By Aaron Gadiel, Partner

The new ‘mid rise’ pattern book is now in force.  It makes it possible to secure development consent for new development configurations that would, in some areas, not previously have been approvable.

This may deliver extra density in some locations that was not previously available.  In some instances, it may also reduce construction costs and secure improved amenity outcomes for future residents.

To give effect to the ‘mid rise’ patterns, the NSW Government has enacted a new ‘Chapter 7’ of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (the Housing SEPP).

Chapter 7 is titled ‘Pattern Book development’, and it came into effect on 28 November 2025.

What does Chapter 7 do?

The new provisions in the Housing SEPP give legal status to nine new ‘patterns’ announced on 24 November 2025.  These patterns are known as:

• ‘Small lot apartments 01 by Collins and Turner’;
• ‘Small lot apartments 02 by Nguluway DesignInc’;
• ‘Small lot apartments 03 by MHN Design Union’;
• ‘Small lot apartments 04 by Neeson Murcutt Neille’;
• ‘Corner apartments 01 by Tonkin Zulaikha Greer’;
• ‘Corner apartments 02 by Spacecraft Architects’;
• ‘Large lot apartments 01 by Silvester Fuller’;
• ‘Large lot apartments 02 by Bennett and Trimble’; and
• ‘Large lot apartments 03 by Andrew Burges Architects’.

The ‘corner apartments’ patterns can be developed as either a residential flat building or shop top housing.

The Government describes the new patterns as ‘mid rise’ patterns and distinguishes them from the ‘low rise’ patterns released in July this year. The low rise patterns are for:

• dual occupancies;
• manor houses;
• multi dwelling housing; and
• secondary dwellings associated with multi dwelling housing (terraces).

The ‘mid rise’ patterns have not been given the same status as the earlier patterns.

As we explained in our July 2025 article, the low rise patterns have been introduced as a form of ‘complying development’.  Complying development is capable of being approved by a private certifier through a complying development certificate.

The new mid rise patterns will not be a type of complying development.

Rather, to make use of the mid rise patterns, a developer will need to submit a development application.

Ultimately, it seems that the Government intends for mid rise pattern development to be subject to its forthcoming ‘targeted assessment development’ regime.  Legislation for this new assessment pathway has passed parliament, but has not yet been implemented.

The Government says that the targeted assessment development pathway is not expected to be available until the ‘new year’.

The Government has, nonetheless, taken action to give immediate legal effect to the mid rise patterns.  This article addresses the new legal arrangements for the mid rise patterns.  However, this article does not attempt to address how things may change if/when the mid rise patterns are brought under the targeted assessment development pathway.  (See our article from 17 November 2025 here for an explanation of the targeted assessment pathway.)

The new Chapter 7 provisions have three key consequences.

Firstly, the Apartment Design Guide and key provisions of Chapter 4 of the Housing SEPP (including requirements to refer applications to design review panels) do not apply to mid rise pattern development.

Secondly, new development standards, location requirements, technical drawing sets and technical information are introduced for the mid rise patterns.

A provision of any development control plan has no effect to the extent that:

• it is the same or substantially the same as a provision of these new requirements for mid rise patterns; or
• it is inconsistent or incompatible with these new requirements.

Disappointingly, the Government has not acted with the same clarity as it has previously and expressly set aside whole topic areas of development control plans that could potentially overlap with the mid rise pattern requirements.  (This has been done previously, for, say, Apartment Design Guide development.)

Rather, it has been left to developers and local councils (and possibly the Land and Environment Court) to sort this out in implementation.  Most of the time, this should be fairly-cut-and-dried.  Nonetheless, there may be legal arguments about the relevance of development control plan provisions from time-to-time.

Thirdly, the patterns generally say development standards and location requirements in the mid rise patterns prevail — where there is an inconsistency — with ‘equivalent’ development standards in other relevant environmental planning instruments (such as a local environmental plan or a state environmental planning policy).

However, there are provisions in the amended Housing SEPP which require the consent authority, to be satisfied that the development is permissible (with development consent) under an environmental planning instrument that applies to the land.  This may limit the override that is asserted in the patterns themselves.

Where does Chapter 7 apply?

The patterns can only be used where the proposed development is already permitted under an environmental planning instrument (such as a local environmental plan or a state environmental planning policy) that applies to the land.

The ‘small lot apartments’ and ‘corner apartment’ patterns can only be used in:

• a ‘Transport Oriented Development Area’ under Chapter 5 of the Housing SEPP; and
• a ‘low and mid rise housing area’ under Chapter 6 of the Housing SEPP.

