costs that do not. A project sitting a few per cent under a threshold on one set of inclusions can sit above it on another, and that changes who assesses it and what documentation you owe. The Department’s own position is that estimated development cost for state significant projects excludes GST, while for local and regional development under Schedule 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 GST must be added before certain fees are calculated. Worth having your quantity surveyor (QS) show both totals as separate line items.
What does the state significant development pathway actually change?
Five things change, and each one carries a cost or a timing consequence.
Your consent authority changes. The Minister for Planning, the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), or a delegate of either determines the application. The council does not, though it is consulted and can object.
Your documentation gets heavier. You need Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) before you can lodge, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) that responds to them. That is a different order of consultant spend from a standard development application (DA) package.
Your appeal exposure changes shape. Third party merit appeals largely disappear. Judicial review does not.
Some other approvals fall away. Several separate permits and approvals are either not required or cannot be refused. This is one of the genuine efficiencies in the pathway.
Your exhibition and submissions risk is public and centralised. Applications are exhibited on the Major Projects portal, submissions are counted, and the number of objections can change who determines your application.
What are Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements?
Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) tell you what has to go into your environmental impact statement (EIS). You cannot lodge a state significant development application without them. There are two kinds, and which one you get is the single biggest lever on your pre-lodgement programme.
Industry-specific requirements are pre-prepared and issued without a scoping report. The Department states it will generally issue them within seven days where the project qualifies. To qualify the project must be wholly permissible, not meet the thresholds for designated development, and not be a concept development application. Ready-made sets exist for development within key sites and identified precincts, warehouses and distribution centres, hospitals and health research facilities, schools, tertiary institutions, hotels, build-to-rent housing, in-fill affordable housing, data storage centres, seniors housing, correctional centres, cemeteries, large-scale solar, and several cultural and entertainment categories.
Project-specific requirements apply to everything else. You must first prepare a scoping report describing the project, analysing feasible alternatives, giving an early indication of community views, setting out your engagement plan, and identifying the key matters for further assessment. The scoping report is published, the Department consults the council and key agencies, and the Planning Secretary issues the requirements within 28 days of the scoping report being published.
The general expiry position is that the requirements lapse if the environmental impact statement (EIS) is not submitted within two years, with the Planning Secretary able to extend by up to two years on request. On the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway the window is nine months with up to three months of extension, as noted above.
The Department has also flagged that the requirements process itself is under review in line with the Planning System Reform Act 2025, including reassessing the need for industry-specific requirements and removing requirements that do not add value. If your project is a year or more from lodgement, that review could change what you have to produce.
Who determines a state significant development application?
The Minister for Planning is the consent authority for any state significant development application unless the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is specifically declared to take that role. In practice a large share of determinations are made under delegation by senior departmental officers.
The Department states that the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is generally the consent authority where the applicant is not a public authority, or acting on behalf of one, and one or more of the following applies:
- the local council has lodged an objection
- 50 or more public objections are received during exhibition, with petitions and submissions using the same or substantially the same wording counted as a single objection
- the applicant has made a reportable political donation
There are important carve-outs. For in-fill affordable housing, build-to-rent housing, seniors housing and development in accelerated Transport Oriented Development precincts, the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is only the consent authority if the applicant has made a reportable political donation. And where a proposal is declared state significant by ministerial call-in, including proposals recommended by the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA), the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is not the consent authority.
Why this matters to a programme: a referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) adds a determination stage that sits outside the Department’s assessment clock, and if the Commission holds a public hearing, nobody can appeal the merits of the decision afterwards. That cuts both ways. It removes objector appeal risk and it removes your own.
The objection count is worth planning around. Fifty objections is not a high bar on a contested site, and the Department’s treatment of form-letter campaigns as a single objection is the reason it is not lower still. Early, genuine community engagement during environmental impact statement (EIS) preparation is the only real lever you have on that number, and the industry-specific assessment requirements make that engagement a formal expectation rather than an optional extra.
