By Councillor Charles Jago
Contents
- New density programs by the government
- The Greens position – we support good development
- Problems with the new changes
- Concerns on these changes across NSW
- Endnote on heritage
New density programs by the NSW government
The NSW Dept of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) has issued two major changes to planning rules in recent months. These include:
Transit Oriented Development Program (TOD)
Initiated in mid-December 2023, the Transit Oriented Development Program released new plans in July 2024 for parts of Homebush, North Strathfield, Strathfield and Concord West. The idea is to put new density around public transport centres. Out for public consultation on 16th July 2024, the increased housing density will directly affect residents around train stations. See the rezoning proposal home page, the master plan, the precinct transport statement and the Explanation of Intended Effect documents.
Also see the council response to the DPHI plan, which reveals the full extent of problems in it.
Large scale
The government’s plans will add around 16,000 apartments bringing approximately another 26,000 people into the North Strathfield and Strathfield triangle areas, plus many more in Strathfield LGA. The numbers on the map show the maximum building height for each block proposed by the government. The government hopes to start these programs in November this year, so major changes will be coming quickly.
No space allocated for schools or health facilities
The government’s plan doesn’t include space for any schools, health facilities or other infrastructure needed for current and future residents. The council wrote a submission to government which says that the 26,000 new residents proposed in the government’s plan equate to adding the population from a town the size of Taree, which has two public high schools, five public primary schools, six private schools, three post-secondary institutions and a large hospital.
Unfortunately, the government’s plan allows for no infrastructure at all. Only apartments. It’s not even sure there is enough retail or other commercial space either. In addition, the changes now on public exhibition include knocking down OLA primary school to make a park and also zoning McDonald College out of existence (it could stay there now but any new site development could only be apartments).
Unprofessional planning
That’s really bad planning. Given the scale of development proposed, the standard of planning is so poor as to be unprofessional. It is simply essential that planning for any precinct or suburb identify all necessary infrastructure as part of the plan and include space for everything before any rezoning. Once the apartments are zoned, it will be practically impossible to get the land for the schools and other community needs.
The government is in such a rush that they have produced a short-sighted, unprofessional plan that will make existing shortfalls worse. While the most serious issue is the total lack of infrastructure, there are also other serious problems in the government’s plan.
Location – extremely constrained by traffic
The NSW government’s Homebush Precinct Plan proposes to rezone a large area of Strathfield, Homebush, North Strathfield and Concord West, on the Homebush side of the train line, as shown on the map. It runs along George Street from Parramatta Road to Rothwell Avenue Concord West. The main density has been placed along George Street just west of the station, with substantial height and density increases up to Rothwell Avenue. For that area, the current zoning is R2 residential (max height two storeys or 8.5m). The new zoning is R4 – high density, with maximum proposed heights for each block as shown in the table below.
The area also includes the Strathfield triangle. In a briefing, a DPHI representative said that government’s plans for increased density in North Strathfield were only on the Homebush side ie the western side. (Note that I am dealing only with the changes in Canada Bay. There are many other related changes close by in Strathfield LGA, as shown in the map above.)
The main problem with this plan is that the government’s consultants have picked a highly traffic-constrained location to massively increase traffic density. George Street already grinds to a halt multiple times a day with traffic queues hundreds of metres long. This density goes far beyond any traffic plans ever contemplated for the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, the traffic consultants’ report does not enter into any discussion of why the area was selected.
Comment by Charles Jago on the location:
“In the DPHI briefing for Canada Bay councillors on 23 July 2024, I asked why this area had been selected, when the traffic in it was so much greater than surrounding alternative areas. I mentioned that I had recently witnessed a buildup of cars along George Street stretching from Pomeroy Street nearly to Argonne Street – around 4.5 blocks.
“The response from DPHI staff was that this area was selected because it was previously selected for PRCUTS. There had clearly been no comparison of alternative areas to put the greater density. As shown in the documentation, the site was selected before any of the analysis was conducted – site selection was not part of the brief.
“This represents a major problem for the area, with intensification of traffic far greater than it would have been if a more suitable site had been chosen.”
