Requests for Further Information: The Hidden Drain on Your Development Timeline

A Request for Further Information (RFI) from council can bring a development application to a standstill. For developers, understanding why RFIs are issued — and what the common pressure points are — is the first step to navigating them without losing weeks or months from your programme.

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a council may issue an RFI within 28 days of receiving an application. In practice, they are one of the most disruptive events in the permit process — not because they are inherently unreasonable, but because developers are rarely prepared for the breadth of information that can be requested.

Why RFIs Are More Disruptive Than They Appear

When council issues an RFI, the statutory clock stops. The 60-day assessment period pauses until the requested information is provided in full — and it does not restart until council is satisfied the response is complete. A single incomplete submission can trigger a second round of requests, compounding the delay significantly.

For developers with finance on the clock or a construction programme to protect, even a four-to-six-week RFI response period can have real commercial consequences.

Common Issues Developers Face

1. Inadequate or missing reports at lodgement

Council routinely requests shadow diagrams, traffic reports, acoustic assessments, waste management plans, or arborist reports that were not included at lodgement. Many developers lodge with the minimum documentation, unaware of what a particular council or planning scheme requires for their proposal type.

2. Plans that don’t respond to the planning scheme

Architectural drawings prepared without reference to zone provisions, overlay controls, or local policy can trigger RFIs seeking revised plans. If the design doesn’t clearly demonstrate compliance with setback, height, or built form requirements, council will ask for it to be shown explicitly.

3. Unclear or inconsistent application information

Discrepancies between the application form, planning report, and drawings — such as mismatched dwelling counts, lot areas, or land use descriptions — prompt RFIs that should never have been necessary. These are avoidable with a thorough pre-lodgement check.

4. Ambiguity around land use or permit triggers

Where the nature of the use or development is unclear, council may request further information to confirm what is actually being proposed and which provisions apply. This is common with mixed-use proposals, Section 2 uses requiring justification, or proposals that trigger multiple overlays.

5. Inadequate response to strategic policy

For proposals that depart from standard requirements — such as reduced car parking, increased height, or reduced setbacks — council expects the planning report to mount a genuine strategic case. A generic or thin response will often result in an RFI seeking a more detailed policy justification.

What a Strong RFI Response Looks Like

Responding to an RFI is not simply a matter of providing the documents requested. A well-structured response addresses every item raised, cross-references revised drawings clearly, and — where additional studies have been commissioned — includes a short cover letter summarising what has changed and why the application now satisfies council’s concerns.

Councils are not obliged to accept a partial response. If any item is left outstanding, the clock remains paused and a further request may follow. The goal is to respond comprehensively and in one submission.

The Bottom Line

RFIs are a normal part of the planning process, but they don’t have to derail your programme. With the right preparation at the outset and a methodical approach to responding, the statutory clock can be restarted quickly and your application kept on track.

At Equinox Town Planning, we work with developers to prepare thorough applications from day one — and to respond to RFIs clearly and efficiently when they arise.

Get in touch to discuss how we can help: info@equinoxplanning.com.au