Can you get consent for something the local environmental plan prohibits?
Partly prohibited, yes. Wholly prohibited, no, unless the controls change at the same time.
Section 4.38 of the Act states that development consent “may not be granted if the development is wholly prohibited by an environmental planning instrument”, and that consent “may be granted despite the development being partly prohibited”. That is a hard line, and it is the reason the concurrent rezoning route exists.
Where the development is wholly or partly prohibited, section 4.38(5) allows the application to be considered alongside a proposed instrument that would permit it, and the Planning Secretary may take on the functions of the planning proposal authority. Section 4.38(6) adds a further consequence: where the Gateway determination declares the proposed instrument is principally concerned with permitting otherwise wholly prohibited state significant development, both the instrument and the development application can only be made and determined by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) under delegation from the Minister. If your scheme depends on a rezoning to be permissible at all, you are on the Commission’s timetable, not the Department’s.
Which other approvals does a state significant development consent replace?
This is the part of the pathway with the clearest cash and programme benefit, and it is often underweighted in a feasibility.
Under section 4.41 of the Act, the following authorisations are not required for state significant development authorised by a development consent granted after the commencement of the Division:
- a permit under section 201, 205 or 219 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994
- an approval under Part 4, or an excavation permit under section 139, of the Heritage Act 1977
- an Aboriginal heritage impact permit under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
- a bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997
- a water use approval under section 89, a water management work approval under section 90, or an activity approval other than an aquifer interference approval under section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000
Section 4.41(2) also disapplies Division 8 of Part 6 of the Heritage Act 1977 so it cannot prevent or interfere with the development. Section 4.41(3) extends the same treatment to investigative activities carried out to comply with the environmental assessment requirements, which matters if your site investigations would otherwise need a permit of their own.
Under section 4.42, a further set of authorisations cannot be refused where they are necessary for carrying out the development and are to be substantially consistent with the consent. That list includes an aquaculture permit under section 144 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, an approval under section 22 of the Coal Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 2017, a mining lease under the Mining Act 1992, a production lease under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, an environment protection licence under Chapter 3 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, a consent under section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, and a licence under the Pipelines Act 1967.
The Roads Act consent is the one most urban developers will care about, because a section 138 consent covers works in, on or over a public road, which on an infill site can mean the vehicle crossover, service trenching, hoarding and any works to the kerb. Note the limits, though. Section 4.42(2) states the protection does not apply to a renewal, to a further authorisation after one expires or lapses, or, for an environment protection licence, to any period after the first review of the licence under section 78 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
For a site with Aboriginal cultural heritage, a heritage item, a watercourse or a bush fire interface, the removal of separate permit processes can strip several months of serial approvals and their associated holding cost out of a programme. It is easy to overstate, though. The assessment of those matters does not disappear. It moves into the environmental impact statement (EIS), which means the work is still done and paid for. What goes away is the separate application, the separate queue and the separate regulator.
What appeal rights apply, and who has them?
The Department’s published position on reviews and appeals is:
| Right | Who | Window |
|---|---|---|
| Merit appeal to the Land and Environment Court | Applicant | 6 months from the decision |
| Merit appeal | Objectors, but only where the development would otherwise have been designated development | 28 days from notification |
| Judicial review, section 9.45 | Any person | 3 months from public notice of the determination |
| Deemed refusal appeal, section 8.11 | Applicant, where the application is not determined within 90 days | Merit hearing |
| Review of decision, Division 8.2 | Applicant | 6 months from notification |
Three practical points. First, where the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) holds a public hearing before determining, no one can appeal the merits of the decision, including you. Second, a Division 8.2 review pauses the merit appeal clock, and you cannot run both at once, so the sequencing decision belongs with a planning lawyer rather than a project manager. Third, on a review you may amend the development application provided the amended version is substantially the same as the one determined, which is a narrower gate than it sounds.
