Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on 28 February 2017

Meeting commenced at 6:30pm

Present:
Richard Pearson	Administrator
Rik Hart	Interim General Manager
Peter Gainsford	Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
John Warburton	Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement
Michael Tzimoulas	Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
Wal Petschler	Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater
Tanya Whitmarsh	Group Manager Governance
Gill Dawson	Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning
Popy Mourgelas	Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield
Ian Naylor	Manager Governance & Administration, Leichhardt
Katerina Maros	Governance Officer, Leichhardt (Minute Taker)

Public Speakers: see last two pages of these minutes.

1. Acknowledgement of Country by Chairperson

· “I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.”

2. Notice of Live Streaming of Council Meeting

The Administrator advised that the Council meeting was being streamed live on Council's website and members of the public must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language.

3. Disclosures of Interests

The Administrator declared that he had no declarable interests in any matter listed on the business paper.

4. Confirmation of Minutes

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 be confirmed.

C0217 Item 17 Administrator's Minute: WestConnex Stage 3 (M4-M5 Link) construction dive-site options

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Calls on the NSW Government not to proceed with any further consideration of either of the mid-tunnel construction dive sites under consideration at 7 Darley Road and 29 Derbyshire Road, Leichhardt;

2. Calls on the Government to discontinue the process of seeking to establish a dive site in the densely populated Leichhardt/Lilyfield area;

3. Requests Council officers to further consider the suitability of the site at the western end of the Rozelle Rail Yards as a possible mid-tunnel construction dive site and report back to Council;

4. Calls on the State Government to ensure that the community and Council is fully consulted on any further consideration of dive site options in the Leichhardt area by the State Government; and

5. Calls on Sydney Motorway Corporation to immediately release information regarding the proposed Camperdown dive site and conduct an immediate Community Consultation Campaign.

C0217 Item 1 WestConnex Update Report

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Receives and notes the report;

2. Expresses concern about the demolition of Heritage Houses in Campbell Road (Bradfield Terrace listed on the State Heritage Register 2004) and 82 Campbell Street (Brickworker’s Cottage State Heritage Listing 2009);

3. Acknowledges the considerable disruption to residents’ lives by Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) works, road closures and use of local streets for parking and vehicle access; and

4. Informs local residents around Simpson Park about the future of the fig trees in Simpson Park which border onto the proposed Campbell Street widening.

C0217 Item 2 Post Exhibition Report: Marrickville Heritage Review

The Administrator determined that Council defer report for further consideration of issues raised and report back to March 2017 Council Meeting.

C0217 Item 3 Planning Proposal - 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt

The Administrator determined that:

1. The attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

2. The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

3. Following receipt of a Gateway determination, and compliance with any conditions and following the required changes being made by the Proponent, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway determination; and

4. A report be presented to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

C0217 Item 4 Annandale Conservation Area Extension

The Administrator determined that:

1. The attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

2. The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

3. Following receipt of a Gateway Determination, and compliance with any conditions, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway Determination; and

4. A report be presented to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

C0217 Item 5 Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. X) - Change to the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park Zone

The Administrator determined that:

1. The report be received and noted;

2. Council resolves to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend MLEP 2011 to delete “shop top housing” as a permissible use within the B7 Business Park zone and nominate itself as the Relevant Planning Authority;

3. Council submits the draft Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination; and

4. Council resolves to publicly exhibit the draft Planning Proposal.

C0217 Item 6 Marrickville Golf Course Lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole - Plan of Management

The Administrator determined that the preparation of a Plan of Management for the Marrickville golf course lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole be prioritised and brought forward to commence in 2017.

C0217 Item 7 Minutes of the IAG Meeting held 9 February 2017 and LRAC Meeting held 14 February 2017

The Administrator determined that:

1. The Minutes of the IAG Meeting held on 9 February 2017 be noted.

2. The Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held on 14 February 2017 be noted.

C0217 Item 8 Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 December 2016 and 2 February 2017

The Administrator determined that:

1. The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 December 2016 be received and noted.

2. The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2^nd February, 2017 be received and noted.

C0217 Item 9 ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE IN THE INNER WEST

The Administrator determined that Council defer report for further consideration of appropriate funding levels and report back to March 2017 Council Meeting.

C0217 Item 10 Quarter 2 Progress Report - IWC Operational Plan

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

C0217 Item 11 Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held 1 February 2017

The Administrator determined that the minutes of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee held on 1 February 2017 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

C0217 Item 12 Review of Planning Proposal Fees and Charges

The Administrator determined that:

1. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, Council amend the current Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt fees for planning proposals and introduce an integrated Inner West Council planning proposal fee structure; and

2. Council exhibit the proposed fees and charges and receive a report on submissions received.

Procedural Motion

The Administrator determined that Items 13 and 16 be considered in conjunction.

C0217 Item 13 Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the period ended 30 September 2016

The Administrator determined that:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. Council approves the budget adjustments required.

C0217 Item 16 Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the period ended 31 December 2016

The Administrator determined that:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. Council approves the budget adjustments required.

C0217 Item 14 Inner West Council Investments as for the periods ending 30 November 2016, 31 December 2016 and 31 January 2017

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

C0217 Item 15 Disclosures of Interest by Designated Persons

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

Meeting closed at 9:52pm.

Public Speakers

Item 1:	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Frank Smith	St Peters
	Chris Woods, Marrickville LRAC	Marrickville
	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Linda Kelly, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt

Item 2:	Joseph Bell	Ashfield
	Bruce Woolf	Sydney
	Van Luan Nguyen	Tempe
	Adam Sives	Marrickville
	Kevin Lam	St Peters
	James Cartwright	Rhodes
	Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC	Marrickville
	Peter Tanvakeras	Marrickville

Item 3:	Linda Kelly, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt
	Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt

Item 6:	Mark Krupinski	Marrickville
	Justine Langford	Marrickville
	James Gilronan	Dulwich Hill

Item 7:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain

Item 8:	John Caley	Newtown
	Justin Hillis	Marrickville
	James Gilronan	Dulwich Hill
	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill
	Renee Holmes	Ashfield

Item 9	Linda Kelly, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt
	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt

Item 11:	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain

Item 12:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain

Item 13:	Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC	Ashfield
	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt

Item 14:	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	James Gilronan	Dulwich Hill

Item 16:	Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC	Ashfield
	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt







Item 17:	Catherine Gemmell	Leichhardt
	Christina Valentine	Leichhardt
	Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC	Haberfield
	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill
	Lesley Treleavan	Camperdown
	Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC	Leichhardt
	John Lozano	Haberfield

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 3

Subject: ADOPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOLLOWING PUBLIC EXHIBITION

File Ref: 16/5981/27554.17

Prepared By: Jon Atkins - Affordable Housing Officer

Authorised By: Erla Ronan - Group Manager Community Services and Culture

SUMMARY

It is now widely recognised that there is a major shortfall of affordable housing in most cities and many regional and rural communities across Australia. The Inner West Council local government area (LGA) is no exception in this regard. It is also suffering from a shortfall of affordable housing. Research commissioned by Council reveals a large, disproportionate and growing number of local people in housing stress. This research shows that the market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households in the LGA. Nor is the market replacing existing housing stock lost through gentrification and redevelopment that is affordable to these groups.

These findings provide clear justification for the Inner West Council to actively seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through its planning instruments and policies. Not only is this in keeping with Council’s legislative obligations e.g. Object 5(a)(viii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) relating to ‘the maintenance and provision of affordable housing’, but it is also in accordance with the former councils’ affordable housing policies and strategies. In order to contribute to the goal of achieving an increase in affordability for the target groups identified in the Policy, the strategy recommends stronger intervention through the planning system in the form of mechanisms to capture an equitable share of land value uplift, together with mandatory contributions or inclusionary zoning in larger development sites within the LGA and in major State redevelopment projects.

This report presents the feedback and submissions received by Council during the public exhibition period and recommends that Council adopts the Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture as provided in ATTACHMENT 1 and ATTACHMENT 2.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Adopts the Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture; and

2. Submits the following recommended notice of motion to the National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government (18-21 June 2017) to be held in Canberra, namely that the Federal Government give urgent consideration to measures to improve housing affordability in areas effected by high levels of housing stress such as Sydney's Inner West, including taxation and other non-supply side mechanisms that are currently inadequately utilised in initiatives to improve housing affordability.

BACKGROUND

In early 2016 it was evident that State urban renewal projects, together with major planning proposals within the Inner West LGA, had the capacity to generate affordable housing on a reasonably significant scale through inclusionary zoning measures. Given the development pipeline, combined with the imperative for Council to lobby (a) the State government with respect to proposed urban renewal projects and (b) the Greater Sydney Commission during its preparation of the draft District Plans at the time, it was considered urgent to develop an affordable housing policy based upon a credible evidence base.

Consequently Judith Stubbs and Associates were commissioned to prepare an Affordable Housing Policy for Inner West Council. A Background Paper (ATTACHMENT 3) and a Position Paper on Best Practice in Value Capture were produced to provide a land value capture model and evidence base for the Policy. While originally focused on the former LGA of Marrickville, following the amalgamation on 12 May 2016, the research was extended to include data and modelling from the former LGAs of Ashfield and Leichhardt.

DISCUSSION

Key findings of the research underpinning the Policy include the following:

· The Inner West LGA has experienced some of the most rapid real increases in housing prices (rental and purchase) over the past decade, with accelerating trends in recent years. Even the lowest priced strata dwellings are no longer affordable to very low and low income households, and are generally affordable only to the upper end of the moderate income band.

· This is leading to serious impacts on the social and economic fabric of the local community:

o A large, disproportionate and growing number of local people are in housing stress, and sacrificing basic necessities to pay for their housing costs;

o There is a considerable displacement of historical populations through ongoing gentrification and non-replacement of affordable and lower cost housing; and

o There are very high current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing for low income emergency and service sector workers, as well as for more vulnerable groups such as aged pensioners and people with a disability.

The socio-economic research strongly indicates that virtually no new housing constructed in the future will be affordable to any very low or low income households, or to moderate income families, without strong intervention through the planning system to capture a reasonable share of land value uplift. Importantly, the economic modelling indicates that there will be significant land value uplift associated with rezoning across the LGA, particularly in larger brownfield sites and State urban renewal projects. Capturing a share of land value uplift before rezoning occurs is reasonable and feasible. It is important to stress that this is not a tax. Rather, it is a mechanism for capturing a reasonable share of the unearned increment in land value uplift created through the planning actions of councils and the State government.

The Policy contends that such value can be captured through voluntary planning agreements negotiated prior to rezoning (voluntary contributions) or through State Government allowing Council to be included under the provisions of State Environmental Policy No 70 (Affordable Housing) (mandatory contributions). Each of these mechanisms is addressed in the Policy. Feasible levels of benefit capture in relation to variations to height and floor space ratio (FSR) are also included in the Policy. The Policy also acknowledges that proposals to amend or exceed planning controls under a planning agreement will need to demonstrate that they have merit in their own right, prior to considering any contribution for a public purpose including affordable housing. As well, the evidence base for the Policy indicates that the implementation of value capture through the method of calculation recommended will not adversely impact on development feasibility and takes into account normal development profit margins.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETS

It is important to emphasise that a primary objective of the Policy is to determine feasible affordable housing contributions in relation to redevelopment costs across the local government area. Recommending certain density levels by postcode was not part of the Policy’s purpose. Rather it is Council’s existing LEPs associated with the former councils of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt that set out both the aims of local environmental planning provisions for land as well as the kinds of redevelopment and densities permitted within the LGA. In addition, variations to existing planning controls is a matter for Council to determine in keeping with local environmental planning provisions and identified local heritage values.

In keeping with this primary objective, the Policy establishes that Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions will apply in the case of a proposed rezoning or amendment to planning controls that Council determines will allow for additional density within a site or precinct. Mandatory contributions will apply to all new release areas, brownfield and infill sites, and major private and public redevelopments, including on State government land and in State urban renewal precincts, including zones within the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy and the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor that fall within Council’s boundaries. With respect to Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions, Council’s share of land value uplift will be taken as 15% of Gross Floor Area, both residential and commercial, of the development for development projects with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700sqm or greater, or where a development results in 20 or more dwellings. The rate of contributions reflects the relatively high land value uplift associated with inner city renewal areas amid rapid gentrification.

In addition, Council has determined that the Bays Precinct will be subject to a 30% Affordable Housing Contribution, subject to further feasibility analysis. (Refer to pages 11, 12, 17 and 18 of the Policy).

EXHIBITION PERIOD AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

The exhibition period for the Affordable Housing Policy started on 11 December 2016 and ended on 13 February 2017. A total of 29 submissions were received during the exhibition period. An additional four submissions were received up until 14 March 2017. Of all 33 submissions received, 79% supported the Policy while 21% did not support the Policy.

Council thanks all individuals, groups and stakeholders who lodged submissions on the Policy. A wide range of constructive views, queries and recommendations were received and these have been considered during the preparation of the Policy’s final draft.

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

The document Report on Public Submissions (ATTACHMENT 4) provides responses to observations, concerns and recommendations contained in the 33 submissions. Separate submissions and attachments submitted to Council are at ATTACHMENT 5. Below is a sample of these key observations, concerns and recommendations:

Supportive of the Policy (79%)	Not Supportive of the Policy (21%)
“This is an essential policy for Council.”	“There needs to be a clearer definition and evidence of hardship”
“There is a need for diversity in a healthy, ethical and vibrant community.”	By “mentioning 6 and 14 storeys … in the Haberfield, it is an acknowledgement that such (developments) might be permitted”.
The Policy “is highly relevant for the rapid price escalations taking place in both the housing purchase and rental markets across the inner west.”	“The real issue is declining home ownership rates which this policy fails to address.”
“I support the affordable housing targets but would like to see them even higher.”	“The council’s proposed affordable housing targets should be reduced and not exceed the recommended 5-10 percent target.”
“Council needs a commitment to provide affordable housing. Notably to single parents who work in the local area.”	The Policy “considers Redfern-type 14-storey towers for places like Dulwich Hill which is entirely out of character and inappropriate.”
The policy “is too narrow in that adopts no position on the taxation system” e.g “capital gains taxation and the removal of subsidies such as negative gearing.”	“If Council is to truly represent the views of residents, consultation on issues of such importance must be authentic.”
“(W)ell designed affordable housing and plenty of green space is essential if our community is to thrive.”	“Council should be lobbying the State and Federal governments to undertake other measures to ensure affordable housing and discourage the speculative property investment which is leading to unchecked population growth.”
The Policy contributes “to a socially richer and more diverse community, as well as maintaining housing opportunities for vulnerable groups and workers in essential/community sectors.”	“If the 15% target is adopted, then by the council's own words, there is only one known urban form outcome for the suburb - 14 storey towers in current low density streets. We consider any affordable housing benefits gained from this outcome to be significantly outweighed by the permanent destruction of the area's history, character and community.”
The Policy “should apply for medium and small developments also.”	“(T)he council could lobby government to extend its powers and the scope of this policy in regard to existing housing.”
“I support, but am also conscious of young families like my own, who desire to remain in the area, but not in a unit, rather a home.”	“Overall, the draft policy adopts only supply-side policies to support housing affordability, but not policies to reduce demand or change broader policy settings.”
“We need options and affordable decent places to keep this area vibrant and liveable and retain sense of community.”	The “policy will be counterproductive in the supply of affordable housing. It will be a burden on developers and land owners for the reasons stated and will inevitably lead to a loss of employment generating land.”
The Policy requires “a clearer outline of its affordable housing targets.”
“The Federation is pleased to see that the IWC focus on measures to increase the supply of affordable rental housing, have recognised the need to include essential workers on moderate incomes in the households who should be assisted and have underpinned their policy by sound research.”

SUPPLEMENTARY STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

On 6 December 2016, Council passed a resolution endorsing the draft Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture. Item 7 of this resolution commits Council to preparing a “5-10 year housing action plan to implement the Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) based on the Policy’s background data and Best Practice in Value Capture position paper, and drawing on existing Council research and plans.” Leichhardt Council’s Housing Action Plan 2016 -2025 forms an essential part of existing research and plans. ATTACHMENT 6 Supplementary Strategies and Actions provides an assessment of all actions contained in former Leichhardt Council’s Housing Action Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

(1) The current Affordable Housing Officer (AHO) was employed on a temporary basis by Marrickville Council for two days a week for a two year period. The amalgamation has resulted in a considerable expansion of this officer’s workload as the position’s responsibilities for policy and program development related to affordable housing, boarding houses, management of Council’s affordable housing units and homelessness now covers the Inner West Council LGA. Likewise the proposed 5-10 year Housing Action Plan will require extra resources to implement. The AHO is responsible for the management of Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program, which will expand in the future.

