05 · TRACE THE REASONING
Primary sources and review status
Follow the linked legislation, cases and guidance. The proposition shown here is limited by the source’s scope, its currency and its application to the particular project.
Test the proposal.
Build the case for refusal or change.
An adversarial review method for testing a major development’s legal basis, evidence and design. Identify supported defects, address the applicant’s strongest answer and explain why refusal or a substantive change follows.
Find a project to reviewLoading the reference library…
START HERE · EVERY REVIEW
Why does this proposal qualify as SSD?
First identify the actual category or declaration, the land and development it covers, and who has power to decide it. Keep these questions in view even when your main concern is noise, traffic or another impact.
SEARs set assessment requirements. They are not development consent.
Issuing SEARs does not itself establish SSD eligibility. Read the applicable instrument and the applicant’s legal explanation. Check a cost threshold only if that route requires one, using its actual definition and relevant date.
These checks come first because they establish the review framework. Their priority does not mean a defect exists or that an eligibility argument will be the strongest ground. Missing evidence remains unresolved; a successful legal challenge may lead to correction or redetermination.
01 · THE APPROACH
Thorough review. Clear priorities.
Start with the NSW SSD scheme.
A concern about the merits of a proposal, a legal error and a condition that could improve an approval are different arguments. Check the applicable scheme, project stage and evidence before choosing a route. No submission method guarantees refusal.
02 · WHAT TO EXAMINE
The issue checklist
After the first-step checks above, use these prompts to find and test relevant issues. The first-step checks remain above when you filter this list. A checklist entry is a line of inquiry, not a finding about your project.
03 · LEARN FROM SUBMISSIONS
The craft of a substantive objection
Study how a submission builds its case: the defects it demonstrates, the counter-evidence it addresses and the decision consequence it supports.
Examples of advocacy, not verified precedent. Their allegations and legal interpretations need independent checking. Their facts are not evidence for another development. This library shares review notes; original submissions remain private.
04 · MATCH THE ISSUE TO THE ROUTE
Legal routes and their limits
Start with the decision, the available right and the alleged error. Each route has its own access rules, time limits and possible remedy.
These are routes to investigate, not a conclusion that you have standing or a viable case. Check the current law and decision notice. Obtain legal advice promptly if a court deadline may be running.
06 · BUILDING THE STANDARD
How the review gets better
The work programme and the checks needed to assess whether each improvement is useful.