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 506 grounds matching · 59 refusals analysed in Tweed 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 506 grounds indexed for Tweed.
Insufficient information submitted by applicant 93 grounds 81 decisive Contrary to the public interest (s4.15(1)(e)) 61 grounds 53 decisive Biodiversity, native vegetation or ecology 54 grounds 53 decisive Stormwater, drainage or flooding 49 grounds 44 decisive Site not suitable for the development (s4.15(1)(c)) 43 grounds 43 decisive Land use prohibited / not permissible in zone 33 grounds 32 decisive Parking shortfall, traffic or vehicular access 30 grounds 22 decisive Other ground not covered above 20 grounds 12 decisive Streetscape / neighbourhood character incompatibility 20 grounds 7 decisive SEPP non-compliance (BASIX, Codes, Housing etc.) 16 grounds 11 decisive Building height, scale, bulk or massing 11 grounds 9 decisive Landscaping deficiency or tree removal 11 grounds 5 decisive Setbacks or building envelope non-compliance 11 grounds 9 decisive Land contamination (SEPP Resilience/55) 10 grounds 9 decisive Subdivision / minimum lot size non-compliance 9 grounds 7 decisive Bushfire hazard / RFS requirements 9 grounds 9 decisive Noise or acoustic amenity impact 8 grounds 7 decisive View loss / view sharing 6 grounds 6 decisive Privacy loss / overlooking of neighbours 5 grounds 4 decisive Heritage item or conservation area impact 3 grounds 3 decisive Overshadowing / solar access loss to neighbours 2 grounds 1 decisive Clause 4.6 variation request not justified 1 grounds 1 decisive Floor space ratio / gross floor area exceedance 1 grounds 1 decisive 5 further refusals for Tweed are queued for analysis and will appear here as they are processed.