Council Planning

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER

The NSW Minister for Planning has released an analysis of housing demand and supply trends which highlights the urgent need for more and faster housing approvals if massive price rises are to be avoided.

Urban Taskforce welcomes the frank assessment which clearly states the need for more housing and more infrastructure to support our growing and ageing population.

DPIE Housing Demand forecasts are based on the Greater Sydney Commission’s (GSC) 2016 numbers – which find the over the next 20 years (2016 – 2036) the number of new homes in Greater Sydney needed will be 725,000 (36,000 per year).

The Draft NSW Housing Strategy Discussion Paper and Fact Book released by Minister Pavey and Minister Stokes in May 2020 was clear that the forecast for Growth in the population of Greater Sydney had grown and so too had the forecast need for new homes.  The May 2020 document is clear in stating that there will need to be 1 million new homes in the 20 years between 2020 and 2040 (that means 50,000 new homes every year).

The big question is: why is DPIE still clinging to the old data?  The 2020 Housing Strategy documents were based on sound analysis by DPIE staff and were informed by Demographic analysis and by the NSW Inter-Generational Report.

The Planning System was slowed by the focus on Strategic Planning documents.  Councils were not supposed to delay rezoning applications while preparing their new Local Environment Plans and their Local Strategic Planning Statements, but they did.

The data released by Minister Stokes today shows the extent of the problem created by the resultant chronic slowdown in approvals prior to COVID-19.

Between 2015-2018 approvals were going well and this, combined with the extension of construction operational hours and the early declaration of construction as an essential service kept this part of the economy working reasonably well.  However, through 2019, before COVID-19, approval numbers were dropping off in NSW.

As shown in the marked-up table, there is a lag between approvals and the completion of new homes.  The impact of the 2019 slowdown (which got worse in 2020 due to COVID-19) is yet to flow through to household completion numbers – but it will – and this will exacerbate the current rising prices in the Greater Sydney market.

<img alt="" height="630" src="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/urban_taskforce_councils.jpg" width="541">

Minister Stokes has sent a clear signal to Councils which are refusing to adopt the GSC 5-year Housing Targets (which are themselves based on the lower 2016 housing forecasts not the more recent May 2020 analysis).  Ryde Council and Ku-ring-gai are the worst offenders. They have publicly rejected the GSC targets. If this flows through to other Councils, housing supply will crash, pushing prices up and costing thousands of jobs in the sector.

The fact that prices are rising despite the drop off in overseas migration reflects the fundamental economic reality: demand is greater than supply, so prices are rising.

The numbers quoted in the Minister’s media release will not meet the May 2020 Draft NSW Housing Strategy forecasts for growth. 

154,550 new home over the next 5 years equates to only 31,000 new homes each year (well below the GSC 2016 forecast requirement of 36,000 per year and a mile away from the 2020 NSW Housing Strategy target of 50,000 new homes per year.

Tom Forrest is the CEO of the Urban Taskforce.

Subsequent to publication Tom Forrest advised The Hills Shires Council had been exemplars in the area of Urban Planning and Housing Supply. 

He sincerely apologised for confusing The Hills Shire Council with Ku-ring-gai in the media statement.

The Council which has been the most opposed to the GSC Housing targets has, of course, been Ku-ring-gai Council.  

GSC set a reasonable 5-year target of 5,000 – 5,500 for Ku-ring-gai Council.  They passed a resolution to change that to 250 (over 5 years).

 
</body></html>

The data released by Minister Stokes shows the extent of the problem created by the resultant chronic slowdown in approvals prior to COVID-19.



