In August 2024, the NSW Government created a Housing Taskforce to bring together experts from multiple government agencies to streamline planning processes, with a focus on state agency involvement in development applications (DA).
The NSW agency league table is an interactive dashboard monitoring the performance of each state agency in issuing advice or approvals as part of the DA process. These approvals and advice are known as concurrences, integrated development approvals and referrals (CIR).
The agency league table is updated monthly with the performance of state agencies, state-owned corporations and key electricity supply authorities in meeting legislated or agreed timeframes for CIR.
Publishing the state agency and council league tables is part of a range of measures to increase transparency and accountability as the NSW Government works to meet the targets of the National Housing Accord.
The agency league table shows agency performance for all CIR, not just CIR related to housing applications.
Agency league table
The agency league table monitors performance of each agency for concurrence, integrated development and referral timeframes.
Agency performance data snapshot
Individual state agency performance
A snapshot of individual state agency performance over a 6-month period for concurrence, integrated development and referrals (CIR) is captured on the sixth business day of each month.
The NSW Government’s target is at least 90% of these to be determined within the legislated or agreed timeframes.
Data in the individual agency league table shows the number and percentage of cases and on-time completions by individual state agency over the previous 6 months.
| Agency name* | Number of cases | % of cases within legislated timeframe | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| AusGrid | 1,513 | 96% | |
| DCCEEW - CPHR (Heritage NSW) | 121 | 96% | |
| DCCEEW - CPHR (Regional Delivery)** | 19 | 89% | |
| DCCEEW - Water | 280 | 84% | |
| Department of Education | 10 | 90% | |
| DPHI - Planning | 16 | 81% | |
| DPIRD - Agriculture | |||
| DPIRD - Fisheries | 90 | 92% | |
| DPIRD - NSW Resources | 2 | 100% | |
| Endeavour Energy | 528 | 96% | |
| Environment Protection Authority | 59 | 76% | |
| Essential Energy | 1,098 | 98% | |
| Hunter Water Corporation | 18 | 61% | |
| National Parks and Wildlife Service | 9 | 56% | |
| Rural Fire Service | 1,763 | 81% | |
| Subsidence Advisory NSW | 121 | 95% | |
| Sydney Metro | 10 | 60% | |
| Sydney Trains | 121 | 92% | |
| Sydney Water Corporation | 550 | 91% | |
| TransGrid | 51 | 94% | |
| Transport for NSW | 571 | 89% | |
| WaterNSW | 206 | 93% |
|
Agency name* |
AusGrid |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
1,513 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
96% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DCCEEW - CPHR (Heritage NSW) |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
121 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
96% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DCCEEW - CPHR (Regional Delivery)** |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
19 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
89% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DCCEEW - Water |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
280 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
84% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Department of Education |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
10 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
90% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DPHI - Planning |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
16 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
81% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DPIRD - Agriculture |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
|
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
|
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DPIRD - Fisheries |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
90 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
92% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
DPIRD - NSW Resources |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
2 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
100% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Endeavour Energy |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
528 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
96% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Environment Protection Authority |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
59 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
76% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Essential Energy |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
1,098 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
98% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Hunter Water Corporation |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
18 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
61% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
National Parks and Wildlife Service |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
9 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
56% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Rural Fire Service |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
1,763 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
81% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Subsidence Advisory NSW |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
121 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
95% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Sydney Metro |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
10 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
60% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Sydney Trains |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
121 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
92% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Sydney Water Corporation |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
550 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
91% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
TransGrid |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
51 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
94% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
Transport for NSW |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
571 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
89% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
|
Agency name* |
WaterNSW |
|---|---|
|
Number of cases |
206 |
|
% of cases within legislated timeframe |
93% |
|
Target (90%) |
90% |
*AusGrid, Endeavour Energy and TransGrid are privatised companies. **Formerly BCS.
