Proposed 2026 Changes Explained
By Adam Murphy, Principal Building Designer at ANS Design
Information current as at 8 August 2026
Quick answer
At present, a Complying Development Certificate in NSW cannot rely on a merit-based variation in the same way that a Development Application may seek flexibility for certain planning controls.
A proposed development must satisfy every applicable CDC development standard. If even one required standard is not met, the project may need to be redesigned or assessed through the Development Application pathway. The ANS Design guide to DA versus CDC approval pathways explains the distinction in more detail.
The NSW Government is now finalising reforms that would introduce a limited variation certificate process for certain complying-development standards. Council—not a private certifier—would assess the requested variation. If council approves the variation, the remaining CDC assessment could continue.
These changes are not yet operational. NSW Planning currently expects the reforms to commence during the third quarter of 2026, but the final provisions, limits, fees and commencement date remain subject to confirmation.
A project should therefore continue to be designed and assessed against the legislation currently in force.
Why this proposed change matters
A Complying Development Certificate, commonly called a CDC, has traditionally offered a faster approval pathway—but only when every applicable development standard is satisfied.
The NSW Government is now considering an important change that could allow limited variations to certain CDC controls without forcing an otherwise suitable residential project through a full Development Application.
For homeowners, designers and builders, this could provide a more proportionate way to deal with minor site-specific issues. It is not intended to turn a CDC into a general merit-assessment process or provide unlimited flexibility.
The proposal focuses on specified, relatively minor variations for low-risk and low-impact development.
What is the current CDC rule in NSW?
Under the current complying-development framework, the proposal must comply with all applicable development standards in the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy, or SEPP.
This includes the standards applying to the site, land constraints, building type and proposed design.
Depending on the applicable code, these requirements may address matters such as:
- Whether the land is eligible for complying development
- Maximum building height and gross floor area
- Front, side and rear setbacks
- Landscaped area and principal private open space
- Privacy and overshadowing
- Vehicle access, parking and garage dimensions
- Demolition, earthworks and drainage
- Bushfire, flooding, heritage and other land constraints.
The current State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, commonly called the Codes SEPP, provides that development is complying development only when it meets the standards specified for that development and the general requirements for the pathway.
This means that a private certifier cannot simply decide that a small non-compliance is reasonable. A proposal that exceeds a maximum height by a small amount, falls short of a required setback or exceeds the permitted gross floor area may no longer qualify for a CDC.
The practical choices are currently to:
- Redesign the proposal so it fully complies.
- Investigate whether another approval pathway lawfully applies through a proper site, design and approval assessment.
- Lodge a Development Application with council.
Why is the NSW Government proposing CDC variations?
The NSW Government considers the present system too rigid.
Its consultation material explains that relatively minor non-compliances can force otherwise straightforward development into the longer DA process, adding more than 60 days on average to the assessment period.
The proposed reform is intended to:
- Allow greater flexibility for minor and low-impact design departures
- Keep council oversight of the standards being varied
- Retain the faster CDC assessment pathway for the remainder of the proposal
- Provide clearer assessment timeframes
- Allow councils to concentrate their resources on more complex applications.
The objective is not to remove development standards. Instead, it is to create a controlled process through which council may assess a limited variation to a standard identified by the relevant planning instrument as variable.
How could a variation certificate work?
Under the proposed pathway, an applicant would identify a non-compliance either when lodging the CDC application or after the issue is identified during the certifier’s assessment.
The proposed process would generally involve:
- Confirming that the particular standard is permitted to be varied.
- Preparing plans that clearly show the non-compliance and the extent of the requested variation.
- Providing a short written justification explaining why the variation is appropriate and how the relevant requirements are satisfied.
- Referring the variation application to the relevant council through the NSW Planning Portal.
- Council assessing the variation and deciding whether to approve, partially approve or refuse it.
- If approved, the certifier or council continuing the assessment of every other CDC requirement.
Only council would be able to assess the proposed variation and issue the variation certificate. A private registered certifier could assess the balance of the CDC but could not independently approve the departure.
The consultation proposal gives council 10 calendar days to assess a variation referred by a private certifier, or 20 calendar days where council is assessing both the variation and the CDC.
