What's Permissible?
See the structure of the result, not a marketing statistic. Explore the evidence, calculations and unresolved matters.
A multi-dwelling proposal
What is missing, and are the figures being compared on the right basis?
The finding, in context.
Illustrative structure for a document-based check. Individual dwelling figures, whole-site totals and missing inputs are treated separately.
What the full record needs to show
The applicable control, the proposal or land evidence, the calculation basis where relevant, the source reference and any unresolved matter.
No actual compliance outcome is represented in this example.
The controls and their sources.
The display separates the applicable source material from the conclusion. These example rows do not state real planning requirements.
| Control | Source basis | Check state / source |
|---|---|---|
| Land use and route | Applicable provisions and their interaction would be recorded here. | Not assessedPolicy / local plan |
| Built form | Relevant control, scope and measurement basis would be quoted here. | Not assessedRelevant plan |
| Open space / landscaping | The rule's actual dwelling, lot or whole-site basis must be established before comparing figures. | Basis not establishedDevelopment control plan |
Keep each figure with its basis.
The proposal's stated value and an independently derived value must not be silently treated as the same thing.
| Figure | Provenance required | Example state |
|---|---|---|
| Per-dwelling area | Document, page, drawing revision, dwelling identifier and measurement definition. | Input placeholder |
| Whole-site total | Confirmed site scope, compatible areas and any exclusions required by the source rule. | Not established |
| Figure stated in a submission | Keep the applicant's stated figure separate from extracted and calculated values. | Comparison pending |
| Working-file geometry | Format, units, coordinate basis, drawing layers and complete geometry must be supported and verified. | Capability not confirmed |
A calculation needs the right question.
Per-dwelling open space cannot automatically be compared with a whole-site control. The source determines the basis of the calculation.
What does the control measure?
Per dwelling, per lot, whole site or another defined scope. Keep the relevant definition and clause.
Which inputs support it?
Keep the document, revision, units and entity for every input. Do not fill a missing value with zero.
Can the comparison be made?
Show the formula, inputs, exclusions and result. An unresolved basis remains an open matter.
Whole-site input is not established. No total, ratio or compliance result is returned.
If the applicable rule requires an aggregate, only compatible, verified inputs should be combined. Overlaps, exclusions and the denominator must follow that rule. This screen does not demonstrate a completed calculation engine.
The source stays with the finding.
This is the shape of a source register. None of the references below are actual citations.
- Relevant state policy
State policy placeholder
[Plan · page · clause] ↗State policy placeholder
[Exact supporting text belongs here.]
Placeholder only. This is not a legal quotation. A real result shows the actual source and its relationship to the finding.
- Relevant local environmental plan
LEP placeholder
[Plan · page · clause] ↗LEP placeholder
[Exact supporting text belongs here.]
Placeholder only. This is not a legal quotation. A real result shows the actual source and its relationship to the finding.
- Relevant development control plan
DCP placeholder
[Plan · page · clause] ↗DCP placeholder
[Exact supporting text belongs here.]
Placeholder only. This is not a legal quotation. A real result shows the actual source and its relationship to the finding.
- Submitted plans or statement
Proposal document placeholder
[Plan · page · clause] ↗Proposal document placeholder
[Exact supporting text belongs here.]
Placeholder only. This is not a legal quotation. A real result shows the actual source and its relationship to the finding.
For a real result: document title, version or effective date, page, clause, exact supporting text and a permitted link or document reference.
What still needs to be established.
An absence of evidence is recorded as a gap, not converted into a positive finding.
Who confirms the next step?
The relevant planner, assessing officer, applicant or specialist is identified for the matter. The system does not replace their decision.
Missing, conflicting or unmodelled inputs remain open matters. A green status is not a substitute for the evidence needed to support it.
Discuss a result like this