(2) On 6 December, 2016 Council adopted the following resolution (item 11):

That Council “allocates funds to undertake an integrated communication strategy to promote the Affordable Housing Policy, including the organisation of a community forum in 2017”. The allocation of funds for this strategy has yet to be determined.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The development of this Policy has involved ongoing consultation and input from a range of staff across the Inner West Council.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The public were invited to make submissions on the Policy via Council’s online submissions form during the public exhibition period. Along with this form, access to the three documents comprising the Policy as well as an outline of the Policy’s rationale were made available on Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ webpage. During the exhibition period, the webpage received a total of 676 visits while document downloads totalled 300. A media release about the Policy being on public exhibition was issued on 16 December 2016. Council also advertised the exhibition period in its eNews editions between December 2016 and February 2017. A presentation on the Policy was made by consultant, Dr Judith Stubbs, to a Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) meeting on 20 September 2016. Various inquiries about the Policy from residents, developers and stakeholders were also responded to by the Affordable Housing Officer and Council’s Consultant during and after the public exhibition period.

CONCLUSION

As indicated above, the substantial evidence showing a growing number of local people in housing stress together with current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing, provides a significant evidence base to justify Council actively seeking an increase in the supply of affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Policy’s support for stronger interventions in the form of value capture, inclusionary zoning and development partnerships, offers Council the best means of increasing housing affordability for very low to moderate income households in the community.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Attachment 1 Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy 16032017
2.⇩	Attachment 2 Best Practice in Value Capture 20161125
3.⇩	Attachment 3 Background Paper Affordable Housing Policy 20161125
4.⇩	Attachment 4 Report on Public Submissions
5.⇩	Attachment 5 Attachments to Public Submissions Received
6.⇩	Attachment 6 Supplementary Strategies and Actions

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Prepared for Inner West Council by Judith Stubbs and Associates

Published by Inner West Council

Email: council@innerwest.nsw.gov.au

http://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior consent of the publishers.

Table of Contents

Contents

1..... PART A: Rationale for Use of Strong Planning Intervention to Create Affordable Housing 4

1.1 Overview 4

1.2..... What is Affordable Housing? 4

1.3..... Why does affordable housing matter? 5

1.4..... Gentrification and Social Exclusion 6

1.5..... Current Lack of Affordable Housing 7

1.6..... Likely Future Lack of Housing Affordability 8

1.7..... Rationale for Capturing Land Value Increment through Relevant Planning Mechanisms 9

1.8..... Key Considerations in Land Value Capture 10

1.9..... Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation 11

1.10... Reasonableness and Feasibility of Mechanisms 12

2..... PART B: HOUSING POLICY 14

2.1 Housing Goal 14

2.2..... Affordable Housing Definition 14

2.3 Target Groups 15

2.4 Priority Strategies 15

2.5..... Pursue Planning Controls that Support Existing and New Supplies of Affordable Housing 16

2.6..... Partnerships to Increase Affordable Housing 20

2.7..... SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 20

2.8..... Research and Monitoring 21

2.9..... Key Performance Indicators 21

2.10 Administration 23

Appendix A: Marginal Uplift from Increased Height and/or Density 24

Overview 24

Modelling (Additional Saleable Floor Area) 24

1 PART A: Rationale for Use of Strong Planning Intervention to Create Affordable Housing

1.1 Overview

Part A of this document sets out background information that provides a context to Council’s Affordable Housing Policy, set out in Part B below. It sets out a definition and benchmarks for affordable housing in accordance with relevant legislation, and summarises research and analysis from JSA’s (2016) Affordable Housing Background Paper, which provide a clear rationale for this policy. The reader is also referred to JSA’s (2016) Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture for further rational. The Policy is also informed by the former Marrickville Council’s (2015) Marrickville Housing Profile, and the former Leichhardt Council’s (2011) Affordable Housing Strategy, and Strategic Action Plan.

The evidence indicates that there is clear justification for Inner West Council to actively seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through its planning instruments and policies. This is related to the large, disproportionate and growing number of local people in housing stress; the displacement of historical populations through ongoing gentrification and non-replacement of affordable housing lost; current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing including for key workers and more vulnerable groups; and the amount of unearned land increment (land value uplift) created through the operation of Council’s planning and approvals processes, some of which may reasonably be contributed to affordable housing as key infrastructure or a public purpose under a voluntary planning agreement or other legal mechanism.

Due to the failure of the market to provide affordable housing for very low and low income households, and for many moderate income households, this Policy principally focuses on strong interventions through the planning system and the direct creation of affordable housing on public land through development and management partnerships as these are virtually the only way to create affordable housing in most areas of Inner West Council area.

Council notes that proposals to amend or exceed planning controls under a planning agreement will need to demonstrate that they have merit in their own right, prior to considering any contribution for a public purpose including affordable housing.

1.2 What is Affordable Housing?

Housing is generally considered to be ‘affordable’ when households that are renting or purchasing are able to meet their housing costs and still have sufficient income to pay for other basic needs such as food, clothing, transport, medical care and education.

‘Affordable housing’ has a statutory definition under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), being housing for very low, low or moderate income households, where ‘very low-income’ households as those on less than 50% of median household income; ‘low-income’ households’ as those on 50-80% of median household income, and ‘moderate-income’ households as those on 80-120% of median household income for Sydney SD.^{^[1]}

As a commonly used rule of thumb, housing is considered to be affordable where households pay no more than 30% of their gross household income on their rent or mortgage payments. This is often regarded as the point at which such households are at risk of having insufficient income to meet other living costs, and deemed to be in ‘housing stress’. Those paying more than 50% of gross income are regarded as being in ‘severe housing stress’.

The following table provides benchmarks that are used in this policy when referring to ‘affordable housing’, in 2016 dollars, and are consistent with relevant NSW legislation. These vales should be indexed quarterly.

· Table 1.1: Affordable Housing Income and Cost Benchmarks

	Very low-income household	Low-income household	Moderate-income household
Income Benchmark	<50% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	50-80% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	80%-120% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney
Income Range (2)	<$783 per week	$784-$1,253 per week	$1,253-$1,879 per week
Affordable Rental Benchmarks (3)	<$235 per week	$236-$376 per week	$377-$564 per week
Affordable Purchase Benchmarks (4)	<$228,000	$228,001- $364,000	$364,001- $545,000

Source: JSA 2016, based on data from ABS (2011) Census indexed to March Quarter 2016 dollars

(1) All values reported are in March Quarter 2016 dollars

(2) Total weekly household income

(3) Calculated as 30% of total household income

(4) Calculated using ANZ Loan Repayment Calculator, using 4 January 2016 interest rate (5.37%) and assuming a 20% deposit for a 30 year ANZ Standard Variable Home Loan and 30% of total household income as repayments.

1.3 Why does affordable housing matter?

There is a common misconception that ‘affordable housing’ refers only to social (public or community) housing. However, many current and future residents facing affordability problems in the Inner West Council area are likely to fall outside the eligibility criteria for such housing.

This includes a young person seeking to live near where they grew up, a recently separated or divorced person with children for whom conventional home ownership may no longer be economically viable, households dependent on one (or even two) low or median waged, key worker jobs, or an older person on a reduced retirement income.

Lack of affordable housing not only affects the quality of life of individual families, who may be sacrificing basic necessities to pay for their housing. It also has a serious impact on employment growth and economic development. The loss of young families and workers in lower paid essential service jobs can adversely affect local economies, and is contributing to labour shortages in some areas of metropolitan Sydney.

This can contribute to a lack of labour supply among ‘key workers’ who are essential to various services including childcare, aged services, health care, tourism, hospitality and emergency services, but whose wage increasingly does not allow them to access rental or purchase housing close to where they work. Affordably priced housing is thus an important form of community infrastructure that supports community wellbeing and social and economic sustainability, including a diverse labour market and economy, and strong and inclusive communities. Despite this, the most compelling need for affordable housing remains with very and low income renters.

Finally, the location of affordable housing is a key issue in terms of social equity and sustainability. Providing for a mix of affordable housing for different target groups in well-located areas provides for social mix and reduces the potential stigma that can be associated with such accommodation. Locating such housing close to transport and services also provides for the needs of key groups including those with a disability and the frail aged, reduces car dependency and the cost of transport, which can be a significant impost on very low, low and moderate income households^{^[2]} and on the environment.

1.4 Gentrification and Social Exclusion

The ongoing loss and non-replacement of affordable housing through gentrification and redevelopment, and the current and projected degree of unmet housing need in the Inner West Council area provides a strong rationale for intervention in the housing market through the planning system.

The analysis of key socio-economic indicators provides clear evidence of significant demographic change, rapid gentrification and displacement and exclusion of more disadvantaged and vulnerable people from the Inner West Council area over at least the past decade in the former Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs, and for at least two decades in the case of Leichhardt LGA; and the failure of the market to provide for the needs of very low, low and moderate income key workers and other more vulnerable groups in an increasingly expensive housing market.

The more recent gentrification of areas like Sydenham-Tempe-St Peters, Ashfield and Dulwich Hill-Lewisham, and the longer-term displacement of more disadvantaged people from areas like Newtown, Petersham and Balmain, are particularly evident from the research that supports this Policy. The loss of very low income households in the Inner West LGA was four times greater than that for Greater Sydney from 2001-11, with the former Leichhardt LGA experiencing the greatest proportional losses of lower income households. Overall, the former Marrickville LGA has experienced the most rapid gentrification in recent years, although the former Leichardt is the most ‘gentrified’ in terms of income, education and occupational status of its residents, having experienced major social change over a far longer timeframe. The ongoing loss of lower income and younger key workers is an issue across the LGA.

The very high rate of housing stress among very low and low income households is also a key consideration, in particular the increasing rates of housing stress over the past decade among low and moderate income households in suburbs that were once more affordable. Together with mobility data, which shows the movement of lower income households and lower status workers out of the LGA in search of more affordable housing, the high rate of homelessness and the relatively low rate of social housing (3.5% in the Inner West LGA compared with 5% for Greater Sydney), provides a compelling rationale for intervening in the market to create affordable housing through the planning system.

1.5 Current Lack of Affordable Housing

The market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households who need it in the Inner West Council area, and is not replacing existing stock of housing that is affordable to these groups as it lost through gentrification and redevelopment.

Virtually no strata products (the lowest cost form of accommodation) are affordable for purchase through the market for very low, low and moderate income households anywhere in the LGA. At best, some small strata products in cheaper areas may be affordable to the very top of the moderate income band. No houses or two or three bedroom strata dwellings are affordable to any very low, low or moderate income households, so that families with children are entirely excluded from affordable purchase in the LGA.

The vast majority of households needing affordable rental housing in the LGA are also excluded from affordable rental through the market. The only affordable option for very low income households are lower amenity boarding house rooms in a few suburbs; while low income renters can only affordably rent a studio or one bedroom apartment in a few suburbs. Moderate income renters can affordably rent a two bedroom apartment in some suburbs, and so are somewhat better catered for, but again family households with children are excluded from larger housing options.

Given that the cost of new build products are likely to reflect the third quartile of existing products, and that there have been significant increases in housing cost in real terms in recent years, it is likely that housing will become even more unaffordable in the LGA in the future.

The evidence indicates that the vast majority of those needing affordable purchase and rental housing in the LGA are unlikely to have their needs met through the market without strong planning intervention to create affordable housing.

1.6 Likely Future Lack of Housing Affordability

Section 3.3 of Council’s Affordable Housing Background Report (JSA 2016) provides an analysis of how likely it is that the market could provide affordable housing in the future, and what planning interventions through the market would most likely be effective in this regard.

Importantly, the analysis indicates that it is unlikely that any separate house will be affordable in the Inner West Council area in the future, and in any case, there are limited development opportunities for such products, with the best predictor of the price of strata dwellings being the strata area from the linear regression analysis (see Table 3.2 in Council’s Affordable Housing Background Report (JSA 2016) for detailed analysis).

However, even under more optimistic scenarios (in particular, reduced strata area, parking and one bathroom), modelling indicates that, even with planning intervention to encourage or mandate such dwellings, all very low income and low income households are likely to be excluded from affordable purchase in the Inner West LGA in the future. Given recent real increases in rents, and the relationship between rates of return on purchase costs and rents charged, the situation for very low, low and moderate income renters is expected to worsen in the future.

Moderate income households would have somewhat more choice in relation to the affordability of studio and smaller one bedroom apartments, and boarding house accommodation, but again most of this income group including moderate income families would be excluded from affordable purchase in the future.

Nonetheless, specifying a proportion of minimum sized studio, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments without parking in multi dwelling housing and apartment developments is likely to provide affordable purchase accommodation in some suburbs, and will provide lower cost purchase accommodation in other areas. As around 60% of privately occupied apartments enter the private rental market,^{^[3]} such stock is likely to add to the stock of affordable and lower cost rental accommodation.

Stronger intervention through the planning system in the form of mechanisms to capture an equitable share of land value uplift, as well as the direct creation of affordable housing on public land through development partnerships, is likely to be required to achieve affordability for the vast majority of relevant target groups, in particular all very low and low income households, and moderate income family households.

1.7 Rationale for Capturing Land Value Increment through Relevant Planning Mechanisms

As noted, there is clear justification for Council to actively seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through its planning powers based on housing need, loss and non-replacement of affordable housing, and the failure of the market to provide such housing in the local housing market context.

Increased competition for land and housing resources through household formation, demographic change and in-migration of wealthier groups will continue to exacerbate affordable housing need in the future. As with the need for other infrastructure and public amenities and services arising from re/development, continued pressure will lead to increased housing stress and displacement of very low, low and moderate income workers and residents in the future.

An opportunity to create affordable housing exists through the proper use of Council’s planning powers under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). In particular, the capture of a reasonable and equitable share of land value uplift created through the planning and development approval process is justified in the local housing market context.

A relevant definition of land value capture is provided by Taylor (2016) in the NSW planning context, that is,

In the broadest terms, [land] value capture in relation to urban land development involves a planning authority, such as local council in NSW, capturing for the community benefit some of the land value increase accruing to a parcel of land from planning activities of the authority which increase the development potential of the land and hence its value.^{^[4]}

Two broad approaches to land value capture are relevant to this policy, these being, ‘approaches intended to recover the cost of infrastructure investments and broader approaches intended to capture some share of the unearned increment in private land values [emphasis added], with the first exemplified by s94 approaches that seek to internalise the costs or impacts of the development; and the second found in mechanisms such as voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Act, and variations to controls under clause 4.6 applications, which seek to capture a reasonable share of uplift.

It is important to note that land value capture arising from government planning actions, and in the way in which it is implemented in this policy, is not a form of taxation. Rather, the fundamental purpose of value capture is to clawback, or to gain a reasonable share, of the increased land value on the basis of a legitimate claim by the planning authority to share the ‘unearned increment’ of land value uplift that results from its planning actions for use by the community as a public purpose.^{^[5]} Depending on the relative scarcity of land, and considerations of amenity around the land rezoned, the increase in value may be greater or lesser.

While, in a free market, economics would predict that the profit would be a ‘normal profit’ (generally considered as 10%^{^[6]}), the supply of residential land does not operate within a free market. Supply is essentially rationed, firstly, by the planning process, and secondly, by the timed release of land by developers to maximise profit. As a result, the actual profit may be well in excess of normal levels of profit or private benefit, and must be calculated within each local market or submarket context.

1.8 Key Considerations in Land Value Capture

Key considerations for implementing value capture schemes, which could be considered as best practice in the development of this policy,^{^[7]} include the following:

· Justification – where the planning authority has or will increase the value of land through its actions, and the community is entitled to a share of the resulting uplift;

· Entitlement – the proper objective of which is to identifying the unearned increment in land value uplift resulting from any planning proposal and to decide the community’s legitimate claim to a share of it;

· Calculation - how the land value increase should be calculated for value capture purposes, noting that a residual land value analysis should generally apply;

· Development feasibility – that the implementation of value capture should not adversely impact on development feasibility by denying the developer a reasonable share of development profit;

· Timing - in consideration of reasonableness and equity, the value capture requirement should apply to land acquired for redevelopment after a nominated date related to the implementation of the policy.

