189,762

NSW complying development certificates tracked

45.3%

of NSW new-proposal applications took the CDC track, 2026 YTD

5 vs 57 days

median lodgement-to-determination, CDC vs DA

29.9%

of SA applications take a codified lane (Accepted + Deemed-to-Satisfy)

factors checked per NSW verdict

Computed from the DA Leads national application database, snapshot 13 July 2026 (NSW: new proposals lodged 9 Apr 2021 – 11 Jul 2026, modifications excluded. SA: assessed applications 2021 – 11 Jul 2026, pathways resolved from the PlanSA register, land divisions excluded).

What Gets Checked

Thirteen factors, each against the actual Codes SEPP clause.

In NSW the verdict is evaluated against the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008: the Housing Code and the Low Rise Housing Diversity Code. Every factor carries a rating and a separate data status, so a gap in our mapping is disclosed as a gap, never dressed up as a pass.

ZoningHousing Code Part 3 (R1–R4, RU5)

Heritage itemCodes SEPP cl 1.19: absolute bar

Heritage conservation areaCodes SEPP cl 1.19: absolute bar

Bushfire prone landHousing Code cl 3.4; BAL-40 / FZ excluded

Flood control lotHousing Code cl 3.5 flood standards

Acid sulfate soilscl 1.19: Class 1 / 2 excluded

Environmentally sensitive landcl 1.17A + Dictionary

Coastal hazard landcl 1.19: coastline hazard

Lot size & frontageCode minimums by dwelling type

Easementstitle / DP / 88B: disclosed as unmappable

Sewer / on-site effluentcouncil OSSM approval on unsewered land

Other overlaysLEP overlays at the point

Design envelopeheight ~8.5 m, storeys, FSR, setbacks

disqualifier needs assessment minor / standard clear not in our data, never treated as clear

The free verdict shows the drivers. The full 13-factor breakdown (per-factor ratings, statutory references, required next checks) ships with the site reports in the DA Leads map on Pro plans.

State Coverage

Every state answers in its own planning language.

"CDC" is NSW terminology. The same fast-track vs full-assessment question exists in every jurisdiction under a different name, so the checker answers in each state's real terms, and is honest about how deeply each is encoded.

State	Fast-track pathway	Full assessment	Depth
NSW	Complying Development (CDC)	Development Application (DA)	deep: SEPP encoded
VIC	VicSmart / no permit required	Standard planning permit	indicative
QLD	Accepted development	Code- or impact-assessable	indicative
SA	Deemed-to-Satisfy	Performance Assessed	indicative
WA	Exempt / deemed-to-comply	Development approval	indicative
TAS	No Permit Required / Permitted	Discretionary	indicative
ACT	Exempt development	Development application	indicative
NT	Permitted (no permit)	Merit Assessable	see a planner

Deep = evaluated clause-by-clause against the state instrument. Indicative = zone and hazard layers mapped to the state's pathway rules at lower confidence. See a planner = we do not hold usable spatial data, and the checker says so instead of guessing.

The Data Behind It

685,000 applications, every pathway, one database.

DA Leads tracks fast-track certificates and codified-lane consents alongside full applications: 518,114 NSW new proposals since April 2021, plus 167,118 SA assessed applications with pathways resolved from the PlanSA register. That is what makes the pathway question answerable with data instead of vibes: which councils fast-track, how long each track actually takes, and where the volume concentrates.

CDC vs DA in NSW: what 518,000 applications say: the five-year shift to the fast track, and the 5-day vs 57-day reality
Where NSW builds fast: CDC share by council: a league table of 70 councils, from 69% to 7%
SA's three approval lanes: Deemed-to-Satisfy, Accepted and Performance Assessed across 167,000 applications, from Playford's 52% to Unley's 12%

Honest by Design

If we can't assess it, the verdict says so.

gaps dressed up as passes

A factor our data cannot reach is reported as "not in our data" and the verdict drops to "see a planner" when it matters. It is never folded into a green.

What the check is, and what it is not

This is an indicative desktop screening from public spatial mapping at the point you pick. It is not planning advice, and some things that decide a real CDC are simply not in any public layer:

Registered easements: on the title, deposited plan and 88B instrument, not in spatial data
Draft heritage listings and s10.7 certificate matters: the certificate is authoritative
BAL rating on bushfire-prone lots: needs a site assessment; BAL-40 / flame zone forces a DA
The design itself: an eligible lot still reverts to a DA if the build exceeds the complying envelope

The certifier's reading of the in-force SEPP and the s10.7 planning certificate is authoritative. Use the verdict to decide which sites are worth a planner's time, not to replace one.

Go Deeper

The full breakdown lives in the map.

Sign in on the DA Leads map to run this verdict on any parcel you click, alongside zoning, overlays, every DA and CDC nearby, and the documents behind them. The complete 13-factor table with statutory references and next steps ships with the Pro site reports. Building on this data? The pathway engine and the application database are available under a commercial licence.

Open the map Ask about data licensing