Combined performance across all agencies
The following data is from 01-Nov-2024 to 30-Apr-2025 and represents the total number of cases for all state agencies for concurrence, integrated development and referrals (CIR), and the percentage of on-time completions.
| No. | Month | 2024-25 Number of CIR | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | July | 1,069 | |
| 2 | August | 1,131 | |
| 3 | September | 976 | |
| 4 | October | 1,192 | |
| 5 | November | 1,243 | |
| 6 | December | 1,123 | |
| 7 | January | 954 | |
| 8 | February | 1,091 | |
| 9 | March | 1,101 | |
| 10 | April | 1,022 |
|
No. |
1 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
July |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,069 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,192 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
91% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
2 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
August |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,131 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,191 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
89% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
3 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
September |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
976 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,002 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
87% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
4 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
October |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,192 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
950 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
85% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
89% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
5 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
November |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,243 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,100 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
94% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
87% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
6 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
December |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,123 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
903 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
81% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
7 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
January |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
954 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
697 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
86% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
79% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
8 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
February |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,091 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
826 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
91% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
71% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
9 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
March |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,101 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
892 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
89% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
87% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
10 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
April |
|
2024-25 Number of CIR |
1,022 |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
932 |
|
2024-25 Percentage of CIR |
89% |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
84% |
|
Target |
90% |
Combined performance across all agencies
The following data is from 01-Jul-2023 to 31-Jun-2024 and represents the total number of cases for all state agencies for concurrence, integrated development and referrals (CIR), and the percentage of on-time completions.
| No. | Month | 2023-24 Number of CIR | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | July | 1,192 | |
| 2 | August | 1,191 | |
| 3 | September | 1,002 | |
| 4 | October | 950 | |
| 5 | November | 1,100 | |
| 6 | December | 903 | |
| 7 | January | 697 | |
| 8 | February | 826 | |
| 9 | March | 892 | |
| 10 | April | 932 | |
| 11 | May | 1,119 | |
| 12 | June | 894 |
|
No. |
1 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
July |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,192 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,067 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
77% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
2 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
August |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,191 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,282 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
78% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
3 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
September |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,002 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,055 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
75% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
4 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
October |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
950 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
883 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
89% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
75% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
5 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
November |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,100 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,260 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
87% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
82% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
6 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
December |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
903 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,001 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
81% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
81% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
7 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
January |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
697 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
960 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
79% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
78% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
8 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
February |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
826 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
955 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
71% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
81% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
9 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
March |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
892 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,159 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
87% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
88% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
10 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
April |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
932 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
991 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
84% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
90% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
11 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
May |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
1,119 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,272 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
83% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
92% |
|
Target |
90% |
|
No. |
12 |
|---|---|
|
Month |
June |
|
2023-24 Number of CIR |
894 |
|
2022-23 Number of CIR |
1,157 |
|
2023-24 Percentage of CIR |
86% |
|
2022-23 Percentage of CIR |
91% |
|
Target |
90% |
Frequently asked questions
The percentage of concurrences, integrated development approvals, and referrals that are completed within legislated timeframes over the previous six full months.
The total number of concurrences, integrated development approvals, and referrals completed for each agency in the previous six full months and the percentage that were completed within legislated timeframes.
Only departments, agencies, state-owned corporations and other organisations that have had a new concurrence, integrated development approval, or referral created in the past two years are shown.
The data shown in the agency league table is sourced from the NSW Planning Portal.
The legislated timeframe for most concurrences and integrated development is 21 days from receipt of submissions, or where a development application is not exhibited, the timeframe is 40 days.
For most referrals, the legislated timeframe is 21 days.
There are some exceptions – for example, heritage referrals under section 5.10 in local environmental plans, where the timeframe is 28 days.
Concurrences and referrals typically do not apply to SSD. While agencies are asked for their advice as part of the State significant development process, there are no statutory timeframes associated with agency advice during the SSD process.
Measuring State agency performance over a six-month period provides a balanced snapshot that accounts for variations in development application volumes and complexity.