1.9 Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation

Appendix A of Council’s Best Practice in Value Capture Position Paper (JSA 2016) sets out a review of the legislative obligations, opportunities and constraints for local government in the creation of affordable housing through the planning system.

As noted, Council has an obligation to actively engage with affordable housing, including in accordance with Object 5(a)(viii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – ‘the maintenance and provision of affordable housing.’

There are two main mechanisms that can legitimately be used to capture a reasonable proportion of uplift from planning actions in the NSW planning context.

· Council can legally enter into voluntary planning agreements that include the dedication of land free of cost, the payment of a monetary contribution, or provision of any other material public benefit, or any combination of these, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose, including ‘affordable housing’ under s93F of the Act, noting that nexus requirements do not apply. Such planning agreements can be made, for example, with respect to the capture of a reasonable share of additional land value that has resulted from a proposal to rezone or otherwise vary planning controls that would normally apply to a site or within a precinct under planning proposals and applications for clause 4.6 variations.

The use of this mechanism would require a transparent policy including method of calculation, areas to which it applies, collection and accountability mechanisms, etc, and would also likely need to be set out in detail in amendments to Council’s existing Planning Agreements Policy, noting that such proposals would need to demonstrate merit in their own right;

· Alternately, or in addition, Council can seek State Government approval for Council (or the State Government) to levy a contribution toward affordable housing under s94F of the Act where there is a major up-zoning or rezoning under the LEP, given the demonstrated need for affordable housing in the LGA. The use of this mechanism would require ministerial approval for either:

o An amendment to SEPP 70 (Affordable Housing), as well as relevant amendments to Council’s LEP, which would need to set out the geographic areas of inclusion, the quantum and basis of calculations, etc, like those in City of Sydney and Willoughby LEPs (noting that this has now been supported in the GSC’s Central District Plan); or

o The development of a special contributions plan by the State Government like that developed in relation to the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006. This would require legislative support, noting that such support is provided in the case of Redfern Waterloo under s30 of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 (see Appendix A of Council’s Affordable Housing Background Report (JSA 2016) for detail).

1.10 Reasonableness and Feasibility of Mechanisms

The evidence provided in background reports to this Policy indicates that Council is justified in seeking to capture a share of unearned land value uplift arising from the planning and development approvals process in the LGA; and that it is reasonable to do so due to the nature and severity of unmet affordable housing need arising from ongoing gentrification and redevelopment, and the failure of the market to replace such housing or to provide for the needs of most very low, low and moderate income households.

Evidence reported in Section 4 of the Affordable Housing Background Paper (JSA 2016), and Section 7 of the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture (JSA 2016) also indicates that the implementation of value capture through the method of calculation described in this policy will not adversely impact on development feasibility, and takes into account normal development profit.

The modelling provides evidence of significant value uplift associated with redevelopment of existing industrial land and housing for higher density development throughout the LGA, including value uplift associated with up-zoning of the three relevant precincts within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and precincts within the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area. It also provides evidence of significant uplift associated with variations to planning controls within a number of areas of the LGA.

As such, the Policy provides for a 15% Affordable Housing Contribution within new release areas, brownfield and infill sites, and major private and public redevelopments, including on State Government land and in State urban renewal projects, including precincts within the Parramatta Rd Urban Transformation Area and the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor that are within the Inner West Council area. The Policy will apply to such land that is subject to rezoning or amendment to planning controls that provide for increased density. Further, the Policy will apply to proposed developments comprised of 20 or more dwellings or that have a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m²or greater across the LGA.

Modelling and research indicates that the most likely areas that will experience redevelopment will be older industrial areas and areas of lower quality commercial development, and that developments will generally be able to sustain a 15% levy without adversely affecting redevelopment. However, economic modelling also shows that some types of redevelopment may be adversely affected by a 15% levy, for example, mid-rise development on smaller lots. Therefore, a threshold of 20 units, or 1,700m²Gross Floor Area^{^[8]} has been selected as a development that is of sufficient scale to generally avoid such development disincentives.^{^[9]}

Further, although a minority of precincts modelled may face redevelopment constraints currently, the rapid increase in land values in recent years indicates that areas that are not as feasible are likely to become so within a reasonable timeframe.

These findings provide a strong justification for value capture associated with incentive-based or voluntary planning agreement approaches in association with redevelopment, as well as for mandatory contributions or inclusionary zoning across the LGA, including in urban renewal precincts. Further analysis provided at Section 8 of Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture (JSA 2016) and Section 5 of the Background Paper (JSA 2016) also indicates that development feasibility will generally not be affected by the implementation of this Policy.

2
PART B: HOUSING POLICY

2.1 Housing Goal

The overarching goal of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy is:

To facilitate the provision of affordable housing options within the Inner West Council area to meet the needs of very low, low and moderate income households so as to promote diversity, equity, liveability and sustainability.

2.2 Affordable Housing Definition

In accordance with the statutory definition under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Table 2-1 provides benchmarks that are used in this policy when referring to ‘affordable housing’. These will be indexed quarterly and as Census data becomes available.

· Table 2.1: Affordable Housing Income and Cost Benchmarks

	Very low-income household	Low-income household	Moderate-income household
Income Benchmark	<50% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	50-80% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	80%-120% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney
Income Range (2)	<$783 per week	$784-$1,253 per week	$1,253-$1,879 per week
Affordable Rental Benchmarks (3)	<$235 per week	$236-$376 per week	$377-$564 per week
Affordable Purchase Benchmarks (4)	<$228,000	$228,001- $364,000	$364,001- $545,000

Source: JSA 2016, based on data from ABS (2011) Census indexed to March Quarter 2016 dollars

(1) All values reported are in March Quarter 2016 dollars

(2) Total weekly household income

(3) Calculated as 30% of total household income

2.3 Target Groups

Council is committed to protecting and increasing the supply of housing stock that can be affordably rented or purchased by very low, low, and moderate income households, including target groups identified as having particular housing needs in the Inner West Council area. These include:

· Very low and low income renting households;

· Very low, low and moderate income key workers;

· Asset poor older people, including long-term residents of the LGA;

· Young people, including those with a social or economic association with the LGA;

· Lower income families including sole parent families and those totally priced out of the housing market;

· People with special housing or access needs, including people with a disability, frail aged people, those at risk of homelessness, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

2.4 Priority Strategies

Constituent councils of Inner West Council have set out a range of affordable housing priority strategies to ensure that the LGA provides affordable housing options to meet the needs of the community.^{^[10]} Broadly, these include:

1. To research and develop strategies to increase affordable housing supply;

2. To encourage the provision of affordable, adaptable and diverse housing for very low, low and moderate income households, including those with special housing and access needs;

3. To pursue planning controls that support existing and new supplies of affordable housing;

4. To advocate for, and build partnerships to increase, affordable and liveable housing;

5. To resist the loss of affordable housing and encourage the retention of existing affordable housing to maintain the socio-economic diversity within the LGA;

6. To support people living in residential care and boarding houses and ensure boarding houses provide clean and healthy living environments;

7. To raise awareness of affordable housing needs and issues to facilitate action.

Although each of these priority strategies is important, the focus of this Policy is on Priority Strategies 1 to 4 due to evidence that suggests that these will be by far the most effective strategies in the local housing market context.

2.5 Pursue Planning Controls that Support Existing and New Supplies of Affordable Housing

2.5.1 Market Delivery of Affordable Housing

Noting the evidence that the strata area of apartments is a relevant factor in cost, and in affordability for some of the target groups, for developments of ten or more apartments, Council will require 5% of apartments to be delivered as studio apartments with total strata area (including parking) less than 36 square metres, 5% of apartments to be delivered as one bedroom apartments with total strata area (including parking) less than 51 square metres, and 5% of apartments to be delivered as two bedroom apartments with total strata area (including parking) less than 71 square metres, with calculated numbers of apartments rounded up to the nearest whole number.^{^[11]}

Council will also facilitate the provision of lower cost and more affordable dwellings through ensuring that its planning controls do not unreasonably constrain the supply of genuinely affordable housing, including through provisions that encourage the development of larger, higher cost dwellings, constraints on lower cost housing types such as appropriately located secondary dwellings and other dwellings that can make a demonstrated contribution to affordable housing.

2.5.2 Sharing Land Value Uplift for Affordable Rental Housing

Achieving an Equitable Share of Land Value Uplift

Noting the evidence from the research that very little affordable housing will, in reality, be provided through the market in most areas of the LGA, Council will seek to gain an equitable share of the land value uplift resulting from its planning actions, including major development applications, rezonings and variations to planning controls that would otherwise apply to a site or precinct, for the benefit of the community as Affordable Rental Housing.

Council will use mechanisms available to it, including voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

In accordance with key directions in the Greater Sydney Commission’s Central District Plan, Council will seek amendments to SEPP 70 — Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes), and make relevant amendments to its LEP, to enable the levying of Mandatory Development Contributions to create Affordable Rental Housing in perpetuity.^{^[12]}

Regardless of the mechanism used, Council will seek to apply equitable, reasonable, transparent and feasible contributions to affordable housing within the local housing market context.

In entering into such land value uplift sharing arrangements, Council will apply the following principles:

· Justification – where the planning authority has or will increased the value of land through its actions, and the community is entitled to a share of the resulting uplift;

· Calculation - how the land value increase should be calculated for value capture purposes, noting that a residual land value analysis should generally apply;

· Development feasibility – that the implementation of value capture should not adversely impact on development feasibility by denying the developer a reasonable share of development profit;

Voluntary Planning Agreements under 93F of the Act

Proposals to which this Provision Applies

When considering planning actions that result in an increase in residential and/or commercial floor area, Council will seek an equitable share of the land value uplift through a planning agreement under s93F of the Act.

Planning agreements will be classified as either:

· Marginal Planning Agreements, that is, a planning agreement made in relation to variations to existing controls, for example, a proposal for additional height or FSR under clause 4.6 of the LEP or ‘density bonus’ schemes; or

· Major Planning Agreements, that is, a planning agreement made in the case of a proposed rezoning or amendment to planning controls that will allow for additional density within a site or precinct. Mandatory Contributions will apply to all new release areas, brownfield and infill sites, and major private and public redevelopments, including on State Government land and in State urban renewal projects, including precincts within the Parramatta Rd Urban Transformation Area and the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor that are within the Inner West Council area. The Policy will apply to proposed developments comprised of 20 or more dwellings or that have a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m²or greater.

Method of Calculation

Marginal Planning Agreements

In the case of Marginal Planning Agreements, marginal gross floor area will be taken as the additional gross floor area available to the developer as a result of the planning action, compared to the area available without the planning action. Land is excluded from the calculation as the land value is assumed to be amortised within the existing planning controls.

The Council share of land value uplift will be taken as a share of the marginal gross floor area as shown as LVC% in Table A1 of Appendix A of this Study for the appropriate postcode area (see also Sections 7.2.2 and 8 of Council’s Value Capture Position Paper, and Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 5 of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy: Background Paper for method of calculation and underlying assumptions).

Generally, where a Marginal Planning Agreement results in an increase in saleable floor area, land value capture of 21% to 34% of the additional saleable floor area obtained as a result of the Planning Agreement is warranted with regard to the evidence in the supporting studies.

Major Planning Agreements

In the interest of consistency and transparency, Council will apply a consistent share of land value uplift across the Inner West LGA to create Affordable Rental Housing in perpetuity.

In the case of Major Planning Agreements, the Council share of land value uplift will be taken as 15% of Gross Floor Area of the development for developments with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m²or greater, or where a development results in 20 or more dwellings. The rate of contributions reflects the relatively high land value uplift associated with inner city renewal areas amid rapid gentrification.

The rationale for this share of land value uplift is set out in Appendix B to this Policy, supported by assumptions and calculations set out in Section 7.2.2 and Table 7.1 of Council’s Value Capture Position Paper, and Section 4.2 and Table 4.1 of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy Background Paper.

An assessment of likely impact on development feasibility on a precinct by precinct basis is also provided at Section 8 of the Value Capture Paper, and Section 5 of the Background Paper.

Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions

In accordance with key directions in the Greater Sydney Commission’s Central District Plan, Council will seek amendments to SEPP 70 — Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes), and make relevant amendments to its LEP, to enable the levying of Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions to create Affordable Rental Housing in perpetuity.^{^[13]}

Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions will apply in the case of a proposed rezoning or amendment to planning controls that will allow for additional density within a site or precinct. Mandatory Contributions will apply to all new release areas, brownfield and infill sites, and major private and public redevelopments, including on State Government land and in State urban renewal projects, including precincts within the Parramatta Rd Urban Transformation Area and the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor that are within the Inner West Council area.

For the Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions, Council’s share of land value uplift will be taken as 15% of Gross Floor Area of the development for developments with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m²or greater, or where a development results in 20 or more dwellings. The rate of contributions reflects the relatively high land value uplift associated with inner city renewal areas amid rapid gentrification.

An assessment of likely impact on development feasibility on a precinct by precinct basis is also provided at Section 8 of the Value Capture Paper, and Section 5 of the Affordable Housing Policy Background Paper.

In addition, Council has determined that The Bays urban renewal precinct will be subject to a 30% Affordable Housing Contribution, subject to further feasibility analysis.

Form of contributions

Contributions made under a Planning Agreement or as a Mandatory Affordable Housing Levy may be made in the form of apartments or a cash contributions, or a combination of the two. Council will determine the form of the contribution to be made.

Where the share of land value uplift is provided as apartments, Council will determine the size and number of bedrooms in accordance with its strategic priorities, and seek a mix of dwellings sizes and bedroom numbers. Title to apartments will be transferred to Council in perpetuity.

Where the share of land value uplift is provided as a cash contribution, Council will based the quantum of the contribution on the assessed market value of the floor area using recent sales data or as assessed by a property valuer designated by Council.

The contribution will be used to create Affordable Rental Housing in perpetuity, with the principal target groups being very low and low income renting households whose needs cannot be met through the market.

Review process

Council will review the outcomes of its Affordable Rental Housing mechanisms regularly, with the first review to be undertaken within two years of the Policy’s adoption.

Management

Affordable Rental Housing created will be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider.

2.6 Partnerships to Increase Affordable Housing

Council will seek to enter into affordable housing development and management partnerships with a relevant Community Housing Providers and/or the private sector to ensure:

· The most effective and efficient use of resources created through planning mechanisms noted above;

· Opportunities for the efficient use of any resources redeployed by Council (e.g. lots or housing dedicated to affordable housing from Council owned or other public land);

· Protection of stock in perpetuity for affordable rental housing to meet the needs of the local community, and in particularly those identified as primary target groups for affordable housing in Council’s studies.

Council will ensure the proper management of affordable housing resources created through entering into an MOU or other legal agreement with an appropriate Community Housing Provider (CHP).

2.7 SEPP Affordable Rental Housing

Council will support appropriate applications for infill affordable housing, secondary dwellings and boarding houses under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

With regard to the character test in the SEPP, Council will advise applicants on relevant locational and design considerations to inform appropriate developments so as to facilitate locationally appropriate developments.

Council will develop guidelines to support the development of well-designed, affordable and appropriately designed boarding houses, including related to security of tenure, affordable rents, high quality management and design, and inclusive communities.

Council will rigorously apply the provisions of the SEPP that seek to protect the remaining supply of affordable housing in the LGA, and implement a social impact assessment process that supports such retention.

2.8 Research and Monitoring

Inner West Council is committed to ongoing research into housing needs and issues in its local community, which will continue to form the basis of local housing policy formulation and implementation.

Council understands the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the effects of its policies on local housing needs and issues, and is committed to ongoing monitoring and evaluation against the KPIs set out below.

Council will regularly update the research that provides the evidence base for this Policy.

2.9 Key Performance Indicators

Council has identified indicators and targets with respect to Affordable Housing in the Inner West Council Area. These are set out in the table below.