The judicial review exposure is the one that tends to be underpriced. Any person can challenge the legality of the decision for three months after the determination is publicly notified, and a successful challenge goes to validity rather than merits. Three months of judicial review risk sitting between consent and the start of demolition is a real feature of a state significant development programme, and it is worth talking to your financier about how it interacts with your drawdown conditions.
How long does a state significant development application take?
For housing applications inside the faster assessment programme, the Department’s published target is 275 end-to-end calendar days from lodgement to determination or referral, of which 90 days are government days including exhibition. Its own dashboard, with data as at 31 July 2026, reports a six month rolling average of 234 end-to-end days and 94 government days across 50 projects.
That 275 day figure is the one worth arguing with, because it starts at lodgement. It does not include:
- The pre-application consultation and, on many housing streams, a mandatory scoping meeting
- The expression of interest and declaration process, if you are going through the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA), which from 1 July 2026 is targeted at 60 days for consideration alone
- Preparing the scoping report, where project-specific requirements apply
- Issue of the assessment requirements, seven days for industry-specific or 28 days from publication of the scoping report for project-specific
- Preparing the environmental impact statement (EIS) itself, which on a complex site is commonly a matter of many months rather than weeks
- Any Independent Planning Commission (IPC) determination stage after referral
- The three month judicial review window after determination
A realistic feasibility should model the whole span from site control to the point where construction can safely start, not the Department’s assessment window. For most private housing projects on this pathway that total is likely to run well beyond two years even where the assessment itself hits target.
The main stages after lodgement, in the Department’s own sequence, are exhibition of the development application (DA), response to submissions, assessment, and determination. Exhibition is for at least 28 days, or 14 days for relevant residential applications, as specified in the Department’s community participation plan. A longer period applies if exhibition overlaps the period from 20 December to 10 January, which is worth factoring in if your programme has you lodging late in the year.
What has changed recently in the assessment system?
Two reforms are worth understanding because they change the shape of the risk rather than just the timetable.
The Rapid Assessment Framework. This is the package that introduced industry-specific assessment requirements, revised environmental impact assessment guidelines, the Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner accreditation scheme, and the two year expiry on assessment requirements. The Department describes it as streamlining the assessment of major projects.
The Development Coordination Authority. The Department’s planning system reform legislation passed both houses of Parliament on 12 November 2025, in what the Department describes as the most significant overhaul of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in a generation. The Development Coordination Authority began initial operations in December 2025 and its main functions started on 1 July 2026. It consolidates advice and decision-making previously spread across up to 22 different parts of the New South Wales Government behind a single point of contact, and provides a single coordinated government response on development applications within 28 days. The Department’s own framing of the problem it is solving is instructive for anyone modelling programme risk: it states that a development application with just one referral historically took an average of 60 days longer to assess than one without, and each additional referral added up to 100 days.
What does a state significant development application cost to run?
There are four cost buckets, and only one of them is a published rate card.
The application fee. All applicants pay an assessment fee, and the Department is explicit that state significant development fees, including for modification applications, must be paid before the application is considered lodged. The fee is set against estimated development cost and published in the Department’s schedule of planning and development fees and charges, updated each financial year. Fees are non-refundable. Where an application involves a concurrent rezoning, a rezoning fee is payable on top, determined by the complexity of the rezoning.
The consultant suite. The environmental impact statement (EIS) and its technical appendices are the dominant pre-lodgement cost. Depending on the site this can include traffic and transport, acoustic, wind, overshadowing, visual impact, contamination, geotechnical, flooding, biodiversity, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage, social impact, urban design, waste and utilities. The industry-specific assessment requirements for housing require social impacts to be considered, and a full social impact assessment where those impacts are significant. Add the estimated development cost report from a chartered quantity surveyor (QS), and legal costs on any planning agreement.