The other patterns can be used more generally.

However, there are a large number of areas where the use of the patterns is excluded.  In brief terms, the new provisions do not apply to:

• bush fire prone land;
• land identified as a coastal vulnerability area or a coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area;
• land that is a heritage item or on which a heritage item is located;
• land within a heritage conservation area;
• the local government areas of Bathurst Regional, City of Blue Mountains, City of Hawkesbury and Wollondilly;
• flood prone land in the Georges River Catchment and Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment;
• land in a flood planning area in 23 nominated local government areas outside of Sydney;
• certain land affected by aircraft noise (in an ANEF contour of 25 or greater or an ANEC contour of 20 or greater);
• land within 200 metres of one of the particular pipelines for gas, petroleum or other liquid fuels identified in section 2.77(3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021;
• land identified as ‘Deferred Transport Oriented Development Areas’ on the Housing SEPP’s ‘Deferred Transport Oriented Development Areas Map’ (this includes, for example, parts of Croydon and Burwood);
• land within 800 metres of a public entrance to one of eight ‘Deferred Transport Oriented Development’ railway stations, being Belmore station, Canterbury station, Cockle Creek station, Lakemba station, North Wollongong station, Punchbowl station, St Marys station and Wiley Park station; and
• land identified as an “Accelerated TOD Precinct” on the Housing SEPP’s ‘Accelerated Transport Oriented Development Precincts Rezoning Areas Map’.

This means that, in truth, any accurate mapping for the new provisions will resemble a piece of Swiss cheese.  That is, there will be many arbitrary holes where the new provisions do not apply.

Developers considering potential sites will need to work through the above exclusion list for each site.

Solar access for new dwellings

At present, for most apartment development, the relevant solar access benchmark for new dwellings is established under objective 4A-1 of the Apartment Design Guide.

In brief terms, it has envisaged the following:

• Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70 per cent of apartments in a building receive a minimum of two hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid winter in the Sydney metropolitan area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.
• In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70 per cent of apartments in a building receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter.
• A maximum of 15 per cent of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter.

The above Apartment Design Guide provision does not apply to mid rise pattern development.

Rather, the mid rise patterns each set a new standard that all developments need to demonstrate that at least 70 per cent of residential apartments will receive two hours of direct sunlight to living spaces between 8am to 4pm.

Solar access for neighbouring dwellings

At present, for most apartment development, the relevant solar access benchmark for neighbouring dwellings is established under objective 3B-2 of the Apartment Design Guide.

In brief terms, this has envisaged the following:

• Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid winter.
• Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access as per new dwellings.
• Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20 per cent.
• If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased.

The above Apartment Design Guide provision does not apply to mid rise pattern development.

Rather, the mid rise patterns each set a standard as follows:

• Overshadowing impacts to neighbouring sites need to be minimised.
• Neighbouring sites should receive a minimum of three hours of sunlight to at least 50 per cent of private open space areas between 9am to 3pm on 21 June.
• Setbacks may need to be increased to maximise solar access and to minimise overshadowing from adjoining buildings.

At grade car parking

Notably, some of the patterns offer a choice between basement car parking and at grade (ground level) car parking.

This is a radical shift.  It is often very difficult to secure approval for at grade car parking for residential apartment development under the Apartment Design Guide and local controls.

In some patterns specific (limited) car parking is provided for.  This may be different from controls that would otherwise apply under development control plans.

Room lay-out

Speaking generally, the position of all rooms must be in accordance with the apartment layouts provided in the pattern.  This can include mirrored layouts where the pattern provides for this.

On a casual reading, it appears that many of the apartment sizes exceed the minimum size benchmarks set out in objective 4D-1 of the Apartment Design Guide.

Other changes

There are some other notable changes evident from a casual reading of the nine mid rise patterns.

Setbacks for some patterns are more generous to developers than the benchmark for separation distances between the side and rear boundaries of a lot set out under objective 3F-1 of the Apartment Design Guide.

Depending on the pattern used:

• There could be a minimum side setback as low as 1.5 metres.
• There could be a minimum front setback (primary street frontage) as low as 3.5 metres.
• There could be a minimum rear setback as low as six metres.
• There could be a minimum lot size as low as 520 square metres.
• There could be a minimum lot width as low as 13 metres.

There are provisions for zero setbacks in certain instances.