· Table 2.2: Affordable Housing Indicators and Targets

Indicator	Target	Data Source
Households in the lowest 40% of income distribution^{^[14]} in housing stress^{^[15]}as a proportion of all households in the lowest 40% of income distribution	10% maximum by 2031	ABS Census data
Rental housing stock that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households as a proportion of all housing stock in the Inner West Council area	7.5% by 2031	NSW Centre for Affordable Housing. Local Government Housing Kit Database
Purchase housing stock that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households as a proportion of all housing stock in the Inner West Council area	7.5% by 2031	NSW Centre for Affordable Housing. Local Government Housing Kit Database
Median house rental price	For monitoring	NSW Rent and Sales Report
Median apartment rental price	For monitoring	NSW Rent and Sales Report
Median house purchase price	For monitoring	NSW Rent and Sales Report
Median apartment purchase price	For monitoring	NSW Rent and Sales Report
The supply of social housing stock (public, community, co-operative and Aboriginal housing) as a proportion of all housing stock in the Inner West Council area	7.5% by 2031	NSW Centre for Affordable Housing Local Government Housing Kit Database
Retention of affordable housing stock through implementation of SEPPARH and SIA Policy	Successful actions to retain stock	Council records
The supply of dwellings in the Inner West Council’s affordable housing portfolio	Part of the 7.5% affordable housing target	Council data
Increase in the number of people living in boarding houses in the Inner West Council area	Part of the 7.5% affordable housing target	ABS Census data
Monitoring of the outcomes of the statutory review of the NSW Residential Tenancies Act 2010	Ongoing	NSW Tenants’ Union
Boarding house residents have the same tenure and rights as tenants have under the NSW Residential Tenancies Act 2010	2019
Boarding house tenants have adequate standard of accommodation and support	To be determined
Decrease in the number of households experiencing homelessness	Nil by 2031	ABS Census data

Source: Derived from (the former) Marrickville Council (2015) Marrickville Housing Profile

2.10 Administration

Council will set up a Trust Fund for the purpose of transparent and accountable management of public benefits captured, and will report annually. The Trust Fund will clearly differentiate funds or resources held for Affordable Housing, and account separately for these funds.

Council will develop a Program of Works including priorities for use of resources generated for Affordable Housing Dedications. This will be publicly available, and will also be reported upon annually as part of Council’s reporting requirements.

Appendix A: Marginal Uplift from Increased Height and/or Density

Overview

In many cases, developers will offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement that allows for additional saleable Gross Floor Area through LEP clause 4.6 variations related to height or FSR. Where such variations are found to have merit in their own right, and so warrant approval, Council may wish to capture some of the associated value uplift. Assessment may be made on a case by case with value uplift estimated by land valuers and quantity surveyors or can be assessed on a proportional basis using averages. An assessment on a proportional basis using averages is set out below.

The analysis is conducted on a marginal basis, that is only the additional costs and additional value are considered. As such the purchase cost of the land, site costs and the like are ignored.

Where a Voluntary Planning Agreement results in an increase in saleable floor area, land value capture of 21% to 34% of the additional saleable floor area obtained as a result of the Voluntary Planning Agreement is warranted.

Modelling (Additional Saleable Floor Area)

The modelling below assesses the marginal value uplift and hence value capture from additional saleable floor area as a proportion of floor area, represented as apartments where value uplift in excess of a normal profit of 10% is shared 50:50 with the developer and a public purpose. The land value capture is shown as a proportion of saleable floor area to allow for universal application.

The modelling uses assumptions as set out in Section 7.2.2 of Council’s Value Capture Position Paper and Section 4.2 of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy Background Paper.

Table A1: Potential Marginal uplift for Selected Post Codes

Marginal uplift ($ ’,000,000)

Suburb	Construction cost per floor	sale price	Uplift	Uplift %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$1.67m	$3.18m	$1.50m	90%	21%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.67m	$3.48m	$1.81m	108%	24%
2048 (Stanmore)	$1.67m	$3.15m	$1.47m	88%	21%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$1.67m	$3.53m	$1.85m	111%	24%
2050 (Camperdown)	$1.67m	$3.59m	$1.92m	115%	24%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$1.67m	$3.30m	$1.63m	98%	22%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2038 (Annandale)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2131 (Ashfield)	$1.67m	$3.66m	$1.99m	119%	25%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$1.67m	$3.40m	$1.73m	104%	23%
2132 (Croydon)	$1.67m	$2.99m	$1.32m	79%	19%
2045 (Haberfield)	$1.67m	$3.96m	$2.29m	137%	27%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$1.67m	$4.29m	$2.62m	157%	29%
2039 (Rozelle)	$1.67m	$5.58m	$3.90m	234%	34%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$1.67m	$3.58m	$1.90m	114%	24%

Source: JSA (2016) derived from sources set out in Section 7 of JSA (2016) Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture, Inner West Council

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Prepared for Inner West Council by Judith Stubbs and Associates

Published by Inner West Council

Email: council@innerwest.nsw.gov.au

http://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/

Table of Contents

1..... Purpose of Position Paper 4

1.1..... Summary of Findings 4

1.1.1.......... What is Land Value Capture 4

1.1.2.......... Key Considerations in Land Value Capture 5

1.2..... Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation 5

1.3..... Estimating Land Value Uplift 6

1.3.1.......... Relevant methods 6

1.3.2.......... JSA’s method of calculation 7

1.4..... The Model Applied to Inner West LGA 9

2..... Housing Affordability Context 10

3..... Overview of Land Value Capture 11

3.1..... What is Land Value Capture? 11

3.2..... Key Considerations in Land Value Capture 13

3.3..... Implications for Council’s Policy 14

4..... Approaches to Land Value Capture 15

4.1 Overview 15

4.2..... General Review of Approaches to LVC 15

4.2.1.......... ‘Cost Recovery’ Approaches in the NSW Context 15

4.2.2.......... Capturing a Share of ‘Unearned Land Increment’ in the NSW Context 16

4.3..... Examples of Land Value Capture in Practice in NSW and Other Jurisdictions 17

4.3.1 Overview 17

4.3.2.......... Examples of Cost Recovery Mechanisms 17

4.3.3.......... Capturing a Share of Uplift in the NSW Context 18

5..... Overview of Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation 22

6..... Estimating Land Value Uplift 24

6.1 Overview 24

6.2..... Methods Used in Calculations 24

6.2.1.......... Waverley Case Study 24

6.2.2.......... Parramatta City Council Case Study 24

6.2.3.......... Leichhardt Council Case Study 25

6.2.4.......... Byron Shire Council Case Study 25

6.3..... The JSA Value Capture Model 26

7..... Assessment of Value Uplift and Land Value Capture in Inner West LGA 30

7.1 Overview 30

7.2..... Change of planning controls related to permissibility, height and FSR 30

7.2.1 Overview 30

7.2.2.......... Modelling (Redevelopment) 33

7.3..... Marginal uplift from increased height and/or density 40

7.3.1 Overview 40

7.3.2.......... Modelling (Additional Saleable Floor Area) 40

8..... Testing the Feasibility of Contribution Rates 42

8.1..... Rationale and considerations in setting a contribution rate 42

8.2..... Effect of levy on viability 42

8.2.1.......... Overview of Findings 42

8.2.2.......... Likely impact on development of 15% target 43

8.2.3.......... Likely impact on development of 5% target 45

8.3 Conclusion 46

Appendix A: Opportunities and Constraints of Principal Legislation and Related Policies 47

1 Purpose of Position Paper

This Position Paper: Best Practice in Land Value Capture has been developed to support the development of an evidence-based policy by Inner West Council toward the application of value capture approaches related to redevelopment in existing urban areas, or within the six major urban renewal precincts in the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and in the Parramatta Road Transformation Corridor.

In particular, it seeks to explore the issue of land value capture with a practical focus on mechanisms that would be most applicable to the LGA in the NSW planning context.

The Paper first provides a definition of and framework within which to consider land value capture relevant to the NSW planning context, and outlines relevant approaches and a range of local and international examples of the way in which land value mechanisms have been implemented.

Drawing on this framework, as well as the review of relevant NSW legislation in Appendix A, the Paper then provides an overview of mechanisms most relevant in the Inner West development context. This is followed by examples of broad methods of calculation by other inner city and regional NSW Councils, and sets out JSA’s preferred method of calculation with reference to best practice considerations.

Finally, this approach and method of calculation is applied to precincts or areas within Inner West LGA, with this section reproduced from the Affordable Housing Policy Background Paper (JSA 2016).

This Position Paper should be read in conjunction with Council’s Affordable Housing Policy: Background Report (JSA 2016 c), and the former Marrickville Council’s (2015) Housing Profile.

1.1 Summary of Findings

1.1.1 What is Land Value Capture

Land value capture is talked about in various ways by different authors in various jurisdictions.

In the NSW planning context, Taylor (2016) provides a useful working definition, noting that,

In the broadest terms, value capture in relation to urban land development involves a planning authority, such as local council in NSW, capturing for the community benefit some of the land value increase accruing to a parcel of land from planning activities of the authority which increase the development potential of the land and hence its value.^{^[16]}

Walters usefully identifies two broad approaches to LVC, these being, ‘approaches intended to recover the cost of infrastructure investments and broader approaches intended to capture some share of the unearned increment in private land values [emphasis added], with the first exemplified by s94 approaches that seek to internalise the costs or impacts of the development; and the second found in mechanisms such as voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Act.

Taylor (2016) goes on to distinguish land value capture arising from government planning actions from taxation in the following way:

In contrast, the fundamental purpose of value capture is not internalisation or taxation but rather ‘clawback’, that is, to capture increased land value for the community on the basis of a legitimate claim by the planning authority to share what is commonly referred to as ‘unearned increment’ of land value uplift.^{^[17]}

1.1.2 Key Considerations in Land Value Capture

Taylor (2016) also sets out some key considerations when implementing value capture schemes, which could be considered as best practice in the development of related policy.^{^[18]} These include the following:

· Justification – where the planning authority has or will increased the value of land through its actions, and the community is entitled to a share of the resulting uplift;

· Calculation - how the land value increase should be calculated for value capture purposes, noting that a residual land value analysis should generally apply;

· Development feasibility – that the implementation of value capture should not adversely impact on development feasibility by denying the developer a reasonable share of development profit;

1.2 Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation

Appendix A sets out a review of the legislative obligations, opportunities and constraints for local government in the creation of affordable housing through the planning system, with a particular focus on land value capture mechanisms that either seek ‘cost recovery or internalisation of costs’ (principally under s94 of the Act), or through ‘capturing or sharing a reasonable proportion of unearned increment’ of uplift created through the planning system (principally under s93F, and also through s94F).

In accordance with the review of NSW legislation and policy set out in Appendix A to this Paper, there are two main mechanisms through which Council can legitimately capture a reasonable proportion of uplift from planning actions, with these most likely to apply to large redevelopment sites, including those precincts within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area.

· Council has the opportunity to enter into voluntary planning agreements that include the dedication of land free of cost, the payment of a monetary contribution, or provision of any other material public benefit, or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose, including ‘affordable housing’ under s93F of the Act, noting that nexus requirements do not apply;

· As an alternative to the use of planning agreements, Council could levy for a contribution toward affordable housing under s94F of the Act where there is a demonstrated need for affordable housing and another requirement of the section is met, including where the development is likely to reduce availability of affordable housing, create a need for affordable housing, etc.

However, Councils is currently constrained in the use of this provision as it is not included within SEPP 70. An opportunity exists to advocate to State Government for inclusion within this provision, given the level of need and nexus described in the Background Paper (JSA 2016) and Housing Profile (Marrickville Council 2015). This also would involve relevant amendments to the LEP, which would need to set out areas of inclusion, the quantum and basis of calculations, etc, like those in City of Sydney and Willoughby.

· Alternately, a separate contributions plan could be developed and/or approved by the State Government in relation to a major redevelopment precinct under s94F of the Act, most likely within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor or Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area, like that developed in relation to the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006. However, this would require legislative support like that which supported the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006 (s30 of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 (see Appendix A for detail)).

1.3 Estimating Land Value Uplift

1.3.1 Relevant methods

The contributions plans made under s94F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and s30 of the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act 2004 do not appear to be explicit with regard to the rationale or calculations used as a basis for the contributions levied. Also, the levies are quite low by the standards in other inter-state and overseas jurisdictions.

Likewise, many voluntary planning agreements made under s93F of the Act are quite general with regard to contributions that may be required, and do not appear to set out a consistent method of calculation, or are unclear with regard to their rationale or other best practice considerations. Where such calculations are explicit in examples provided, JSA’s method of calculation is reasonably consistent and also builds in best practice considerations including those set out by Taylor above.

1.3.2 JSA’s method of calculation

The JSA value capture model estimates the likely value of a planning change to a land owner based on changes in property values as a result of the development, taking into consideration the costs of development and a normal level of profit to the developer, and assumes that value uplift is shared equally with the community and with the landowner or developer.

The JSA model also embeds best practice considerations from Taylor (2016) above, including justification or entitlement regarding the creation of an unearned land increment through planning actions, a residual land value analysis,^{^[19]} equity and impacts upon development feasibility.

The model estimates the value uplift as:

· The value of the developed land, estimated using likely yield in apartments for the land multiplied by the market price of apartments based on recent sales data; less

· The cost of construction of the apartments, estimated using cost planning data from Rawlinson’s Australian Construction Handbook; less

· The cost of purchase of the land, estimated using recent sales data; less

· A normal profit or return on investment of 10%.

Expressed another way, residual land value = value of completed development less development costs less [normal] profit; whilst uplift (or unearned land increment) = the difference between the residual land value and the market price of the land under the existing planning regime.

This is described in more detail in Section 6.3 below.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

1.4 The Model Applied to Inner West LGA

Section 7 of this Paper provides an economic analysis of the likely value uplift associated with redevelopment in various areas within the LGA, and with rezoning in key urban renewal precincts; and with additional Gross Floor Area that may be negotiated through Voluntary Planning Agreements. This provides a rationale for strong intervention through the planning system.

The findings provide evidence for significant value uplift associated with redevelopment of existing industrial land and housing for higher density development throughout the LGA, including value uplift associated with up-zoning of the three relevant precincts within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and within Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area.

Land Value Capture as a proportion of saleable floor area is shown in Table 7-1. Values are calculated for each of the fifteen post codes within Inner West LGA; for up-zoned land consisting of separate houses, three storey walk-up apartments and industrial land; and for height and FSR allowing three, six, eight and 14 storey construction. Land Value Capture varies markedly across these variables, ranging from Nil to 23% depending on the particular scenario.

Similarly, there is significant value uplift associated with increases in Gross Floor Area that may be negotiated through Voluntary Planning Agreements.

Land Value Capture as a proportion of additional saleable floor area is shown in Table 7-2; varying between 19% and 29% of additional saleable floor area.

The Background Paper (JSA 2016) and Council’s Housing Profile also provide a strong rationale related to affordable housing need and nexus related to the capture of unearned land increment arising from planning actions if mechanisms through s94F are pursued.

2 Housing Affordability Context

It is widely acknowledged that there is a major shortfall in affordable housing in most cities and many regional and rural communities across Australia.^{^[20]} The most severe and lasting impacts are experienced by very low and low income households in unaffordable private rental accommodation, who do not gain the benefits that accrue to home purchasers, including long-term capital gains and a decreasing debt to household income ratio over time,^{^[21]} and for whom social rental is increasingly inaccessible.^{^[22]}

The Affordable Housing Background Paper (JSA 2016) indicates that there are particularly serious and worsening affordability issues for key target groups in Inner West LGA, including significant gentrification, displacement of lower income historical populations and an inability to accommodate low income key workers.

Some people achieve ‘affordable’ purchase or rental through moving to outer suburbs far from employment, or to an increasingly remote urban fringe or regional areas, but such locations can increase costs to households, socially or economically, through increased travel time, transport costs,^{^[23]} and decreased access to services and employment.^{^[24]} However, even these areas are increasingly unaffordable, particularly with regard to rent for key target groups.^{^[25]}

Amid increasing housing costs, decreasing affordability and stagnating expenditure on social housing, addressing the growing need for affordable housing through the planning system becomes increasingly important. In particular, there is an increasing focus on land value capture as a way of meeting the growing need for affordable housing in an increasingly expensive housing market where gentrification and ongoing displacement of lower income households and workers is occurring.

