The exact wording councils used when refusing a development application, with the planning controls each ground was tested against. Read from the notices of determination themselves — every entry links back to the council record so you can verify it.
Georges River (268) Woollahra (226) Mosman (208) Camden (176) North Sydney (144) Waverley (119) Byron (110) Penrith (104) Randwick (97) Tweed (59) Liverpool (31) Blue Mountains (22) Sydney (20) Hornsby (17) Cumberland (16) Inner West (8) Ku Ring Gai (8) All grounds Building height, scale, bulk or massing Floor space ratio / gross floor area exceedance Setbacks or building envelope non-compliance Streetscape / neighbourhood character incompatibility Heritage item or conservation area impact Overshadowing / solar access loss to neighbours Privacy loss / overlooking of neighbours View loss / view sharing Noise or acoustic amenity impact Parking shortfall, traffic or vehicular access Landscaping deficiency or tree removal Stormwater, drainage or flooding Bushfire hazard / RFS requirements Land contamination (SEPP Resilience/55) Biodiversity, native vegetation or ecology Clause 4.6 variation request not justified Land use prohibited / not permissible in zone Insufficient information submitted by applicant Contrary to the public interest (s4.15(1)(e)) Subdivision / minimum lot size non-compliance SEPP non-compliance (BASIX, Codes, Housing etc.) Site not suitable for the development (s4.15(1)(c)) Other ground not covered above Any date Determined 2026 or later Determined 2025 or later Determined 2024 or later Determined 2023 or later Determined 2022 or later Determined 2021 or later 1,127 grounds matching · 176 refusals analysed in Camden Sign in to read the grounds The ranking below is free. The verbatim wording, the LEP and DCP clauses each ground was tested against, and the addresses and DA numbers behind them need an active subscription. There are 1,127 grounds indexed for Camden.
Insufficient information submitted by applicant 198 grounds 159 decisive Contrary to the public interest (s4.15(1)(e)) 138 grounds 134 decisive Site not suitable for the development (s4.15(1)(c)) 131 grounds 129 decisive Stormwater, drainage or flooding 91 grounds 76 decisive Streetscape / neighbourhood character incompatibility 73 grounds 39 decisive Parking shortfall, traffic or vehicular access 65 grounds 48 decisive Land use prohibited / not permissible in zone 57 grounds 56 decisive Setbacks or building envelope non-compliance 55 grounds 37 decisive Building height, scale, bulk or massing 53 grounds 38 decisive Other ground not covered above 51 grounds 31 decisive Landscaping deficiency or tree removal 49 grounds 18 decisive Land contamination (SEPP Resilience/55) 27 grounds 25 decisive Noise or acoustic amenity impact 26 grounds 15 decisive Floor space ratio / gross floor area exceedance 19 grounds 15 decisive SEPP non-compliance (BASIX, Codes, Housing etc.) 17 grounds 13 decisive Biodiversity, native vegetation or ecology 14 grounds 13 decisive Heritage item or conservation area impact 13 grounds 12 decisive Privacy loss / overlooking of neighbours 13 grounds 9 decisive Clause 4.6 variation request not justified 10 grounds 10 decisive Overshadowing / solar access loss to neighbours 9 grounds 8 decisive Subdivision / minimum lot size non-compliance 9 grounds 6 decisive Bushfire hazard / RFS requirements 7 grounds 7 decisive View loss / view sharing 2 grounds 1 decisive 3 further refusals for Camden are queued for analysis and will appear here as they are processed.