It also proposes a form of deemed approval if council does not refuse a valid application within the applicable period. Important safeguards would prevent deemed approval where, for example, the standard is not legally variable or the requested variation exceeds the permitted limit.
These timeframes and procedures remain proposed and should be checked again once the final reforms are made.
Which CDC controls may become variable?
The proposed first stage focuses on common controls that can prevent low-rise housing from proceeding as complying development because of a relatively minor non-compliance.
The NSW Government’s detailed Explanation of Intended Effect identifies possible variations involving:
- Maximum building height
- Maximum gross floor area
- Front, side and rear setbacks
- Primary and secondary road articulation zones
- Privacy-screen requirements
- Garage-door widths and vehicle-access arrangements
- Certain dual-occupancy site, width and access requirements
- Maximum floor area and setbacks for certain detached structures
- Detached studios
- Swimming-pool location and setbacks
- Development near protected trees, supported by appropriate arborist evidence.
Not every standard would become variable, and not every proposed variation would apply under every code or to every development type.
The final wording of the relevant SEPP will determine exactly what can be varied, by how much and subject to which tests.
Practical examples in the 2026 proposal
Limited building-height increases
The proposal considers allowing the usual 8.5-metre maximum height to increase to 9 metres for dwelling houses, dual occupancies and manor houses.
For multi-dwelling housing in the form of terraces, a maximum of 9 metres could potentially increase to 9.5 metres.
However, the development would still need to remain within the maximum height permitted by the relevant Local Environmental Plan.
Supporting information may also need to address site topography, neighbouring development, views and overshadowing, including shadow diagrams.
This is not a general right to exceed the LEP height limit.
Up to 10% additional gross floor area
For certain dwellings, dual occupancies, manor houses, terraces and attached development, the proposal considers allowing up to 10% more than the maximum gross floor area prescribed for the relevant lot under the Codes SEPP.
For example, the NSW Government’s Explanation of Intended Effect explains that a dwelling on a 450-square-metre lot with a current maximum GFA of 290 square metres could potentially seek an increase to 319 square metres.
Other controls would continue to apply. A larger floor area would not remove the need to satisfy landscaped-area, private-open-space, setback, parking, amenity and other applicable standards.
Setbacks responding to the existing context
The proposed reforms also consider variations where:
- A front setback is consistent with the established street or council’s DCP
- Certain alterations and additions align with an existing lawful side setback
- A rear setback responds to the council DCP or the average setback of adjoining dwellings.
These examples show the intended direction of the reform: limited flexibility based on clearly defined planning outcomes, rather than an unrestricted ability to vary a CDC.
Important limits proposed for the new pathway
Several limits are important for homeowners to understand:
- Only standards expressly identified as variable in the relevant planning instrument could be varied.
- The proposal suggests a maximum of three to four varied standards for a development, including later modifications.
- General eligibility restrictions would not become variable. The pathway could not be used to make prohibited or environmentally constrained land eligible for complying development.
- Council could approve only some of the requested variations or refuse the application.
- If a variation were refused, the design would need to be amended to comply or proceed as a DA.
- The consultation proposal does not include a review or appeal right for a variation-certificate decision.
- A council fee would apply, but the final fee structure has not yet been confirmed.
- The variation process would need to occur before construction. It is not proposed as a way to retrospectively authorise work that has departed from the approved CDC.
Does this apply to secondary dwellings under the Housing SEPP?
This is an important distinction.
The first stage is proposed to apply to low-rise housing under specified parts of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, commonly called the Codes SEPP.
The initial list includes:
- Part 3—Housing Code
- Part 3A—Rural Housing Code
- Part 3B—Low Rise Housing Diversity Code
- Part 3C—Greenfield Housing Code
- Part 3D—Inland Housing Code.
The proposal should not be presented as automatically applying to complying development assessed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, including a secondary dwelling relying on that SEPP.
NSW Planning has indicated that future stages may consider other SEPPs, including the Housing SEPP.
Until an amendment is made to the relevant planning instrument, however, a proposed secondary dwelling under the Housing SEPP must continue to satisfy every applicable CDC requirement.