The following section sets out a working definition and key considerations of land value capture, with a particular focus on its relevance to NSW. This is followed by a review of the NSW planning context and the legal opportunities currently available in this jurisdiction.

3 Overview of Land Value Capture

3.1 What is Land Value Capture?

Land value capture is talked about in various ways by different authors in various jurisdictions. This section focuses on the definitions and considerations put forward by several authors that appear to be more relevant to the NSW planning context, described later.

Looking first at some relevant definitions or frameworks within which to consider land value capture in the NSW context, Walters notes that,

In the fields of urban public finance and international development, the concept of land value capture (LVC) has become a standard argument for implementing or reforming taxes based on land. Often the value of privately held land increases as a result of public investments in infrastructure, publicly approved changes in land use, or broader changes in the community such as population growth. Proponents of LVC argue that governments should use taxes and fees to collect some share of this increase in value for public purposes, including funding infrastructure and service improvements.^{^[26]}

Walters then goes on to identify two approaches to LVC. These are:

…approaches intended to recover the cost of infrastructure investments and broader approaches intended to capture some share of the unearned increment in private land values [emphasis added].

Reflecting on the latter (unearned increment in private land values), Johnston (2014) reflects that the idea of value capture is a ‘simple one’, that is,

… if the value of a piece of land increases as a result of an action initiated by someone other than the landowner, then the value of that increase should not necessarily all go to the landowner. In urban policy, examples given are along the lines of: if a railway station is built near your land or if the development controls are changed to allow for denser development on it, or if marginal farming land on the city fringe is rezoned to residential, all these changes being initiated or implemented by government, then some of the increase in value of the land should be shared between the landowner (who can sell their land at a higher price) and the government (whose action enabled the increased value).^{^[27]}

Johnston notes that this sort of argument ‘has a consistent history in classical economics, as developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and America’. ^{^[28]}

In this way, the author notes that, rather than conceptualising the mechanisms that seek a proportion of the uplift created through the provision of infrastructure or the rezoning of land to higher uses as ‘capture’, it can be more reasonably be thought of as a ‘share’ of the increased land value arising from government actions between the developer and the community. This also helps to distinguishes between the ‘tax like’ connotations of such mechanisms and what is more accurately considered as being ‘mutually beneficial’.^{^[29]} As discussed later, considerations of ‘nexus’ (links between, or direct and indirect costs arising from, a development) also support such a distinction.

Aspects of Walters’ ‘cost recovery’ aspect of value capture (or share) is also evident, noting that the provision of infrastructure adds value, as well as being part of a cost recovery or recoupment regime.

In the NSW planning context, Taylor (2016) notes that,

He notes that value capture contributions need are typically used to fund public infrastructure and other community benefits, but need to be ‘distinguished conceptually’ from other the more traditional forms of developer contributions under s94 and s94A (fixed development consent levies) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

In contrast to Walters, cited above, Taylor distinguishes the ‘cost internalisation’ mechanism of s94 (ensuring that the cost of infrastructure, for example, is not borne by the community at large) from the ‘claw back’ mechanism that underpins value capture mechanism enacted under s93F of the Act (voluntary planning agreements). He further distinguishes s94 as being more ‘akin to a development tax’ with the purpose again being to ensure that costs are properly ascribed (similar to the Community Infrastructure Levy that is used in the UK).

Taylor goes on to distinguish land value capture in the following way:

Clarifying the legal basis or legitimacy of this approach amid the general presumption of property rights in western democratic systems, Taylor notes,

…the legislation of the EPA Act involves confiscation of the development rights of landowners under the general law and the reallocation of such rights, usually conditionally, under and in accordance with the applicable legislation…^{^[32]}

Taylor notes that the reallocation aspect of is important as ‘planning legislation typically re-orders development rights to achieve maximum community welfare’ and thus creates ‘distributional inequities’ - significantly decreasingly the value of land for some, and creating ‘windfall profits’ for others. As such,

Where land values increase through planning activities (as districts from the enterprise of landowners), a land value subsidy in the form of unearned increment can be said to exist and it is this which provides the focus for value capture.^{^[33]}

The author notes that, in NSW, value capture typically occurs through voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Act in association with planning proposals, where a land owner seeks to vary the planning controls applying to a particular lot or precinct, thus increasing its development potential. If approved, the Minister will generally make a local environmental plan varying the planning controls. As discussed later, no specific nexus is required for agreements made under this section of the Act.

3.2 Key Considerations in Land Value Capture

A second paper by Taylor is useful in setting out some key considerations when implementing value capture schemes.^{^[34]}

The first consideration relates to justification. Reflecting the above discussion, he notes that the basic justification for value capture is that the planning authority has or will increase the value of land through its actions, and the community is entitled to a share of the resulting uplift. This is reflected in the NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2005) Practice Note on Planning Agreements, which states that,

The provision of planning benefits to the wider community through planning agreements necessarily involves capturing part of the development profit for that purpose. The value of the planning benefit should always be restricted to a reasonable share of development profit.^{^[35]}

A second consideration in that of entitlement. This relates to the extent of the planning authority’s value capture in any particular case, and fundamentally, the proper objective of ‘identifying the unearned increment in land value uplift resulting from any planning proposal and to decide the community’s legitimate claim to a share of it’ [emphasis added].^{^[36]} Related considerations include property market conditions, land values, existing and future proposed planning controls, and the redevelopment scheme proposed.

A third consideration relates to calculation, that is, how the land value increase should be calculated for value capture purposes, noting the author’s view that ‘a residual land value analysis should generally apply’.^{^[37]} Such an analysis is generally performed prior to rezoning to understand the implications of land use regulation and/or development potential. Clearly, for re/development to occur, the residual land value under a redevelopment scheme will be higher than the market value of land in its current state.

A fourth consideration is that of development feasibility. As noted by Taylor, ‘the implementation of value capture should not adversely impact on development feasibility by denying the developer a reasonable share of development profit. In other words, the policy should be ‘fair and reasonable’ in the individual circumstances. As such, any value capture policy should ‘make provision for testing development feasibility’.^{^[38]}

A final consideration is that of timing. In terms of reasonableness and equity, a satisfactory policy approach is for the value capture requirement to apply to land acquired for redevelopment after a nominated date related to the implementation of the policy.^{^[39]}

Taylor reviews a number of planning agreement policies currently in force in NSW, and finds them lacking with regard to several of these elements that he regards as best practice.

3.3 Implications for Council’s Policy

JSA’s approach to the development of relevant value capture policy seeks to ensure legality within the NSW legislative framework, discussed below and in more detail at Appendix A, as well as engage with best practice issues related to justification, entitlement, calculation and development feasibility, outlined above.

This is discussed further later in this paper.

4 Approaches to Land Value Capture

4.1 Overview

In accordance with the definitions and conceptual framework set out above, this section first provides examples of approaches to land value capture in general terms. It then provides a range of examples of land value capture mechanisms used in NSW, with a particular focus on affordable housing.

4.2 General Review of Approaches to LVC

4.2.1 ‘Cost Recovery’ Approaches in the NSW Context

The first approach related to cost recovery is commonly seen in NSW in s94 contribution plans, whereby local government provides a range of public amenities or public services and recovers that cost from developers, who in turn offset the cost through improvements in the value of the land; or where developers provide required services or amenities in lieu of contributions. As noted, the concept of ‘nexus’ is a key consideration in the application of such cost recovery mechanisms, with the direct cost and cost apportionment related to the need or demand likely to be generated by a development factored into the s94 levy payable for a wide range of services and amenities.

Importantly, the broad provisions of s94 does not provide for affordable housing contributions, although this has been addressed in subsequently amendments. In relation to s94F, under which three NSW councils are permitted to levy specifically for affordable housing, such nexus considerations include that the development is likely to reduce availability of affordable housing, or to create a need for affordable housing.^{^[40]}

Whilst the direct cost of the need generated is thus considered, implicitly these considerations also include externalities associated with the loss and non-replacement and/or failure to provide affordable housing, or the indirect costs to the whole of the community. As such, contributions under s94F may also be considered as an offset to such externalities, for example, the cost to the whole community of homelessness or economic loss associated with inability to house key workers, including in an incremental or cumulative sense from the non-replacement of lower cost housing in a gentrifying housing market.

4.2.2 Capturing a Share of ‘Unearned Land Increment’ in the NSW Context

Overview

The second approach, which seeks to capture a share of the unearned increase in the value of land created through rezoning or other planning actions, is reflected in both market (optional) and non-market (or mandatory) approaches in the NSW context.

Market Approaches

Market approaches allow for negotiation between the consent authority and a developer. The advantage of such approaches is that they are economically efficient and they are discretionary, with the developer deciding whether to opt in or opt out.

There are a number of mechanisms used worldwide for market approaches to land value capture. For example, in some South American jurisdictions, development rights are auctioned as a way of capturing land value uplift. Such approaches are said to be quite successful, with some mixed results.^{^[41]}

In NSW, as noted, there are a number of planning mechanisms available for market approaches to land value capture.

Division 1 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) provides a mechanism for a developer to obtain additional floor space ratio in selected areas in return for providing a proportion of the development as affordable housing (as defined in the SEPP) for a period of ten years.

The market approach is also reflected in NSW in the development of voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Act, where a developer offers a cash or in-kind contribution for use as a public purpose, which can include affordable housing, in exchange for something of value (increased development rights through up-zoning, variations to planning controls, density bonuses, etc). When combined with SEPP 1 Development Standards, there is an opportunity for developers and planning authorities to negotiate an outcome acceptable to both parties.

As noted above, this is a legal mechanism in NSW for all councils, without the need to demonstrate nexus.

Non-Market (or Mandatory) Approaches

A non-market or mandatory approach to the capture of land value uplift has been operationalised in NSW under s94F of the Act using SEPP 70 and individual contributions schemes such as that relating to Redfern Waterloo, described above and in Appendix A. In NSW this is generally supported by a requirement to demonstrate the need for affordable housing in an area, and nexus between a development and a reduction in the availability of affordable housing or creation of a need for affordable housing within the area,^{^[42]} including in a cumulative sense.

Other Australian and overseas jurisdictions also refer to such approaches as ‘inclusionary zoning’,^{^[43]} with some authors citing gentrification and displacement of low income households as a rationale for inclusionary zoning.^{^[44]} Again, economically, displacement can be seen as an externality of gentrification, and inclusionary zoning can be seen as a way of internalising that externality to the development itself, thus creating a nexus between this mechanism and affordable housing created.

Authors such as Padilla^{^[45]} also identify a number of arguments in support of land value capture as a funding strategy for affordable housing including equity, viability, reduced commuting, preservation of a component of affordable housing in an area, and other social outcomes. Many of the costs identified are thus related to externalities created by the development, and again seek to offset or internalise these real costs to the community.

Examples of the way in which approaches have been implemented in NSW and other jurisdictions is discussed below.

4.3 Examples of Land Value Capture in Practice in NSW and Other Jurisdictions

4.3.1 Overview

This section applies the above framework for considering ways of capturing an increase in land values or uplift, either through cost recovery mechanisms or through capturing a share of unearned land value increment or uplift.

4.3.2 Examples of Cost Recovery Mechanisms

All NSW councils have a s94 Contributions Plan which levies development for a range of services and facilities. Marrickville Council Section 94 Contributions Plan 2004 levies contributions for Open Space, Park Infrastructure and Sports Facilities, Public Libraries and Community Recreation Facilities, Traffic Management, Road Works and Plan Administration.

Western Sydney Growth areas have a contribution plan under s94ED collecting contributions for a range of services and facilities including Roads, Bus, Education, Health, Emergency, Open Space and Conservation and Planning and Delivery ^{^[46]}

4.3.3 Capturing a Share of Uplift in the NSW Context

Examples of Market (Opt In-Opt Out) Mechanisms

As noted above, market approaches to the provision of affordable housing (or any other public purpose) allow for negotiation between the consent authority and a developer.

In NSW, voluntary planning agreements under s93F of the Act are a common mechanism for capturing an agreed proportion of land value uplift, where a developer offers a cash or in-kind contribution for use as a public purpose in exchange for something of value to them, generally in the form of increased development rights through up-zoning, variations to planning controls, density bonuses, etc. The establishment of nexus is not necessary.

Just under half of the 27 NSW councils reviewed by Johnstone (2014) included ‘affordable housing’ as a public purpose for which a contribution may be sought in their voluntary planning agreement. However, a minority had actually entered into an agreement that included affordable housing. Examples include:

· Waverley Council operated a ‘density bonus’ scheme from the mid-1980s, where additional FSR was provided in exchange for a contribution toward affordable housing in perpetuity which is understood to have yielded around 150 dwellings of affordable housing over this period. Waverley Council currently has a planning agreement policy under s93F of the Act, with the contribution determined via a valuation of the marginal uplift in value from the additional floor space granted.

· Canada Bay Council reported 5 such agreements and a total of 24 dwellings offered (data to 18 April 2013).

· Marrickville Council currently uses such approaches, with a recent example being a development consent for 78-90 Old Canterbury Road Lewisham where the voluntary planning agreement delivered a range of public purposes including four affordable housing units and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Other items were also delivered under the VPA but as an offset to s94 contributions.

Johnstone (2014) notes a number of reasons why local government planning agreements have often not involved affordable housing contributions, including that:

· the mechanism is more suited to large developments;

· the mechanism was introduced at a time when State Government was more hostile to councils taking local action on affordable housing (in marked contrast to the late 1990s);

· there was a period from mid-2009 to mid-2011 when the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provided an alternative mechanism for developers to obtain development concessions for housing developments; and

· local councils have generally given a higher priority to economic infrastructure in such agreements.^{^[47]}

The State Government has also been involved in a number of voluntary planning agreements that have an affordable housing contribution as a component, although many have been made with respect to a range of other public purposes.^{^[48]} These are all in Sydney, including at:

· Barangaroo: 2.3% of the residential developable gross floor area in the South Precinct is to be provided as ‘key worker’ housing;

· The former Carlton United Brewery site, Chippendale: a monetary contribution equivalent to 2.7–3.1% of total project costs (valued at about $32 million) is to be given for affordable rental housing provided offsite;

· Rouse Hill: 3% of residential lots (about 39) will be given for the purposes of development of affordable housing;

· Sydney Olympic Park: 3% of dwelling units will be given to the Land and Housing Corporation;

· The former ADI site, St Marys: 3% of residential lots (about 150) will be given for the purposes of development of affordable rental housing.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) both provide mechanisms whereby variations to planning controls are available for the provision of particular types of housing or provision of housing to particular groups such as older people or lower income households.

Examples of Non Market (Mandatory) Mechanisms

NSW Examples

As noted, in NSW there is an opportunity for a consent authority to impose a mandatory levy for affordable housing under s94F of the Act, or under s94ED of the Act.

In the case of the former, there are four mandatory contributions schemes in NSW. Three local authorities are permitted to impose an affordable housing levy under s94F of the Act and in accordance with SEPP 70. Each of the three local councils has operationalised this mechanism in different ways.

· City of Sydney (incorporating the former South Sydney LGA) identifies three areas in c7.13 of Sydney LEP 2012. Contributions are 3% of residential area and 1% of non-residential area for land in Green Square and southern employment land; and 0.8% of residential area and 1.1% of non-residential area in Ultimo-Pyrmont.

· Willoughby LEP 2012 c6.8 requires a contribution of 4% of total floor space for development in designated areas, with the exception of boarding houses, public housing, community housing, group home and hostels.

· Leichhardt LEP 2013 does not contain affordable housing provisions.

The fourth scheme was imposed under the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006, supported by s30 of the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act 2004 rather than a SEPP (SEPP 70), as discussed earlier. The contributions plan provides for a contribution equivalent to 1.25% of total gross floor area of development in Redfern Waterloo Operational Area. The contribution rate is paid at $68.00 per m²in 2010 dollars.

The Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006 sets out a broad nexus statement, noting that, since the 1980s, the Operational Area has ‘experienced rapid gentrification which has a polarising effect on the community and has led to the creation of pockets of disadvantage and advantage. This has resulted in the loss of low cost private housing as rents and house prices have increased’. Related objectives seek to address these issues.^{^[49]}

As discussed later, there is often no explicit calculation related to how the share of land value uplift was determined in relation to the required affordable housing levy.