Contributions. The Housing and Productivity Contribution applies across the state’s high growth areas and is a direct line item in a New South Wales feasibility. The rates are adjusted quarterly against the Producer Price Index for Road and Bridge Construction in New South Wales. The rates the Department published as at 1 January 2026 were:
| Contribution | Greater Sydney | Central Coast, Illawarra-Shoalhaven, Lower Hunter |
|---|---|---|
| Residential subdivision, per new dwelling lot | $12,974.62 | $8,649.75 |
| Medium or high density residential, per new dwelling | $10,812.18 | $6,487.31 |
| Commercial, per square metre of new gross floor area | $32.44 | $32.44 |
| Industrial, per square metre of new gross floor area | $16.22 | $16.22 |
Two further components can apply on top. A strategic biodiversity component of $10,304.08 per dwelling applied within the Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan area, and a transport project component of $16,218.27 per high density dwelling applied within the Pyrmont Peninsula area, both at the same date. Because the rates index quarterly, check the Housing and Productivity Contribution page for the current figure before you rely on any of these in a model.
Time. The largest cost on this pathway is usually not a fee. It is the land holding costs, interest on any acquisition debt, and construction cost escalation over an assessment period that is longer than a local development application would have been. That is the number that moves the margin, and it is the one worth modelling properly.
What does the state significant development pathway do to a feasibility?
It shifts a large block of cost to the left, before you have any consent, and it stretches the period over which land and finance costs accrue. The revenue side does not move. Everything else does.
Here is a simplified worked example for a 120 apartment project in Greater Sydney, run through the state significant development pathway. The figures are illustrative and are not a benchmark for any particular site.
Scenario A: programme runs to plan
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Gross realisation value, 120 apartments at $1,100,000 | $132,000,000 |
| Land | $18,000,000 |
| Acquisition costs, duty, legals and due diligence | $1,000,000 |
| Construction | $60,000,000 |
| Construction contingency at 5% | $3,000,000 |
| Professional fees and consultants, including the environmental impact statement suite | $7,200,000 |
| Housing and Productivity Contribution, 120 dwellings at $10,812.18 | $1,297,000 |
| Other authority fees and contributions | $2,600,000 |
| Selling and marketing at 3% of gross realisation value | $3,960,000 |
| Finance costs | $9,000,000 |
| Total development cost | $106,057,000 |
| Profit | $25,943,000 |
| Development margin on cost | 24.5% |
Scenario B: the same scheme, with the assessment running 12 months longer
Changed inputs only. Gross realisation value is deliberately held constant so the effect of the delay is visible in isolation.
| Changed input | Amount |
|---|---|
| Additional finance costs, 12 months on peak debt | $1,800,000 |
| Additional land holding costs, land tax, rates and site security | $350,000 |
| Additional consultant and legal fees, responding to submissions | $450,000 |
| Construction cost escalation at 4% on $60,000,000 for one year | $2,400,000 |
| Additional cost | $5,000,000 |
| Revised total development cost | $111,057,000 |
| Revised profit | $20,943,000 |
| Revised development margin on cost | 18.9% |
A twelve month slip with no change to yield or pricing takes roughly 5.6 percentage points off the development margin on cost. On this example that is $5,000,000, or nearly a fifth of the profit. The escalation line is doing most of the damage, and escalation is the input developers most often leave flat in a model.
Three modelling points follow from that.
The pathway is a date range, not a date. The Department’s 275 day target is a target across a portfolio, not a commitment on any particular application. A feasibility that runs the base case, a six month slip and a twelve month slip carries more information than one that runs a single programme.
The pre-lodgement spend sits in an unusual period. The environmental impact statement (EIS) suite, the estimated development cost (EDC) report and the application fee are all spent before you know whether you have consent. In cashflow terms that is at-risk equity sitting in the ground for a long time, and where it lands in the model changes what the equity return looks like.
The objection risk has a price. A referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), triggered by 50 objections or a council objection, adds a determination stage. It is not a catastrophe, but it is not free either, and the downside scenario is where it shows up.