More details on height – block by block
Understanding the heights from the colour-coded legend can actually be quite difficult. The intended heights in each block are shown elsewhere in the document. Here is a summary of heights, block by block.
| Side of George St | Block | Height – storeys |
| West | Rothwell to Conway | 8 |
| West | Conway to Argonne | 4-8 |
| West | Argonne to Mena | 4-8 |
| West | Mena to Brussels | 12 |
| West | Brussels to Lorraine | 10-12 |
| West | Lorraine to Warsaw | 12-15 |
| West | Warsaw to Pomeroy | 12-15 |
| West | Pomeroy to Malta | 15-18 |
| West | Malta to Hamilton | 12-15 |
| West | Hamilton to Lemnos | 12-15 |
| West | Lemnos to Allen | 12-15 |
| West | Allen to Parramatta Rd | 8-15 |
| East | Pomeroy to Hamilton | 20-30 on George St frontage; 6-8 along train line. |
| East | Hamilton to Allen | 8-22 |
| East | Allen to Parramatta Rd | 8-22 |
Area of increased density
Low and mid-rise housing
DPHI released the Changes to create low and mid-rise housing with an “explanation of intended effect” (EIE) document in mid-December 2023 for land within:
- 800m walking distance of heavy rail, light rail or metro stations;
- 800m walking distance of land zoned E2 Commercial Centre; and
- 800m walking distance of land zoned E1 Local Centre or MU1 Mixed Use, but only if the zone contains a wide range of frequently needed goods and services, such as full-line supermarkets, shops and restaurants.
Unlike the TOD program, the changes vary with current zoning. Where medium-rise zoning (R3 Medium Density Residential) is already in place, the proposed changes will allow 6-storey apartments within 400m of stations or centres, and 4-storey apartments for areas from 400m to 800m of these locations. The changes will also allow “shop top housing” (one or more dwellings located above a ground floor commercial premises or health services facility).
The NSW Government also wants to allow multi dwelling housing in low density residential zones (R2) within station and town centre precincts – this includes townhouses, terraces and manor houses, in addition to dual occupancies which are already allowed. The government has created “non-refusal standards” for all of these with larger heights and floor space ratios and smaller site width and site area requirements than currently exist. These buildings will be inappropriately sized for the area, but council won’t be able to stop it.
These changes are far-reaching across Canada Bay LGA and there is some uncertainty about which areas will be actually included. Depending on how the centres are chosen, these new rules could apply to the majority of Canada Bay LGA. Please refer to the map below. Despite the uncertainties, these changes are already being made legal in stages starting on 1 July 2024. The first stage permits dual occupancies and semi-detached homes in all R2 low-density residential zones across NSW.
In particular, there are three local centres with E1 zoning (small commercial centres, surrounded by residential zoning) which could be affected: Concord West, Mortlake and Wareemba. Council staff have recommended (and the Canada Bay Greens agree) that four storey to six storey developments, plus town houses and manor houses (two storey apartment blocks usually with just four apartments) should not go in these areas, because it is inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of these places. That’s why the council’s planning staff specifically recommended removing E1-zoned centres from the changes. Note that Concord West is still affected because the rules apply around stations as well.
In addition, the changes will also have irreversible impact on heritage protected places (see endnote), with no apparent pre-analysis on the likely effects. Numerous historical places will be lost if this goes ahead.
With these changes to housing around many residential centres, the government is making changes to an area far larger than necessary to meet their housing goals. With the substantial height increases the government is requiring, they could have limited the changes to a smaller area and still achieved a huge number of additional dwellings. The broad geographical extent of the planning rules means that the majority of established suburbs across Canada Bay LGA will be irrevocably altered over time.
In addition, DPHI has recently expanded the incentives potentially available to developers for affordable housing with extra building height and floor area. However, affordable housing has been diluted to only last for 15 years.
See the council’s responses to the “Changes to create low and mid-rise housing” program and the related new “Housing SEPP” (SEPP – State Environmental Planning Policy).
Map of combined changes
The map below reflects the July 2024 release of the NSW government’s TOD changes (above); note that some smaller changes have not yet been included.
The Greens position – we support good development
The Canada Bay Greens support additional well-planned medium density housing in Sydney, where it can integrate into the existing location, infrastructure, architecture and heritage of the local area. We support “building up, not out” – because the alternative is cutting down forests including koala habitat on the outskirts of Sydney and converting farmland into urban sprawl. In principle, locations around stations and other areas are places where additional housing makes sense. We oppose more high-rise in suburban areas due to its capital and maintenance expense, its traffic impacts and other issues. See more…
Problems with the new changes
The major problems include:
- Undermining local government’s role in land use planning undertaken in consultation with the local community.