In the case of the latter, mandatory contributions under s94ED of the Act, applicable areas listed in Schedule 5A are large new growth areas within the LGAs of Liverpool, Camden, Blacktown, The Hills, Hawkesbury and Wyong. To date, there does not appear to be a contributions plan related to affordable housing in these areas, and the Special Infrastructure Contribution Practice Note (Growth Centres Commission 2008) does not include a contribution to affordable housing.

Examples from Other Jurisdictions

Although mandatory mechanisms to capture a proportion of land value uplift are relatively minor and used in only a few areas of NSW, many jurisdictions have inclusionary zoning requirements or mandatory contributions schemes that are relatively well developed and more robust. Requirements are typically of the order of 15%, although again we have not been able to find an explicit rationale for this figure in any jurisdiction.

Within Australia, South Australia has an affordable housing target of 15% to be provided through the planning system.^{^[50]} The Urban Development Authority of Queensland has a minimum target of 15% of dwellings across designated urban development areas.^{^[51]} The intent to secure 15% affordable housing was also announced in 2008 by the Minister for Land and Housing in the Northern Territory.^{^[52]}

Internationally, Massachusetts set a goal for 10% of housing to be affordable, and where the target has not been met through other mechanisms such as the market or direct funding; local zoning laws may be by-passed to provide affordable housing.^{^[53]} The City of Boston required 15% of market rate units to be set aside for affordable housing.^{^[54]} San Francisco similarly required 15% of units to be affordable, and 20% if constructed off-site.^{^[55]} Targets for affordable housing were 50% of new housing in London, increasing from previous levels of inclusionary zoning of 25%.^{^[56]} Galway specified 20% to be transferred for affordable housing.^{^[57]}

Such requirements may be supported by planning bonuses, tax incentives and government funding to provide an offset to some of the contribution to affordable housing with wide variations across jurisdictions.^{^[58]}

Similar approaches in California USA have established a nexus by estimating the number of jobs required to supply the demand created from the new households in a development, then estimating the number of workers in those jobs who are in very low, low and moderate income households, estimate the shortfall in housing affordability for those households and levy for affordable housing accordingly.^{^[59]}

5 Overview of Council’s Obligations, Opportunities and Constraints under Relevant Legislation

In summary, the following is noted as relevant to the development of policy.

· Council has an obligation to engage with the issue of affordable housing in accordance with Object 5(a)(viii) as a matter in the public interest under s79C(1)(e) of the Act, and under the head of consideration provided under s79C(1)(b) of the Act;

· Council has an opportunity to enter into voluntary planning agreements that include the dedication of land free of cost, the payment of a monetary contribution, or provision of any other material public benefit, or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose, including ‘affordable housing’ under s93F of the Act;

· Council also has the opportunity, in consideration of Object 5(a)(viii) and s94F(5) of the Act to impose a development consent making any other conditions relating to the provision, maintenance or retention of affordable housing; and to seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through the planning and development process (e.g. incentive based schemes, requirements for lower cost or affordable housing types as part of multi-unit developments, etc), with the most likely areas being large redevelopment sites including the three precincts within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor, as well as high value precincts where density bonus type-schemes could be viable.

· Council could levy for a contribution toward affordable housing under s94F where there is a demonstrated need for affordable housing and another requirement of the section is met (e.g. where the development is likely to reduce availability of affordable housing, create a need for affordable housing, etc), but is currently constrained in the use of this provision as it is not included within SEPP 70. An opportunity thus exists to advocate to State Government for inclusion within this provision, given the level of need and nexus described in the Background Paper (JSA 2016) and Housing Profile (former Marrickville Council 2015), with the most likely areas being large redevelopment sites including the six precincts within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area. This also would involve relevant amendments to the LEP, which would need to set out areas of inclusion, the quantum and basis of calculations, etc, like those in City of Sydney and Willoughby.

· A separate contributions plan could be developed and/or approved by the State Government in relation to a major redevelopment precinct under s94F of the Act, most likely within the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Area, like that developed in relation to the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006. However, this would require legislative support like that which supported the Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006 (s30 of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 (see Appendix A for detail)).

The reader is referred to Appendix A of this paper for more detail.

6 Estimating Land Value Uplift

6.1 Overview

The contributions plans made under s94F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and s30 of the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act 2004 do not appear to be explicit with regard to the rationale or calculations used as a basis for the contributions levied. The levies are quite low by the standards in other jurisdictions, as discussed above.

In some cases, however, these calculations are explicit, and have the ability to be applied consistently and transparently. The following provides some examples of planning agreements or policies that have more explicit methods from Johnstone (2014) and other information reviewed by JSA. This is followed by JSA’s preferred method of calculation, which contains some elements of those below.

6.2 Methods Used in Calculations

6.2.1 Waverley Case Study

Under Waverley Council Planning Agreement Policy 2014, Appendix 1, marginal value uplift is estimated on a case by case basis and shared equally between the council and the developer. The marginal value is taken as the sale price of the additional floor area arising from the planning variation, less the construction cost of the additional floor area. The sale price is to be estimated by a valuer, while the construction cost is to be estimated by a quantity surveyor. The approach taken is similar in principle to that taken by JSA.

6.2.2 Parramatta City Council Case Study

Parramatta City Council has published a document titled Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy (2015), which expresses the Council’s value capture policy in the following terms:

A4.2.1 Value Uplift Sharing – That additional higher FSR controls than those proposed in this Strategy can only be achieved by sharing the value of the uplift. That is any additional new FSR is to be purchased by landowners based on 50% of the nominated dollar value per sqm of GFA. The dollar value is to be scheduled to provide certainty and reviewed annually. Such a system would apply for residential uses only, not employment uses. Further, the system would operate in addition to any section 94A contributions payable.

6.2.3 Leichhardt Council Case Study

The former Leichhardt Council produced a Voluntary Planning Agreements Policy (2015) which contains an explicit value capture policy in the following terms:

36.10 Generally, in negotiating a voluntary planning agreement the Council will seek to value the uplift in value of the applicant’s land based upon a valuation of the land at the current zoning or pre VPA standard; and compare this with the valuation of the land in the event that the post VPA change in instrument or planning control is allowed, less any additional costs the applicant may incur in realising the increased value. This exercise will be carried out by a valuer who meets the criteria specified in clause 16 of this Policy.

36.11 The same before and after comparison will apply whether the applicant seeks a value uplift derived from a floor space increase; an increase in a height limitation; or a zoning change which increases the land’s value.

36.12 Council on behalf of the community will generally seek 50% of the uplift value derived in that manner.

6.2.4 Byron Shire Council Case Study

Byron Shire Council’s policy on planning agreements, ‘Planning Agreements Policy’ (March 2009) (prepared by JSA), indicates that planning agreements may be negotiated for the provision of affordable housing, and identifies affordable housing as one of the purposes for which it would be ‘most likely’ to negotiate an agreement.

In most councils’ planning agreement where affordable housing is mentioned, it is mentioned as one of a number of community benefits that could be negotiated; while Byron council’s does this too, it elaborates how the affordable housing contribution could be delivered, in some detail.

The policy states that in existing areas the Council would accept an offer of a dedication of affordable housing in return for a request for additional floor space ratio (‘density bonus’). The dedication would be 50% of the additional private benefit gained by the developer in getting additional floor space.

In greenfield sites and brownfield sites under investigation for rezoning or where a rezoning is proposed by a developer, the contribution could take the form of one plot of land for each 10 plots created within each subdivision stage with the area of the plot being no less than 95% of the average area of plots within the subdivision stage, and with a sale price of at least the median for plots within the subdivision stage; or it could take the form of an equivalent monetary contribution; or it could take the form of dedicated dwellings units assessed as of equivalent market value.

At large sites, already zoned for urban purposes, the contribution could be one plot for each 20 plots or part thereof created within each subdivision stage, with the area of the plot being no less than 95% of the average area of plots within the subdivision stage, and with a sale price of at least the median for plots within the subdivision stage; or it could take the form of an equivalent monetary contribution; or it could take the form of dedicated dwellings units assessed as of equivalent market value.

At large sites with a yield of 20 or more dwellings or an area of at least 4,000 m2, that are already zoned for urban purposes, or are located in zones where multi-unit housing is permitted, negotiations could commence during pre-lodgement meetings for development applications.

In greenfield sites and brownfield sites under investigation for rezoning or where a rezoning is proposed by a developer, and at larger sites, the council would accept an offer of a dedication of affordable housing in return for a request for additional floor space ratio (‘density bonus’). The dedication would be 50% of the additional private benefit gained by the developer in getting additional floor space.

6.3 The JSA Value Capture Model

One of the central difficulties with LCV approaches is the assessment of the change in value. As stated by Walters:^{^[60]}

LVC assumes that land values increase as a result of some community change. Unless land markets function reasonably well, it is not clear whether such changes will be reflected in higher land prices. Further, even when land prices increase as a result of public action, if tax officials lack the information and expertise to accurately identify such price changes and incorporate them into taxable value, LVC cannot succeed.

The JSA model also embeds best practice considerations from Taylor (2016) above, including justification or entitlement regarding the creation of an unearned land increment through planning actions, a residual land value analysis,^{^[61]} equity and impacts upon development feasibility.

The model estimates the value uplift as:

· The value of the developed land, estimated using likely yield in apartments for the land multiplied by the market price of apartments based on recent sales data; less

· The cost of construction of the apartments, estimated using cost planning data from Rawlinson’s Australian Construction Handbook; less

· The cost of purchase of the land, estimated using recent sales data; less

· A normal profit or return on investment of 10%.

The model is shown graphically in the diagram below along with an example of the estimation of value uplift and value capture for a 1,000 square metre block of industrial land which has been rezoned to allow for eight storey apartments.

The approach can be used on a universal basis by using area averages and known construction costs to estimate value uplift as a proportion of dwellings in the final development, or can be used on a case by case basis with input from valuers and quantity surveyors as is currently the policy in Waverley Council.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

The underlying assumption is that once planning changes take place, developers will bid up the price of property to a point where they can just make a normal profit.

The strength of the approach is that it relies on data from areas where strong markets exist, including construction and sales of property, giving a high degree of certainty regarding the assessment of value uplift.

The value of the developed land as apartments can be estimated to a high degree of certainty, with hedonic price analysis of strata dwellings^{^[62]} incorporating strata area and postcode accounting for 85% of the variation in price in suburbs in the former Marrickville LGA. More accurate pricing for a specific development can be obtained through recourse to land valuers.

Similarly the cost of construction can be estimated with a high degree of certainty, with the major area of assumption being the apartment size and yield in the absence of preliminary architectural drawings, and with published construction rates available such as Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook. More accurate costing can be obtained through preparation of preliminary architectural drawings and recourse to quantity surveyors.

The value of the undeveloped land can also be estimated to a high degree of certainty, with hedonic price analysis of separate houses incorporating number of bedrooms, bathrooms, parking, land area and post code accounting much of the variation in price and hedonic price analysis of industrial land incorporating land area accounting for two thirds of the variation in price. More accurate pricing can be obtained through recourse to land valuers.

Normal profit is taken as 10%, with this based on ABS 5676.0 Business Indicators, Australia, Table 22: Business gross operating profits/sales ratio, Current prices. This table shows average profit for Construction over the last five years as 9%. By way of further comparison, the 2015 annual report for Mirvac, a property development company, shows profit of $628 million (after interest and before taxation) for a total asset base of $6,462 million, a return on investment of 9.7%.

The alternative approach is to estimate the difference between the value of the land prior to the planning changes and after the planning changes. This is likely to be difficult to establish, as there would need to be a number of sales of land in a particular area, followed by sales of land following the rezoning, where the land has not be redeveloped.

7
Assessment of Value Uplift and Land Value Capture in Inner West LGA

7.1 Overview

This section is reproduced from the Affordable Housing Background Report (JSA 2016), and applies JSA’s preferred methodology to the calculation of land value uplift and potential land value capture to selected areas within Inner West LGA.

7.2 Change of planning controls related to permissibility, height and FSR

7.2.1 Overview

Much of the land in the former Marrickville LGA is zoned R2, IN1 and IN2. Residential land in the LGA typically has FSR 0.60 and height of 9.5 metres with some areas of greater height in and around town centres. Industrial land typically has FSR 0.95 with no height restriction. Most of this industrial land is in Marrickville and St Peters.^{^[63]}

Land in the former Ashfield LGA is mostly zoned R2, R3 and B4. Residential land typically has FSR 0.50-0.70 and height of 8.5-12.0 metres with some areas of greater height in and around town centres and along Parramatta Road.

Land in the former Leichhardt LGA is mostly zoned R1 and B2. Residential land typically has FSR 0.50-0.60. Heights are generally not controlled, but are likely to be limited by FSR.

Preliminary modelling has been carried out to understand the economics of redevelopment in Inner West LGA using current sales data and construction cost data, so as to understand the likely land value uplift associated with changes to planning controls and to assess a reasonable land value capture for council to use for a public purpose. Land value uplift has been calculated as the value of developed land less the cost of existing land, construction costs and a normal level of profit and we have assumed council would capture 50% of the land value uplift for a public purpose. The land value capture has been calculated as a proportion of gross floor area to facilitate universal application, however should council wish to negotiate to receive some of the land value capture in cash or in kind other than apartments, the proportion can be converted into cash through using the estimated sale price of apartments in the development. It would be a matter for council to decide the proportion of the land value capture to use for affordable housing, compared to other public purposes council may wish to progress.

Detailed results of modelling are shown in Table 4-1 below.

The most favourable economics, and hence opportunities for land value capture, relate to the rezoning of industrial land to allow construction of residential flat buildings, to redevelopment of separate housing for residential flat buildings in the former Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs and to redevelopment of existing three storey walk-ups in Postcodes 2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove), 2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield) and 2039 (Rozelle).

Modelled profitability for industrial land ranges from 15-50% for three storey redevelopment to 80-90% for 14 storey development, suggesting that there will be a significant uplift in land value as a result of such zoning changes. Many of the lots are quite large and in single ownership, facilitating redevelopment. Estimated land value capture ranges from 2% for three storey redevelopment in Post Code 2038, to 21% for 14 storey redevelopment in Post Code 2044.

Levels of profitability are generally lower for redevelopment of existing separate houses for residential flat buildings and vary across suburbs. Three storey construction is likely to be profitable and with opportunities for value capture in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield), 2045 (Haberfield), 2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield), 2039 (Rozelle) and 2130 (Summer Hill). Six storey construction is likely to be profitable and with opportunities for value capture in Post Codes 2044 (St Peters/Sydenham/Tempe), 2049 (Lewisham/Petersham), 2203 (Dulwich Hill), 2204 Marrickville, 2038 (Annandale), 2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove) and 2132 (Croydon). Eight storey construction is likely to be profitable and with opportunities for value capture in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2050 (Camperdown); while Post Code 2042 will require 14 stories to be profitable. Lot sizes are generally quite small (averaging 250 m² but 470 m² in Ashfield and 650 m² in Haberfield) and so redevelopment will require consolidation of land which is likely to reduce opportunities. Estimated land value capture ranges from 1% for six storey redevelopment in Post Code 2050, to 28% for 14 storey redevelopment in Post Code 2039.

The economics of redevelopment of existing three storey residential flat buildings are generally less favourable although some areas show good profitability. Modelled profitability ranges from 4-31% for six storey construction up to 37-100% for 14 storey construction. Existing residential flat buildings are likely to be on larger lots, again facilitating redevelopment however purchase will be required from individual strata owners, making consolidation difficult. Estimated land value capture ranges from 1% for six storey redevelopment in Post Code 2045, to 23% for 14 storey redevelopment in Post Code 2039.

There are three proposed redevelopment areas under the Sydenham to Bankstown – draft Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. These are discussed below.

Proposed changes in Sydenham include shop top housing and medium to high rise housing in areas currently zoned B5, B7, IN2 and IN1. Existing FSRs and height are 0.95 in the industrial zoning with no height restriction and 1.75 in the business zoning with height of 14.0 metres (four stories). Existing development is 2-3 storey factories and showrooms.^{^[64]} The economics of redevelopment appear quite favourable and there is likely to be considerable opportunity for value capture in this precinct, in line with modelling related to the rezoning of industrial land.