Do the other states have a state significant development pathway?
Every Australian jurisdiction has some route that lifts a major project out of the ordinary council process, but the name, the trigger and the decision maker differ enough that experience in one state transfers poorly to another. The term “state significant development” is specific to New South Wales.
Victoria. The Development Facilitation Program routes eligible applications to the Minister for Planning rather than the council, using Clause 53.22 for significant economic development, Clause 53.23 for significant residential development with affordable housing, and Clause 53.25 for the Great Design Fast Track. For the residential stream, the Department of Transport and Planning’s published thresholds are an estimated development cost of $50 million in metropolitan Melbourne or $15 million in regional Victoria, with at least 10 per cent of dwellings as affordable housing. Sector thresholds for warehousing, health, education, data centres and the visitor economy sit lower. Public notice and referral requirements are retained, but Ministerial decisions cannot be appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. More detail sits in the guide to Plan for Victoria and the Development Facilitation Program.
Queensland. The closest analogue for a housing developer is State Facilitated Development under section 106D of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), with criteria prescribed in section 51A of the Planning Regulation 2017. The Planning Minister declares, the Chief Executive assesses and decides, and the published decision period is 30 business days under the Development Assessment Rules. Local government endorsement is required, notification is tailored, and there are no referrals and no submitter appeal rights. The Coordinator-General’s coordinated project declaration under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) also exists, but the current register is entirely resources, energy, water, rail and port projects, so it is unlikely to be the route for an urban development.
Western Australia. The Part 11B Significant Development Pathway under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) became operational on 1 March 2024 as the permanent replacement for the temporary Part 17 pathway. The Statutory Planning Committee of the Western Australian Planning Commission decides. The published thresholds are $20 million or more within the Perth or Peel region scheme areas or the Swan Valley Planning Scheme area, and $5 million or more elsewhere in the state. The determination timeframe is 120 days from acceptance, or longer by agreement. From 30 May 2025 apartment developments of any value in designated locations became eligible where they include at least 5 per cent social or affordable housing managed by a registered community housing provider. Applicants have merits review to the State Administrative Tribunal, and there is no third party appeal.
South Australia. There is no pathway called state significant development. The functional equivalents under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA) are impact assessed development under sections 108 to 116, restricted development under section 110, and Crown development under section 131. Entry is by ministerial declaration, by regulation, or by the identity of the proponent, not by a dollar threshold. On impact assessed development an environmental impact statement is mandatory, the State Planning Commission prepares the assessment report and the Minister decides, and there are no appeal rights.
Tasmania. Two routes. A Project of State Significance under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (Tas) requires at least two of seven statutory attributes, is declared by the Governor on the Minister’s recommendation, and the declaration order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Major Projects pathway under Part 4 Division 2A of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas), operating since 28 October 2020, is the more usable route for a private proponent: the Minister declares, and a Development Assessment Panel established by the Tasmanian Planning Commission grants or refuses the major project permit.
Australian Capital Territory. Territory Priority Projects under sections 216 and 218 of the Planning Act 2023 (ACT) are declared jointly by the Chief Minister and the Planning Minister, and the Planning Minister then decides the development application. There is no capital investment threshold. The Territory Planning Authority’s own position is that the development application still follows the normal process including notification and referral, so the gain is the removal of third party merits review in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal rather than a faster assessment. Every commenced project on the public register is a government project.
Northern Territory. The Planning Act 1999 (NT) provides for a significant development proposal, reported on by the Northern Territory Planning Commission and determined by the Minister rather than the Development Consent Authority. The statutory thresholds could not be verified from a Northern Territory Government source at the time of writing, so treat any figure you see quoted with caution and confirm it with the Department directly.
Does New Zealand have an equivalent?