Joel Robinson

Minister Stokes lights a fire under NSW council planners to drive housing supply

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
National, state and city governments aspire to increase prosperity through globally competitive and more liveable cities. Through “world class” infrastructure, buildings and public spaces they aim to increase a city’s competitive advantage in attracting investment and talent. <a href="http://www.pmjournal-digital.com/pmjournal/december_2017___january_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1244171#articleId1244171" target="_blank">Research</a> shows city governments, not states, nearly always deliver these projects overseas. The controversies in the Australian examples are largely the result of excluding local government.
Globally, mixed-use megaprojects have increasingly been seen as vehicles to make cities competitive as well as responding to local transport and housing issues. <a href="http://www.pmjournal-digital.com/pmjournal/december_2017___january_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1244171#articleId1244171" target="_blank">My research</a> for a forthcoming book, Mixed-Use Megaprojects and the Competition for Capital, examines such projects on government land in Sydney, Melbourne, New York and Copenhagen.
What do Australian cities do differently?
The research examined projects in terms of governance, narrative, urban form, connectivity and public benefit. The findings underscore the argument that <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/whats-new/sgs-contributes-to-important-new-book-on-metropolitan-governance" target="_blank">state governments lack the structural capacity or nimbleness</a> to manage the subtle interplay of various place-based programs necessary to coordinate enablers of modern competitiveness.
Compared to developments overseas, the Australian examples have several things in common:
1. More property industry influence. 2. Less strategic coordination with other land assets and transport projects. 3. Less public benefit outcomes. 4. Less commitment to legislated planning frameworks. 5. Less engagement with local knowledge.
The Barangaroo development in Sydney is perhaps the archetype of these patterns.
Despite much <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/barangaroo-4255" target="_blank">controversy over Barangaroo</a>, one thing can be agreed. The poor relationship between the city and state governments has contributed to a loss of trust in planning.
Excluding the city is not good policy
Firstly, this is a skills mistake. The city council has sophisticated capabilities and consistent place-based planning, design and approvals processes. These have been developed over decades.
The city also has established consultation processes and deep experience dealing with a range of stakeholders involved in inner-city development.
When the state intervenes to deliver a project and excludes the city, these processes and their advantages disappear.
Secondly, this is a political mistake. A sophisticated enemy is created that has working relationships with local stakeholders and constituents. With decades of planning work and expert knowledge disregarded, city governments are compelled to scrutinise the process and criticise the state from the sideline.
The City of Sydney appears to be winning the political, if not material, battle of Barangaroo. The <a href="https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=118">lord mayor</a> has outlasted seven state premiers in the project’s lifetime along with numerous measures intended to reduce lord mayoral efficacy.
But the battle is the problem and it’s sure to continue under current patterns of (non)rules. Consider the following examples.
The minister for planning is <a href="https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20110817021058/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/142226/20130814-1220/www.barangaroo.com/media/43967/barangaroo+review+final+report+31+july+2011+compressed.pdf">free to make major changes to the plan without reference to any process</a>. This includes approving the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/30/the-rise-and-rise-of-barangaroo-how-a-monster-development-on-sydney-harbour-just-kept-on-getting-bigger">hotel-in-the-harbour</a> proposal even though it contravened state planning policy.
This ministerial power makes projects highly sensitive to political fluctuations. <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-the-signs-point-to-our-big-cities-need-for-democratic-metro-scale-governance-92417">Longer-term planning objectives</a> can be destabilised as a result.
The unsolicited proposal process has been another trust-breaker. Traditionally, government established the need for infrastructure within a metropolitan plan. It would call for tenders from the private sector, then evaluated those tenders in a competitive process. Now private sector participants are encouraged to approach government with development “ideas”.
A prime example <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/unsolicited-proposals/unsolicited%20proposals.pdf">involves the Crown Casino complex</a> at Barangaroo. This proposal required major changes to the approved plan. It more than doubled the allowable floor space of the previous hotel-in-the-harbour proposal it had been encouraged to replace <a href="https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20110817021058/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/142226/20130814-1220/www.barangaroo.com/media/43967/barangaroo+review+final+report+31+july+2011+compressed.pdf">to restore trust in planning</a>.
What might city involvement look like?
The <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/copenhagen-port-development/">Copenhagen City &amp; Port Development Corporation</a> is an arm’s length delivery authority, owned 95% by Copenhagen municipality and 5% by the state. It is responsible for delivering a number of mixed-use megaprojects.
As with all city areas, Copenhagen municipality develops the “<a href="https://www.kk.dk/artikel/lokalplaner-trin-trin">Lokalplan</a>” for precincts under standard processes and approves individual buildings and public spaces. <a href="https://byoghavn.dk/nordhavn/">North Harbour</a> has been delivered as adopted in 2009.
In New York, a private developer has delivered the Hudson Yards project above state railyards under the city’s standard planning process (<a href="https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/applicant-portal/lur.pdf">ULURP</a>). The state’s involvement is limited to the air rights lease.
This did not protect the Hudson Yards project from criticism. Nevertheless, it went through the lengthy standard consultative process and has been delivered according to the rezoning since 2005.
As an aside, the city governments of both European and US cases have adopted mandatory affordable housing laws. They are now delivering 25% in their megaprojects.
As an indulgence, let’s say we were in Copenhagen or New York. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/30/the-rise-and-rise-of-barangaroo-how-a-monster-development-on-sydney-harbour-just-kept-on-getting-bigger">casino complex, hotel-in-the-harbour, or doubling of the site’s floorspace</a> would require revisiting the city’s Lokalplan or ULURP. This process would include public review and approvals by multiple city government agencies. In Sydney, one person, the state minister, decides on major changes to the plan.
This research shows the approaches needed to improve city competitiveness and fairness tend to be done better by city governments than by state governments. Yet in Australia the state has absolute control of these complex, city-based projects. Whether as part of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/metropolitan-governance-is-the-missing-link-in-australias-reform-agenda-55872">new metropolitan sphere of governance</a> or not, it is time to empower local city governments in the transformation of our cities.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mike-harris-576619" target="_blank">Mike Harris</a>, Lecturer in Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-pay-the-price-for-blocking-council-input-to-projects-that-shape-them-127017" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australian cities pay the price for blocking council input to projects: Mike Harris

