NSW Planning Reforms: What Certifiers Must Know About The New Group Home Definition

The NSW Government’s recent reforms to the Standard Instrument—Principal Local Environmental Plan have reshaped the way “group homes” are defined under the Housing SEPP framework. For certifiers, this is not just a technical amendment—it is a shift that directly affects how Complying Development Certificates (CDCs) are assessed, documented, and defended.

In recent months, the Building Commission NSW has intensified its scrutiny of CDCs issued for group homes by certifiers. Several certifiers have faced investigation, with allegations centring on whether developments truly satisfied the statutory definition. Against this backdrop, the definitional reform is both an opportunity and a risk: it broadens the scope of what may qualify as a group home, but it also demands a recalibration of compliance practices.

This article unpacks the definitional changes, highlights their practical implications, and provides certifiers with a defensible framework for decision-making. It concludes with a practical checklist designed specifically for certifiers navigating this evolving landscape.

The Old Definition: Narrow and Household-Centric

Under the previous wording, a group home (permanent) was defined as:

a dwelling—
(a) that is occupied by persons as a single household with or without paid supervision or care and whether or not those persons are related or payment for board and lodging is required, and
(b) that is used to provide permanent household accommodation for people with a disability or people who are socially disadvantaged,

but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Chapter 3, Part 5 applies.

Similarly, a group home (transitional) was defined as a dwelling occupied as a single household, used for temporary accommodation for rehabilitation, half-way housing, or refuges.

The key feature here was the “single household” test. Certifiers were required to assess whether the proposed use resembled a domestic household, even where residents were unrelated and support services were provided. This created tension: many supported living models did not neatly fit the “household” paradigm, yet proponents sought CDCs under the group home pathway.

The New Definition: Broader and More Flexible

The amended definition for group home (permanent) is now:

a building or place used as permanent household accommodation for people with a disability or people who are socially disadvantaged, and may include the following—
(a) multiple private rooms or suites of rooms, whether within a single building or multiple buildings,
(b) shared or individual facilities for occupants,
(c) shared or individual facilities for staff,
(d) communal spaces,
but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Chapter 3, Part 5 applies.

Similar wording is now also included in the definition of a group home (transitional), used for temporary accommodation for rehabilitation, half-way housing, or refuges.

The critical changes are:

1. From “dwelling” to “building or place”

This broadens the form of permissible development. Group homes are no longer confined to a single dwelling house; they may encompass multi-building complexes.

2. Removal of the “single household” test

Certifiers no longer need to establish that residents form a household. Instead, the focus is on the purpose of accommodation—permanent vs transitional, disability/social disadvantage vs rehabilitation/refuge.

3. Explicit recognition of facilities

The new definition expressly allows multiple private rooms, staff facilities, and communal spaces. This aligns the statutory language with contemporary supported living models.

Practical Implications for Certifiers

1. Broader eligibility, but sharper scrutiny

The broadened definition makes it easier for proponents to argue that their development qualifies as a group home. However, this does not reduce certifiers’ risk. The Building Commission NSW will likely pivot its focus: instead of challenging “household” character, it will interrogate whether the development genuinely serves the statutory purpose.

2. Evidence requirements must evolve

Certifiers must now demand operational evidence that demonstrates the development’s purpose. For example:

Permanent group homes: service provider agreements, resident eligibility criteria, tenancy/licence documents showing permanency.
Transitional group homes: rehabilitation program outlines, refuge management plans, evidence of temporary tenure.

3. Exclusion screen remains critical

The definition still excludes development to which SEPP (Housing) 2021, Chapter 3, Part 5 applies (e.g. seniors housing). Certifiers must explicitly document why the proposal is not captured by these alternative categories.

A Defensible Framework for CDC Decisions

To withstand scrutiny, certifiers should adopt a structured, evidence-based approach, such as the following four-step framework:

Step 1: Identify the category

Is the proposal a permanent group home (disability/social disadvantage, permanent accommodation) or a transitional group home (rehabilitation, half-way, refuge)?
Record the proponent’s stated purpose and cross-check against the statutory wording.

Step 2: Collect and verify evidence

Plans: confirm inclusion of private rooms, staff facilities, communal spaces.
Operational documents: service agreements, program outlines, management plans.
Tenure documents: leases/licences evidencing permanency or temporary nature.
Resident eligibility: criteria showing alignment with disability/social disadvantage or transitional categories.

Step 3: Apply the exclusion screen

Document why the proposal is not seniors housing, residential care facility, boarding house, or hostel.
Use a short decision matrix to record reasons.

Step 4: Prepare a decision memo

Draft a contemporaneous reasoning note linking facts to each limb of the definition.
Index supporting documents.
File the memo with the CDC for audit readiness.

Investigations: What the Building Commission Looks For

Based on recent investigations, the Building Commission NSW typically challenges CDCs where:

The development resembles another use, such as a boarding house or short-term rental (high turnover, nightly rates).
There is no genuine support or rehabilitation program.
The certifier’s file lacks operational evidence—only architectural plans are provided.
The decision record does not explicitly address the statutory definition and the certifiers verification process.

To mitigate risk:

Require third-party evidence (e.g. service provider contracts) rather than relying on proponent assertions.
Where ambiguity exists, request further evidence consistent with the defined use.
Maintain a file index that demonstrates a defensible decision pathway.
Seek town planning and legal advice.

Action Checklist for Certifiers

Before issuing a CDC for a group home, ensure you can tick off the following:

[ ] Category identified (permanent or transitional).
[ ] Purpose aligns with statutory definition.
[ ] Exclusion screen applied (not seniors housing, boarding house, hostel etc).
[ ] Operational and tenure evidence collected.
[ ] Decision memo prepared and filed.
[ ] File index complete and audit-ready.

Conclusion: A New Era of Compliance

The definitional reform is a welcome clarification, aligning the law with contemporary supported living models. But for certifiers, it is not a relaxation—it is a recalibration. The removal of the “single household” test reduces one line of risk, but it heightens the importance of evidencing purpose and operation.

Certifiers who adopt a structured, evidence-based approach will not only withstand investigation but also demonstrate professional leadership in a sector under increasing scrutiny.

If you require further assistance or legal advice regarding a proposed development, contact us today so we can provide tailored guidance and support.