Yes. The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 is New Zealand’s route for projects with significant regional or national benefits, in force since 23 December 2024 and amended by the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Act 2025. It is closer in spirit to New South Wales than most Australian equivalents because it bundles multiple approvals into one process.
There are two ways in. Around 149 projects are listed in Schedule 2 of the Act and can go straight to a substantive application with the Environmental Protection Authority. Any other proponent applies to the Minister for Infrastructure for referral, and the criteria in section 22 expressly include increasing housing supply, addressing housing needs and contributing to a well-functioning urban environment. A substantive application must be lodged within two years of referral.
The decision is made by an Expert Panel appointed by a convener, not by the Environmental Protection Authority, which acts as the administering agency. The panel cannot notify the application publicly. Appeals go to the High Court on a question of law only. The process bundles Resource Management Act 1991 consents, conservation and wildlife approvals, archaeological authorities, freshwater fisheries and marine consents, but not building consents.
The fees are user-pays and are worth knowing before you start. As published in August 2026, a referral application costs NZ$18,700 excluding tax, and a substantive application NZ$390,000 excluding tax, of which the fee portion is a drawdown deposit against actual cost rather than a cap. Processing is suspended if the deposit is exhausted.
Private residential projects do use it. The Arataki subdivision at Havelock North, for roughly 150 to 200 residential allotments, received approvals subject to conditions on 24 February 2026.
The wider New Zealand context is in flux. The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, introduced in December 2025 to replace the Resource Management Act, completed select committee scrutiny in July 2026 but have not passed. Anyone weighing a New Zealand project should read the fast-track regime alongside the Resource Management Act reform position rather than in isolation.
What to ask your planning consultant, your planning lawyer and your quantity surveyor
These are the questions that decide the pathway on your facts, and that this guide deliberately does not answer.
Your planning consultant
- Which clause of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 does this project fall under, if any, and what is the exact trigger in that clause?
- If it is below the threshold, what would take it above, and would that be a better or worse outcome for us commercially?
- Is any part of the proposal wholly prohibited under the local environmental plan (LEP), and if so, is a concurrent rezoning realistically available to us?
- Are we eligible for industry-specific assessment requirements, or do we need a scoping report and project-specific ones? What does that difference do to the programme?
- On the evidence from comparable sites, what is a realistic exhibition submission count, and what is the probability this ends up with the Independent Planning Commission (IPC)?
- What is the full technical study list for the environmental impact statement (EIS) on this site, with fee estimates and lead times, and which studies are on the critical path?
- Which studies have seasonal or survey-window constraints, such as biodiversity, that could delay lodgement independently of everything else?
- If we go the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) route, can we credibly lodge within the nine month assessment requirement window given our current design status?
Your planning lawyer
- What is our judicial review exposure on this determination, and who realistically has standing?
- If we are refused, do we take the Division 8.2 review or the section 8.7 merit appeal, and what does choosing one do to the other?
- Would this development otherwise have been designated development, and therefore carry objector merit appeal rights?
- If the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) holds a public hearing, we lose our own merit appeal. How should that change how we run the assessment?
- What planning agreement or affordable housing commitment is the Department likely to expect here, and what is the negotiating range?
- Which conditions of consent on comparable approvals have created delivery problems, and how do we get in front of those at the drafting stage?
Your quantity surveyor
- What is the estimated development cost on the current scheme, excluding and including Goods and Services Tax (GST), and how close is that to the relevant threshold?
- Which cost items sit on the boundary of the estimated development cost definition, and what is the risk that the Department treats them differently from us?
- When should we commission the certified report, given it must be dated within 30 days of submission?
- What escalation allowance should we carry over an assessment period of this length, and how should it be phased?
Reading the comparable determinations
The Major Projects register is the most underused source on this pathway. Every state significant development application, its environmental impact statement (EIS), the submissions, the Department’s assessment report and the final conditions of consent are public. Reading two or three determinations for your development type in your council area will tell you more about what your application will actually face than any summary, including this one.