<html><body>
A new $500 million mixed-use development project on the West Melbourne waterfront has been given planning approval by the City of Melbourne.
Developer Perri Projects has been given approval for the 2.8 hectare industrial site that feeds into both the Hobsons Road and Dynon urban renewal precincts.
An independent planning panel was appointed by the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, to consider submissions and make recommendations for the project.
The project is now before the Minister awaiting final sign off before the precinct rezoning is officially gazetted.
The rezoning will allow for a diverse residential and commercial precinct and the revitalisation of 2,000 square metres of waterfront land, currently inaccessible to the public.
Approximately 10,000 square metres of the site will form part of a new public realm, including a new waterfront public park.
The development will also create 800 metres of new bike lanes and includes upgrades to footpaths and lighting to provide safer transport links.
Perri Projects’ managing director, David Scalzo, said the project will aim to set a new benchmark for waterfront living and integrated mixed-use precincts.
“We’re incredibly pleased with the outcome of the recent council meeting. We are proud of this project and the benefits it will deliver for future residents and the wider Kensington and West Melbourne community,” Scalzo said.
“This project has been a decade in the making, working closely with council and key stakeholders every step of the way to ensure key community benefits could be delivered as part of the revitalisation.
“The process has been very collaborative and we are excited to start bringing this vision to life.
“We now look forward to creating a detailed development plan that will transform this underutilised pocket of land into a world-class waterfront precinct and exemplar mixed-use development, consistent with Plan Melbourne and council’s Municipal Strategic Statement.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

City of Melbourne gives nod to $500 million West Melbourne waterfront precinct

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The NSW government should consider a shared service model as an alternative to amalgamations of councils in the Sydney Metropolitan Area if there is to be a rethink of the mergers.
The state government has expended considerable time and money on a thorough and comprehensive review of local government and it would be a shame if no reforms were implemented. There are alternative options which allow councils to share services without forcing amalgamations.
A good example of a shared service between councils is the planning and development assessment of major projects over $20 million.
Council planners could be merged into six ‘centres of excellence’ across metropolitan Sydney to undertake strategic planning and development assessment of large projects. This would align the council planning system with the six districts established by the Greater Sydney Commission. There would also be a more efficient pooling of expertise and increased career opportunities in this model. The six planning centres of excellence should drive housing supply across Sydney.
It is the large projects that need more dialogue with state government agencies so the link with the Greater Sydney Commission would help this. The assessment of small local projects, which represent around 95% of development applications, would remain at the local level.
The planning centres of excellence would have a board composed of representatives of the individual councils in the district. There may well be other services like roads maintenance that are better managed at the district level.
If plebiscites are planned with local residents about council amalgamations then ways to reform the provision of services must still be proposed that may not relate to full amalgamation. The earlier review of local government did propose joint organisations and shared service centres as viable alternatives to full amalgamation.
The NSW government has made a significant commitment to the Greater Sydney Commission and its six districts. This reform should lead to the integration of appropriate council services into the same structure.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

NSW government still need to rethink service model if Sydney council mergers don’t go ahead: Chris Johnson

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The New South Wales State Government’s decision to disallow those with a pecuniary interest to vote on council matters is a good first step but more needs to be done to depoliticise council planning decisions. 
Any number of councillors could be considered to have ‘pecuniary interests’. In reality, who doesn’t have a pecuniary interest in decisions about development approvals in a local area? What about the councillors that are keen to stop growth and reduce the supply of housing and see their own property values rise on the back of this – is this not a pecuniary interest in a decision? 
To support the reversal of the Act amendment; Independent Hearings and Assessment Panels, made up of experts that are truly independent, should be engaged to review the decisions of planners within councils. 
The whole planning system needs to be depoliticised and quickly. Identifying pecuniary interest is so fraught we should consider leaving it to the experts,” he said. 
Councils spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to employ urban planners to process approvals and prepare strategic development controls, and too often the decisions of these staff are overturned by councils that have a political agenda. 
The good thing about this debate is it could lead to sensible policy approaches. 
The most sensible approach is to let anyone that is a fit and proper person become a local councillor – including those with an understanding of real estate and planning controls – and take the politics out of planning by introducing independent panels to properly consider development applications. 
Only then will we get a fair system that looks after the communities’ long term interests and takes the politics out of planning.
 
Stephen Albin is chief executive of Urban Development Institute of Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://www.udia.com.au/index.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Council Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Council Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News