Homeowners considering compact housing can also read the ANS Design guide to small secondary dwellings under 45 square metres, while remembering that the proposed Codes SEPP variation process does not automatically extend to that separate Housing SEPP pathway.
Is varying a CDC the same as modifying an approved CDC?
No. These are related but different concepts.
A CDC modification changes an approval that has already been issued. Under the current system, a modification cannot simply disregard an applicable development standard.
The proposed variation certificate would allow council to consider a departure from a standard expressly made variable by the relevant SEPP.
The proposal indicates that variation certificates could also apply to CDC modifications. If a later modification affected an approved variation or created a new variation, a new variation-certificate assessment and additional fee could be required.
The proposed process is not intended to correct unauthorised departures discovered after construction has commenced.
What should homeowners and builders do now?
Do not prepare or commit to a design on the assumption that a CDC variation will become available.
Until the reforms formally commence and the final legislation is published, a project should be assessed against the planning controls currently in force.
ANS Design outlines the usual stages on its approvals and design process page.
A proper early-stage assessment should:
- Confirm the correct SEPP and approval pathway
- Review the planning certificate, zoning and relevant mapping
- Identify environmental and site constraints
- Calculate height, floor area, setbacks, landscaping and private open space accurately
- Check vehicle access, parking, drainage and earthworks
- Compare a fully compliant CDC option with any plausible DA alternative
- Allow for redesign before consultant work and construction pricing progress too far.
Early assessment is particularly important because the new process, if introduced as proposed, will not make every non-compliance variable. Some projects will still be better suited to a DA from the outset.
The ANS Design building-design FAQ also provides a general introduction to residential approvals, documentation and consultant coordination.
When are the changes expected to commence?
The public exhibition ran from 14 May to 24 June 2026 and has now closed. NSW Planning is reviewing submissions and finalising the reforms.
Its current project page states that commencement is expected during the third quarter of 2026.
That timing is an expectation, not a confirmed commencement date.
Transitional arrangements will also matter: NSW Planning presently states that the new process will not apply to CDC applications already lodged but not determined.
Anyone planning to rely on the reforms should check the final amending legislation, commencement notice and any updated NSW Planning guidance before lodging an application.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private certifier approve a minor variation to a CDC now?
No. Under the current framework, a private certifier must assess the proposal against the applicable complying-development standards. The proposed new system would reserve assessment of the variation for council.
Will every CDC control be able to be varied?
No. Only standards specifically identified as variable in the relevant SEPP would be eligible, and each would have defined limits or assessment requirements.
Would an approved variation guarantee the CDC?
No. Approval of a variation would allow the CDC assessment to continue. The development would still need to satisfy every other applicable standard and requirement.
Can the proposed process be used to exceed an LEP height limit?
The height variation described in the consultation document must remain consistent with the relevant LEP height control. It is not proposed as a way to exceed that LEP maximum.
Can a variation certificate fix building work that does not follow an approved CDC?
No. The proposed pathway is not intended to retrospectively resolve non-compliant construction. Building work must still be carried out in accordance with the approved CDC and plans.
Planning a CDC or DA project in NSW?
The proposed reforms may create useful flexibility for some low-rise housing projects, but the fundamentals will remain the same: the correct approval pathway should be identified before the design is advanced.
Adam Murphy and ANS Design assist homeowners, builders and property owners with residential planning assessments and building design and approval documentation for CDC and DA projects across Sydney and NSW.
If you are considering a new home, alterations and additions, a secondary dwelling, carport, garage or other residential project, ANS Design can review the site controls and explain the plausible approval pathways before you commit to a design.
Services are available across Sydney, Greater Sydney and selected regional NSW areas.
Discuss your project: Contact Adam Murphy at ANS Design
Phone: 0412 508 336
Related ANS Design articles
- DA vs CDC: What’s the Best Approval Path for Your Project in NSW?
- Does a Retaining Wall Need Council Approval in NSW?
- What Happens If You Build Without Approval in NSW?
- Building Design Insights, Advice and Industry Updates
This article provides general information only and is not legal, planning or certification advice for a particular property. Planning controls and proposed reforms may change. Site-specific advice should be obtained before relying on any approval pathway.
Adam Murphy
Principal Building Designer
ANS Design
© 2026 ANS Design. All rights reserved