No override of height or floor space ratio maximums

The new mid rise patterns do not override existing height and floor space ratio maximums.

Where an incentive height or floor space ratio is available (such as infill affordable housing) the patterns can be used, but the permitted floor space ratio or height may not be realised if the patterns do not give a developer sufficient storeys or footprint.

Low and mid rise housing incentive not available

Strangely, the non-discretionary development standards for low and mid rise housing areas (set out in Chapter 6 of the Housing SEPP) are turned-off for mid rise pattern development.

This means that — if a developer chooses to adopt a mid rise pattern — the additional height and floor space ratio that is generally made available for low and mid rise housing areas cannot be accessed

Instead, the proposed development would be evaluated against the otherwise applicable height and floor space ratio maximums.  This would likely make mid rise pattern development unviable in the low and mid rise housing areas.

The Government has not publicly justified— or even referred to — this change.  It is possible that the change is an unintended drafting error.  If so, we hope that the Government fixes this issue in the very near future.

This exclusion does not apply to the extra height that is available in a ‘Transport oriented Development Area’ under Chapter 5 of the Housing SEPP. That is, a mid rise pattern development can be used without a height or floor space ratio penalty in those areas.

No changes to public notification, timing or appeal rights

At this time, there are no new rules that would:

• require a consent authority to process a mid rise pattern book development application any more rapidly than a conventional development application; or
• remove or water-down any public notification requirements in a community participation plan.

Development applications for mid rise patten book development can be appealed to the Land and Environment Court on a ‘deemed refusal’ or ‘actual refusal’ basis in the normal way.

Design verification statement

The existing requirement for a registered architect to provide a design verification statement for apartment development has been altered.

There is now a specific type of design verification statement required for mid rise pattern development.

This statement must contain a written statement from the architect stating (among other things) that the proposed development will comply with the development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information specified in the relevant pattern.

However, a developer should appreciate that this statement is not conclusive.  The Housing SEPP expressly requires the consent authority to be satisfied as to this point before development consent is granted.

Clause 4.6 requests?

Generally speaking, we consider that the development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information can be contravened by way of a ‘clause 4.6’ request.

In brief terms, a ’clause 4.6’ request allows a consent authority to grant consent, despite a contravention, on the basis that:

• compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances; and
• there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

Speaking generally:

• It appears that the requirement that mid rise pattern development be carried out in accordance with the development standards, location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information specified in the mid-rise housing pattern is itself a ‘development standard’.
• We do not consider that the distinction, in the pattern book documentation, between ‘development standards’ and ‘location requirements, technical drawing set and technical information’ should affect the application of clause 4.6 to any of these requirements.

Legal advice should be sought for specific instances where a contravention is proposed.

How easy will this be?

For some sites, the mid rise pattern book will make it possible to get development configurations approved that may not have otherwise had any real prospect for approval.  This may, for example, result from changes to building separation provisions, setback requirements, the provision for at grade parking, car parking numbers and/or solar access changes.

This may deliver extra density in some locations that was not previously available.  It may also reduce construction costs.

Additionally, the pattern book may be used to secure improved amenity outcomes for future residents.  For example, where a pattern expressly envisages a roof-top communal area, we consider that this would normally override a provision in a development control plan that seeks to prevent such roof top communal areas.

However, the new system comes with its own complications.

The new patterns are written in the style of a development control plan.  They are more prescriptive than, for example, a typical provision in a local environmental plan or a state environmental planning policy.  Furthermore, the new provisions have not been drafted with the same kind of legal care normally found in such documents.

This will likely cause some problems because, unlike a development control plan, all the provisions of the patterns have been elevated to mandatory requirements that must be met before development consent is granted (subject to a clause 4.6 contravention).

While the authors of the patterns have plainly provided for some flexibility to be available in designing buildings (without contravening the pattern requirements), there are limits to the extent of the flexibility permitted.  We anticipate that many local councils will take a conservative approach and interpret the flexibility provisions narrowly.  This may necessitate:

• a legal argument; or
• the submission of a ‘clause 4.6’ request (in circumstances where it should not really be required).

A final note

This article gives a general overview only.  Each of the document sets for the nine patterns publicly released last week are, in themselves, quite lengthy and legally complex.  We have not analysed all of these documents in detail for the purposes of this article.

In preparing this article, Mills Oakley has not had access to any pattern documentation that is only available by purchase.  It is possible that the ‘for purchase’ documentation may contain requirements that alters some of what we have said above.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and, where any legal question arises, we recommend that such advice be sought.