There seems to be some confusion about the role of Designated Performance Features (DPFs) in development assessment.
We have found that some assessment planners are treating the DPFs as minimum or maximum quantitative standards. This is incorrect.
Part 1 of the Planning & Design Code entitled “Rules of Interpretation” describes the role of DPFs as follows:
Designated performance features
In order to assist a relevant authority to interpret the performance outcomes, in some cases the policy includes a standard outcome which will generally meet the corresponding performance outcome (a designated performance feature or DPF). A DPF provides a guide to a relevant authority as to what is generally considered to satisfy the corresponding performance outcome but does not need to necessarily be satisfied to meet the performance outcome, and does not derogate from the discretion to determine that the outcome is met in another way, or from the need to assess development on its merits against all relevant policies. (underlining added)
DPFs perform in much the same way as Design Techniques did in some Development Plans. The ERD Court previously confirmed that Design Techniques are one way of satisfying associated Performance Criteria but not the only way.
This means that DPFs have less weight in the assessment process than many quantitative guidelines previously contained in Principles of Development Control within Development Plans.
Satisfaction of Desired Outcomes and Performance Outcomes is the goal, not slavish adherence to quantitative measures.