Proposed changes in Marrickville include medium to high rise housing (including the Carrington Road Precinct) in areas currently zoned R1, R2, IN2 and IN1. Existing FSRs and height are 0.95 in the industrial zoning with no height restriction and 0.60 in the residential zoning with height of 9.5 metres (two stories) with some pockets of greater height and density.

Existing development is 2-3 storey factories in the industrial areas and generally single storey separate housing in the residential areas. Existing residential flat buildings are typically three storey walk-ups.^{^[65]} The economics of redevelopment of the industrial land are likely to be quite favourable, with considerable opportunity for value capture. The economics of redevelopment of existing separate housing is less favourable, and is likely to require quite liberal controls allowing six storey construction or higher for redevelopment to occur. Opportunities for value capture range from 7% for six stories to 15% for 14 stories. The economics of redevelopment of existing flat buildings will also require quite liberal controls, with redevelopment likely to require a minimum of eight stories to be viable, and opportunities for value capture ranging from 1% for eight stories to 10% for 14 stories.

Proposed changes in Dulwich Hill include medium to high rise housing and shop top housing in areas currently zoned R1, R2, R3, R4, B2 and B4. Existing FSRs and height are 2.2 and 14-17 metres (4-5 stories) in the business zoning and 0.60 in the residential zoning with height of 9.5 metres (two stories) with some pockets of greater height and density.

Existing development is two storey shopfronts in the business zoned areas and generally single storey separate housing in the residential areas with some residential flat buildings. Existing residential flat buildings are typically three storey walk-ups.^{^[66]}

There is insufficient data available to assess the redevelopment of existing commercial areas, but values are likely to reflect those for existing separate housing. The economics of redevelopment of existing separate housing is relatively favourable, but is likely to require quite liberal controls allowing six storey construction or higher for redevelopment to occur. Opportunities for value capture range from 10% for six stories to 17% for 14 stories. The economics of redevelopment of existing flat buildings will also require quite liberal controls, with redevelopment likely to require a minimum of eight stories to be viable, and opportunities for value capture ranging from 3% for eight stories to 11% for 14 stories.

There are four proposed redevelopment areas under the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. These are part of the Kings Bay Precinct at Croydon, currently zoned B6 (Enterprise Corridor) and R2 (Low Density residential); Taverners Hill Precinct, currently zoned a mixture B2 (Business Centre), R2 (Low Density Residential), R1 (General Residential); Leichhardt Precinct currently zoned B2 (Business Centre) and R1 (General Residential); and the Camperdown Precinct currently zoned B2 (Business Centre), R2 (Low Density Residential), R1 (General Residential), and IN2 (Light Industrial). The exhibited draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy, which is currently under review by Urban Growth NSW, included development scenarios for these four precincts that envisaged residential flat buildings ranging from three/four stories up twelve stories in height.

Based on our modelling, and depending on the final details of planning controls, construction of residential flat buildings of three storeys and over are likely to be profitable in Camperdown, as are construction of six storeys in Leichhardt in B2 zoning and construction of three stories in Leichhardt in areas of separate housing. Consequently, opportunities for value capture would be expected, ranging from 2% to 20% for Camperdown, 3% to 18% in areas of Leichhardt currently zoned B2 (Leichhardt Precinct) and 3% to 23% in areas of Leichhardt currently zoned R1 (Taverners Hill Precinct).

7.2.2 Modelling (Redevelopment)

Overview

The modelling assumes the development of a block of land of 1,000 m², assumed to be 25 metres wide by 40 metres deep. Based on the setbacks of 6.0 metres in the apartment design guide, the developable area is 28 metres by 13 metres, or 364 m².

Three scenarios have been considered for the land purchase, that is the value of the land prior to the uplift in land values as a result of changes to planning controls.

In the first, it is assumed that separate housing consisting of a median priced house on a median sized block of land is amalgamated to achieve the developable block, and that a median price is paid, that is existing housing is purchased and demolished to enable high density residential flat development. The purchase price is calculated as:

Median house price X 1,000 / median lot size

In the second scenario, it is assumed that existing three storey residential flat buildings are demolished to enable high density residential flat development and that the purchase price is the median for two bedroom strata for the area. A footprint of 0.33 of the lot is assumed, giving around 4.5 70 m² two bedroom apartments per floor, or 14 apartments in total. The purchase price is calculated as:

Median two bedroom strata price X 14

In the third scenario, the land cost is taken as an average price for an industrial zoned lot of 1,000 m² in Marrickville LGA as estimated using recent sales data;^{^[67]} and an average price per square metre for recent sales of industrial land in Camperdown.^{^[68]}

The cost of construction has been estimated using rates from Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook 2012, multiplied by 1.5 to allow for GST, professional costs, inflation and financing costs. The estimate assumes five 70m² apartments per floor, based on the developable area of 364 m², and 1.2 underground car spaces per unit. The rates used were for underground parking and for lifted multi storey medium standard apartments.

Profit has been estimated as Sales price less land purchase and construction cost, and has been estimated as a percentage of land purchase and construction cost.

Profit in excess of a normal profit percentage of 10% has been treated as a windfall profit and hence the likely land value uplift, and a land value capture contribution has been calculated based on a 50:50 split of the land value uplift between the developer and/or landowner and a contribution for a public purpose. The land value capture contribution has been shown as a proportion of gross floor area and is shown as LVC% in the table. While this has been shown as a proportion of GFA (or its equivalent in dwellings), all or some proportion of this could be taken in cash rather than as apartments, if council wished to redirect a proportion of the value capture to another public purpose.

Modelling has been carried out for three stories (FSR 1.1, height 12.0 metres), six stories (FSR 2.2, height 21.0 metres), eight stories (FSR 2.9, height 27.0 metres) and fourteen stories (FSR 5.1, height 45.0 metres).

The results of the modelling are shown in the table below.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Table 7‑1: Potential Redevelopment Scenarios for Selected Post Codes

Scenario 1 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.75m	$5.01m	$9.53m	-$4.23m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.05m	$0.28m	2%	Nil
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$4.55m	$5.01m	$10.45m	$0.88m	9%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.90m	$6.32m	43%	12%
2048 (Stanmore)	$6.48m	$5.01m	$9.44m	-$2.06m	-18%	Nil	$10.02m	$18.87m	$2.36m	14%	2%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$5.73m	$5.01m	$10.58m	-$0.17m	-2%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.15m	$5.39m	34%	9%
2050 (Camperdown)	$9.22m	$5.01m	$10.78m	-$3.46m	-24%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.56m	$2.31m	12%	1%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$4.23m	$5.01m	$9.90m	$0.66m	7%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.80m	$5.55m	39%	10%
2204 (Marrickville)	$5.02m	$5.01m	$9.60m	-$0.43m	-4%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.20m	$4.16m	28%	7%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.75m	$13.37m	$25.40m	$3.29m	15%	2%	$23.39m	$44.45m	$12.31m	38%	10%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$4.55m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$9.94m	56%	15%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$20.81m	75%	18%
2048 (Stanmore)	$6.48m	$13.37m	$25.16m	$5.31m	27%	7%	$23.39m	$44.03m	$14.15m	47%	13%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$5.73m	$13.37m	$28.20m	$9.10m	48%	13%	$23.39m	$49.35m	$20.23m	70%	18%
2050 (Camperdown)	$9.22m	$13.37m	$28.74m	$6.15m	27%	7%	$23.39m	$50.30m	$17.68m	54%	14%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$4.23m	$13.37m	$26.40m	$8.81m	50%	13%	$23.39m	$46.20m	$18.58m	67%	17%
2204 (Marrickville)	$5.02m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$7.21m	39%	10%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$16.39m	58%	15%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$7.66m	$5.01m	$10.99m	-$1.69m	-13%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.98m	$4.29m	24%	6%
2131 (Ashfield)	$3.31m	$5.01m	$10.20m	$1.87m	23%	5%	$10.02m	$20.40m	$7.06m	53%	14%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$10.46m	$5.01m	$14.81m	-$0.66m	-4%	Nil	$10.02m	$29.63m	$9.14m	45%	12%
2132 (Croydon)	$3.57m	$5.01m	$8.97m	$0.39m	5%	Nil	$10.02m	$17.94m	$4.34m	32%	8%
2045 (Haberfield)	$3.05m	$5.01m	$11.88m	$3.82m	47%	13%	$10.02m	$23.76m	$10.69m	82%	20%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$5.94m	$5.01m	$12.87m	$1.91m	18%	3%	$10.02m	$25.74m	$9.77m	61%	16%
2039 (Rozelle)	$7.97m	$5.01m	$16.73m	$3.74m	29%	7%	$10.02m	$33.45m	$15.45m	86%	20%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$4.29m	$5.01m	$10.73m	$1.42m	15%	2%	$10.02m	$21.45m	$7.14m	50%	13%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$7.66m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$8.27m	39%	11%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$20.22m	65%	17%
2131 (Ashfield)	$3.31m	$13.37m	$27.20m	$10.52m	63%	16%	$23.39m	$47.60m	$20.90m	78%	19%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$10.46m	$13.37m	$39.50m	$15.67m	66%	17%	$23.39m	$69.13m	$35.27m	104%	23%
2132 (Croydon)	$3.57m	$13.37m	$23.92m	$6.98m	41%	11%	$23.39m	$41.86m	$14.90m	55%	15%
2045 (Haberfield)	$3.05m	$13.37m	$31.68m	$15.27m	93%	22%	$23.39m	$55.44m	$29.00m	110%	24%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$5.94m	$13.37m	$34.32m	$15.01m	78%	19%	$23.39m	$60.06m	$30.73m	105%	23%
2039 (Rozelle)	$7.97m	$13.37m	$44.60m	$23.27m	109%	24%	$23.39m	$78.05m	$46.69m	149%	28%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$4.29m	$13.37m	$28.60m	$10.94m	62%	16%	$23.39m	$50.05m	$22.37m	81%	20%

Scenario 2 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.89m	$5.01m	$9.53m	-$4.38m	-32%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.05m	$0.14m	1%	Nil
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$9.75m	$5.01m	$10.45m	-$4.32m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.90m	$1.12m	6%	Nil
2048 (Stanmore)	$8.81m	$5.01m	$9.44m	-$4.38m	-32%	Nil	$10.02m	$18.87m	$0.04m	0%	Nil
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$9.87m	$5.01m	$10.58m	-$4.31m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.15m	$1.26m	6%	Nil
2050 (Camperdown)	$10.06m	$5.01m	$10.78m	-$4.29m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.56m	$1.47m	7%	Nil
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$9.24m	$5.01m	$9.90m	-$4.35m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.80m	$0.54m	3%	Nil
2204 (Marrickville)	$8.96m	$5.01m	$9.60m	-$4.37m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.20m	$0.22m	1%	Nil

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.89m	$13.37m	$25.40m	$3.14m	14%	2%	$23.39m	$44.45m	$12.17m	38%	10%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$9.75m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$4.74m	21%	4%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$15.61m	47%	13%
2048 (Stanmore)	$8.81m	$13.37m	$25.16m	$2.99m	14%	2%	$23.39m	$44.03m	$11.83m	37%	10%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$9.87m	$13.37m	$28.20m	$4.96m	21%	5%	$23.39m	$49.35m	$16.09m	48%	13%
2050 (Camperdown)	$10.06m	$13.37m	$28.74m	$5.31m	23%	5%	$23.39m	$50.30m	$16.84m	50%	13%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$9.24m	$13.37m	$26.40m	$3.79m	17%	3%	$23.39m	$46.20m	$13.57m	42%	11%
2204 (Marrickville)	$8.96m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$3.27m	15%	2%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$12.45m	39%	10%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$10.26m	$5.01m	$10.99m	-$4.28m	-28%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.98m	$16.95m	8%	Nil
2131 (Ashfield)	$9.52m	$5.01m	$10.20m	-$4.33m	-30%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.40m	$8.55m	4%	Nil
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$13.83m	$5.01m	$14.81m	-$4.02m	-21%	Nil	$10.02m	$29.63m	$5.78m	24%	6%
2132 (Croydon)	$8.37m	$5.01m	$8.97m	-$4.41m	-33%	Nil	$10.02m	$17.94m	-$0.46m	-3%	Nil
2045 (Haberfield)	$11.09m	$5.01m	$11.88m	-$4.22m	-26%	Nil	$10.02m	$23.76m	$2.65m	13%	1%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$12.01m	$5.01m	$12.87m	-$4.15m	-24%	Nil	$10.02m	$25.74m	$3.70m	17%	3%
2039 (Rozelle)	$15.61m	$5.01m	$16.73m	-$3.90m	-19%	Nil	$10.02m	$33.45m	$7.82m	31%	8%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$10.01m	$5.01m	$10.73m	-$4.30m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.45m	$1.42m	7%	Nil

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$10.26m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$5.68m	24%	6%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$17.63m	52%	14%
2131 (Ashfield)	$9.52m	$13.37m	$27.20m	$4.31m	19%	4%	$23.39m	$47.60m	$14.69m	45%	12%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$13.83m	$13.37m	$39.50m	$12.31m	45%	12%	$23.39m	$69.13m	$31.91m	86%	20%
2132 (Croydon)	$8.37m	$13.37m	$23.92m	$2.18m	10%	Nil	$23.39m	$41.86m	$10.10m	32%	8%
2045 (Haberfield)	$11.09m	$13.37m	$31.68m	$7.23m	30%	8%	$23.39m	$55.44m	$20.96m	61%	16%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$12.01m	$13.37m	$34.32m	$8.94m	35%	9%	$23.39m	$60.06m	$24.66m	70%	18%
2039 (Rozelle)	$15.61m	$13.37m	$44.60m	$15.62m	54%	14%	$23.39m	$78.05m	$39.05m	100%	23%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$10.01m	$13.37m	$28.60m	$5.22m	22%	5%	$23.39m	$50.05m	$16.65m	50%	13%

Scenario 3 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.96m	$5.01m	$10.45m	$3.48m	50%	13%	$10.02m	$20.90m	$8.91m	74%	18%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.96m	$5.01m	$9.60m	$2.63m	38%	10%	$10.02m	$19.20m	$7.22m	60%	16%
2038 (Camperdown)	$4.50m	$5.01m	$10.99m	$1.48m	16%	2%	$10.02m	$21.98m	$7.45m	51%	14%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.96m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$12.54m	82%	20%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$23.41m	92%	21%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.96m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$10.28m	67%	17%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$19.45m	77%	19%
2038 (Camperdown)	$4.50m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$11.43m	64%	16%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$23.38m	84%	20%

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Limitations of modelling

The modelling is necessarily general in nature using median prices and broad estimates, and outcomes for a particular site will depend on the details of the site and the details of the proposed development. The modelling assumes that the economics of redevelopment of low rise commercial sites will be similar to redevelopment of existing residential flat buildings, as there is little data available for commercial sites and commercial sites vary widely in size.

Assumptions have been made with regard to development controls and dwelling yield, and preliminary architectural design would be required to confirm these assumptions. Similarly, cost estimates on preliminary architectural design would be required to confirm estimates of construction cost.

The economics are likely to be much better for redevelopment of brownfield sites, and likely worse for relatively new two storey commercial premises, although as noted, consideration would need to be given to any remediation required for industrial sites.

Nonetheless, the modelling gives insight into likely sensitivities of development and broad insight into likely profit associated with uplift, and where such strategies are most likely to be effective in the context of housing markets within Inner West LGA.

7.3 Marginal uplift from increased height and/or density

7.3.1 Overview

The analysis is conducted on a marginal basis, that is only the additional costs and additional value are considered. As such the purchase cost of the land, site costs and the like are ignored.

7.3.2 Modelling (Additional Saleable Floor Area)

The modelling uses assumptions as set out above in section 7.2.2.