- Around 80% of Canada Bay’s heritage housing put at risk (see endnote).
- A substantial reduction in the extent of new affordable housing in Canada Bay.
- Greater loss of trees, making it impossible to meet the council’s tree canopy target of 25% by 2040.
- Degrading the quality of new housing developments by removing rules for good development.
For a more detailed explanation of the problems of these changes see Government over-reach on housing – let council do it properly (about Canada Bay Council’s motion on this), Canada Bay Council’s description of the changes or (more broadly) a quick guide from Greens NSW.
What must be done:
- There must be sufficient infrastructure, especially including green space, public transport, good transport access and public schools to meet the needs of the increased population. Right now, the current infrastructure is inadequate for the needs of the population we have today.
- The rules must ensure good quality development using accepted planning standards and not arbitrarily undermine the environment or heritage. The proposed rules for apartments don’t specify a minimum plot area or minimum frontage for new apartments, which will encourage 6 to 9 storey apartments next to single family houses – that’s bad planning.
- A part of each development must be provided to the council as permanent affordable housing, at a proportion at least similar to existing council affordable housing programs (currently 4% or 5%).
- There must be proper engagement with the community and local government.
Unfortunately, the new programs have major problems when considering the concerns given above. However, Canada Bay Council (and also the Greens) would like to work with the government to properly implement additional housing, because new housing is urgently needed.
Will the government plan work?
More broadly, the success of the government’s plans is in serious doubt. The government is desperately hoping that, with so much rezoning, developers will flood the market with new housing. However developers already have plenty of rezoned properties that they can develop, as councils across Australia have approved record levels of housing in the last ten years. In order to ensure premium profits, developers will continue to avoid flooding the market.
It’s now clear that the private sector won’t build the scale of housing we need. That’s why in Australia after World War 2, governments – federal and state – stepped up and directly developed the housing themselves. That’s what we need now.
The changes wipe out protection for heritage listed places in the areas where they apply (see endnote), undermine existing programs of affordable housing, and erode design quality controls. Meanwhile the government is not offering any additional improvements to infrastructure or services in the area, although there is a fund of $520 million shared amongst the 8 accelerated precincts across Greater Sydney for improved roads, transport links and parks – which won’t go very far at all.
See the Council’s official response to these changes, in their submission to DPHI.
Feedback on these changes across NSW
Other councils’ concerns
- Northern Beaches Council: Radical state planning changes to create medium and higher density housing …”Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 would override all NSW councils’ planning controls and restrict a local council’s capacity to refuse inappropriate development. The implications of the proposed policy are alarming for the Northern Beaches, our community and the environment.”
- Ku-ring-gai Council …”There will be impacts on heritage, trees, biodiversity, traffic and stormwater. Significant tree loss across Ku-ring-gai. No consideration currently given to the necessary infrastructure to support density such as schools, transport and community facilities.”
Local Government NSW
Key concerns surround Government’s housing supply changes “… the process disregards the carefully considered strategic planning work undertaken by councils in consultation with their communities and the Department to deliver agreed housing targets tailored to the characteristics and capacity of different places.“
Better planning network
“… extensive damage to the environment, loss of heritage, and overload infrastructure and local services.” See more…
Endnote on heritage
In early March, Premier Chris Minns has made statements on TV that the housing density changes (he is calling them reforms) will not override heritage protections, saying that is untrue. His intervention is welcome, as we want to protect heritage. Similarly, other briefings by DPIH have emphasised that heritage is not at risk.
However, the planning experts have clearly advised that, if the changes are implemented as written in the documents released by DPIH, then our heritage housing will have no protection. Developers will be able to buy heritage housing and demolish it. Given the Premier’s and bureaucrats’ statements, we look forward to improvements to the government’s planned changes to properly protect heritage.
For those who think that new housing is more important than heritage protection, please understand that the government is already rezoning substantial areas with an enormous potential for new dwellings. It is completely unnecessary to put our heritage at risk. We can have a lot more new housing while keeping our heritage.