Table 7‑2: Potential Marginal uplift for Selected Post Codes

Marginal uplift ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Construction cost per floor	sale price	Uplift	Uplift %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$1.67m	$3.18m	$1.50m	90%	21%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.67m	$3.48m	$1.81m	108%	24%
2048 (Stanmore)	$1.67m	$3.15m	$1.47m	88%	21%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$1.67m	$3.53m	$1.85m	111%	24%
2050 (Camperdown)	$1.67m	$3.59m	$1.92m	115%	24%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$1.67m	$3.30m	$1.63m	98%	22%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2038 (Annandale)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2131 (Ashfield)	$1.67m	$3.66m	$1.99m	119%	25%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$1.67m	$3.40m	$1.73m	104%	23%
2132 (Croydon)	$1.67m	$2.99m	$1.32m	79%	19%
2045 (Haberfield)	$1.67m	$3.96m	$2.29m	137%	27%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$1.67m	$4.29m	$2.62m	157%	29%
2039 (Rozelle)	$1.67m	$5.58m	$3.90m	234%	34%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$1.67m	$3.58m	$1.90m	114%	24%

8 Testing the Feasibility of Contribution Rates

8.1 Rationale and considerations in setting a contribution rate

The purpose of this discussion paper is to provide a rationale for a contribution rate that will deliver appropriate levels of affordable housing but will not be so high as to stifle development. With regard to the latter, it should be noted that there are likely to be other brakes on development. These are most likely to be the need for lot consolidation and the quality of existing development (e.g. demolition of older timber housing is likely to be more favoured than demolition of good quality offices).

It should be noted that the modelling is general and based on medians and averages. Larger lots and lots with greater heights and density would be expected to support higher levies.

There is no clear pattern for differentiating the proposed levy using broader geographical areas. If a differentiated levy was proposed a calculator approach would be best, with the inputs to the calculator being the post code, the previous zoning and the likely height.

8.2 Effect of levy on viability

8.2.1 Overview of Findings

The tables below show the impact of Affordable Housing levies of 15% and 5% on development viability in terms of existing zoning, post code and height.

The impact of a 15% levy compared to a 5% levy is most marked in the case of existing units and better value commercial property. There is some impact on the redevelopment of separate housing at lower densities, but with reduced impact at higher densities. There is little predicted impact for industrial land and poorer value commercial property, except at densities likely to be much lower than expected planning controls.

While separate housing could be rezoned to allow higher densities, viability will be affected by the need to consolidate property, and this may be difficult given the generally small lots sizes across the LGA. The most likely areas where this type of redevelopment could take place are Haberfield, Rozelle and Ashfield, all with typically larger lots.

Due to lot size and the need for consolidation, redevelopment in areas of separate housing is likely to be smaller developments, and this could be exempted from the levy through having a threshold such as 10 or 20 dwellings.

A similar argument can be put forward for redevelopment of existing low rise residential flat buildings, and in any case quite high densities would be required to support redevelopment.

The highest profits are associated with rezoning of industrial land, and a 15% levy is generally supportable across these areas.

Considering recent development in inner Sydney, most redevelopment is taking place on rezoned industrial land, due to its lower value as industrial land and the larger lot sizes available.

The other major area of development is mixed use developments in commercial zonings. We have not modelled commercial zoning due to the wide range in prices depending on the nature of existing development, however in similar work done previously in the Arncliffe area there were two broad prices for commercial land, a higher price similar to Scenario 2 (redevelopment of existing low rise residential flat buildings) for better value properties such as 2-3 storey offices; and a lower price similar to our Scenario 3 (redevelopment of industrial land) for lower value properties such as car yards and older smaller single storey premises with areas of undeveloped land such as car parks and hard stand.

8.2.2 Likely impact on development of 15% target

· Table 8‑1: Redevelopment of separate housing:

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2204, 2038, 2041	2044, 2203, 2131, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2130	2045, 2040, 2039
8		2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2132	2044, 2131, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14		2042, 2048, 2050	2044, 2049, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

· Table 8‑2: Redevelopment of existing units (also likely to be similar for better value commercial property such as office buildings)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6	2132	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
8		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2132, 2130	2041, 2045, 2040, 2039

· Table 8‑3: Redevelopment of industrial land (also likely to be similar for poorer value commercial property such as car yards)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3		2044, 2204, 2038
6		2038 (viable at 14%)	2044, 2204
8			2044, 2204, 2038
14			2044, 2204, 2038

8.2.3 Likely impact on development of 5% target

· Table 8‑4: Redevelopment of separate housing:

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2204, 2038, 2041	2040, 2130	2044, 2203, 2131, 2045, 2039
6		2042, 2048, 2050	2044, 2049, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
8		2042	2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14			2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

· Table 8‑5: Redevelopment of existing units (also likely to be similar for better value commercial property such as office buildings)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6	2132	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2045, 2040, 2130	2041, 2039
8		2042, 2044, 2048, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2132	2049, 2050, 2038, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14			2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

· Table 8‑6: Redevelopment of industrial land (also likely to be similar for poorer value commercial property such as car yards)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3		2038	2044, 2204
6			2044, 2204, 2038
8			2044, 2204, 2038
14			2044, 2204, 2038

8.3 Conclusion

Redevelopment is most likely to take place in older industrial areas and areas of low quality commercial development. Our modelling suggests that a levy of 15% is likely to be sustainable for developments of six stories and above in such areas, particularly given the order of accuracy of the modelling and the relatively conservative assumptions used.

Development in areas of separate housing is likely to be limited due to small lot sizes and the need to assemble land. High densities are likely to be necessary to support such redevelopment and a 15% levy is generally sustainable for 8-14 storey development, again within the accuracy of the modelling. Three storey development, avoiding the separation requirements of the Apartment Design Guide, is generally not likely to be viable, and where it is viable would probably result in smaller developments due to smaller lot sizes. For example a three storey development on a double block in Ashfield would be expected to yield ten dwellings. The viability of smaller developments is most likely to be affected by a levy, and setting a minimum sized development to attract the levy is one way of addressing this. This can be done either as a minimum number of dwellings or as a minimum GFA. The latter is preferred, as a criterion based on number of dwellings could lead to construction of larger dwellings within the development envelope in order to avoid the levy. Appropriate thresholds could be 20 dwellings or GFA of 1,700 m².^{^[69]}

Similarly, redevelopment of existing low rise residential flat buildings and better quality commercial is unlikely to occur due to the quite high densities required to ensure viability, and where it does occur will probably be on larger lots with development economics more favourable than those modelled, and hence able to support the levy.

Appendix A: Opportunities and Constraints of Principal Legislation and Related Policies

In NSW, objects and a range of related provisions have been progressively included in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) since 1999, including section 5(a)(viii) which provides that an objective of the Act is the ‘maintenance and provision of affordable housing’.^{^[70]} There are likewise definitions and benchmarks related to ‘affordable housing’ in core legislation and related policy, though there are practical differences in affordable housing outcomes due to differences in affordable housing definitions in different instruments.^{^[71]}

Importantly, it is a requirement of the Act that a consent authority take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application as part of a merits assessment under s79C(1)(b). This has obvious applicability to development applications that may result in the loss of affordable or low cost housing, such as low cost flats, Boarding Houses and caravan parks, as well as the assessment of the benefits of an application involving the creation of affordable housing, particularly where this is balanced against other factors as part of the merits assessment. The ability to seek mitigation for loss of affordable housing as part of conditions of consent is also possible under this head of consideration. A growing body of case law in the NSW Land and Environment Court related to social impacts is also relevant.

Likewise, a consent authority is required to consider whether a proposed development is in the public interest under s 79C(1)(e), and a growing body of case law has likewise determined that it is in the public interest to give effect to the objectives of relevant legislation. It is relevant in this regard that the Act has as an objective ‘the maintenance and provision of affordable housing’ (s5(a)(viii)).

As such, on the face of it, local government has a role and indeed a statutory obligation to seek to preserve and create affordable housing through the planning and assessment process. However, there are also limitations to local government’s power under the Act, particularly in relation to the levying of mandatory contributions for affordable housing, though arguably its constraints are not as great as some would perceive, and there are examples of schemes where this has occurred.

Dealing first with mandatory contributions, in June 2000, further amendments were made to the Act in relation to affordable housing to provide consent authorities with the specific power to require, as a condition of consent, the dedication of land free of charge or the payment of a monetary contribution for affordable housing in certain circumstances. Sections 94F and 94G were introduced^{^[72]} to provide consent authorities with the express power to impose such conditions ‘if a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) identifies that there is a need for affordable housing within an area’ and certain other conditions are met.^{^[73]}

The relevant SEPP for this purpose is SEPP 70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) (SEPP 70), which amends relevant local and regional environmental planning instruments to enable the levying of development contributions to provide for affordable housing. SEPP 70 provides guidance regarding the requirements for assessing housing need, setting contribution levels, apportionment, administration and accountability, and specifies relevant income and rental criteria.^{^[74]}

On the face of it, this gives effect to what a number of Councils had been doing for some time under the pre-2000 provisions of s94 (development contributions including for community facilities). However, the provisions of s94F and s94G are operationalised and limited in practice by SEPP 70, which applies to a very limited number of housing schemes including Ultimo-Pyrmont, Willoughby and Green Square, and to only three Council areas – Sydney, Leichhardt and Willoughby Councils. This would appear to preclude other Councils from imposing a mandatory levy, at least under s94F and s94G, although some Councils have done so unchallenged.^{^[75]} Despite lobbying from Councils throughout NSW where affordable housing is increasingly a serious issue,^{^[76]} the State Government has to date maintained the limited application of s94F and 94G of the Act.

This mechanism is supported by provisions of the relevant local environmental plans.

· In the case of City of Sydney, c7.13 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 sets out affordable housing contributions. These are 3% of residential floor area and 1% of other floor area for development in Green Square or on southern employment land; and 0.8% of residential floor area and 1.1% of other floor area for development in Ultimo-Pyrmont.

· In the case of Willoughby Council, c6.8 of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 sets out affordable housing contributions amongst other considerations. These are 4% total floor space of areas identified as Area 3 on the Special Provisions Map.

There have also been other areas that have been subject to specific contributions plans, for example, Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006, where affordable housing contributions were collected by the NSW State Government under S94F of the Act, with a Regulation supporting the development of a contributions plan for this State Significant Development. The Contributions Plan is required by s32 of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 to authorise relevant conditions of consent or contributions. Such contributions may be imposed by virtue of s30 of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004, which removes the requirements under s93F(1) and s93F(3)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 included in a SEPP (noting that other schemes where such contributions apply come under SEPP 70).

Other express provisions are also contained within the Act to further its affordable housing object.

S93F of the Act provides for the making of a voluntary planning agreement in relation to a proposed amendment to a planning instrument or development application. Under such a planning agreement, the developer is required to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution, or provide any other material public benefit, or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose. ‘Affordable housing’ as defined in the Act is one of the listed ‘public purposes’.

A planning agreement is generally advertised in conjunction with the development or rezoning application to which it relates, and forms part of the conditions of consent. A planning agreement is registered and runs with the title to the land, and is binding on, and enforceable against, the owner of the land from time to time as if each owner for the time being had entered into the agreement. The provisions also provide for administrative, reporting, review and other accountability requirements like other forms of development contributions, and may be used in place of or as well as levies with respect to other infrastructure under normal development contributions provisions of the Act. Importantly, a planning agreement does not have to demonstrate nexus between the development and the public purpose for which it was made.

Other powers in relation to levying for affordable housing are provided for the NSW State Government in amendments to the Act in relation to ‘Special Infrastructure Contributions’, which expressly include ‘affordable housing’ as a form of special infrastructure. This includes the provision, extension and augmentation of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing, extending or augmenting) public amenities or public services, affordable housing and transport or other infrastructure relating to land [emphasis added]; and the funding of recurrent expenditure in relation to the above, or any studies or other support required (s94ED).

Special Contributions Areas are set out in Schedule 5A to the Act, and currently include areas within Wyong, Liverpool, Camden, Blacktown, The Hills and Hawkesbury LGAs. Such contributions are not limited to the provision of infrastructure within a ‘special contributions area’, although such contributions are not to be required unless the provision of infrastructure ‘arises as a result of the development or class of development of which the development forms part’ (s94EE(2)(c)) (for example, in relation to district level infrastructure).

Reasonable discretion appears to be provided for under s94EE(3), which states that, despite the limitations of other provisions, ‘the Minister may…determine the level and nature of development contributions in the form of a levy of a percentage of the proposed cost of carrying out development or any class of development’. Further, the Minister will determine what part (if any) a development contribution will be ‘for the provision of infrastructure by a Council’ (s94EE(3A)). It is noted that, in determining the level and nature of contributions, the Minister will, as far as practicable make the contribution ‘reasonable with regard to the cost’ of infrastructure in relation to the development (s94EE(2)(a)).

Finally, it is noted that Councils often assume greater limitations to their powers than necessary since the gazettal of the 2000 amendments.^{^[77]} However, s94F(5) makes it clear that ‘nothing in this section prevents the imposition on a development consent or other conditions relating to the provision, maintenance or retention of affordable housing’. This, and s5(a)(viii) and other relevant provisions discussed above, appear to provide sufficient latitude for Councils to engage in, for example, negotiating agreements with developers, identifying circumstances in which it is appropriate to provide for planning incentives through relevant EPIs, mandating diversity or affordability through developing performance criteria or targets in relevant plans (e.g. Masterplan DCPs), requiring social impact assessments to mitigate the loss of affordable housing, or other planning or procedural mechanisms apparently available to further the objects of the Act. A range of more active Councils are engaged in some or all of these activities at present, and these types of activities appear to be legal.

The gazettal of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPPARH) aimed to provide a consistent planning regime to encourage and enable the provision of different types of affordable housing to various target groups. In particular, the SEPP aims to facilitate the provision of affordable housing through zone liberalisation, the provision of incentives for delivery of new affordable rental housing including close to places of work, facilitating the retention and mitigation of the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and the development of housing for special needs groups including social housing, Boarding Houses and supportive accommodation.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

3 Affordable Housing

3.1 What is Affordable Housing?

‘Affordable housing’ also has a statutory definition under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), being housing for very low, low or moderate income households. SEPP 70 defines ‘very low-income’ households as those on less than 50% of median household income; ‘low-income’ households’ as those on 50-80% of median household income, and ‘moderate-income’ households as those on 80-120% of median household income for Sydney SD.

As a commonly used rule of thumb, affordable housing is taken to be housing where households pay less than 30% of their gross household income on housing costs. This is often regarded as the point at which such households are at risk of having insufficient income to meet other living costs, and deemed to be in ‘housing stress’. Those paying more than 50% of gross income are regarded as being in ‘severe housing stress’.

‘Low cost’ housing is often, though not always, ‘affordable’. For example, in a premium (high amenity) location, even a small, lower amenity strata dwelling may be ‘unaffordable’ to a very low-, low- or moderate-income household.

The following table provides benchmarks that are used in this study when referring to ‘affordable housing’, in 2015 dollars, and are consistent with relevant NSW legislation.

1. Table 3‑1: Relevant Affordable Housing Income and Cost Benchmarks

	Very low-income household	Low-income household	Moderate-income household
Income Benchmark	<50% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	50-80% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney	80%-120% of Gross Median H/H Income for Greater Sydney
Income Range (2)	<$783 per week	$784-$1,253 per week	$1,253-$1,879 per week
Affordable Rental Benchmarks (3)	<$235 per week	$236-$376 per week	$377-$564 per week
Affordable Purchase Benchmarks (4)	<$228,000	$228,001- $364,000	$364,001- $545,000

Source: JSA 2016, based on data from ABS (2011) Census indexed to March Quarter 2016 dollars

(1) All values reported are in March Quarter 2016 dollars

(2) Total weekly household income

(3) Calculated as 30% of total household income

3.2 Change in Housing Cost Over Time

3.2.1 Overview

Rental and purchase prices have increased significantly within the Inner West LGA in real terms over the two decades or so, with some temporal variation. Overall, a steep increase in purchase prices (particularly in the former Marrickville LGA), and to a lesser extent rental costs, is contributing to an affordability crisis for very low, low and many moderate income households in recent years, as described later.

In real terms (adjusted for inflation) for the Inner West LGA, comprising of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville LGAs:

· the median price of separate houses increased 4.5 times in Ashfield, 4.0 time in Leichhardt and 6.4 times in Marrickville since 1991;

· the median price of strata dwellings increased 3.0 times in Ashfield, 3.2 times in Leichhardt and 3.4 times in Marrickville since 1991;

· the median rent for separate houses increased 1.8 times in Ashfield, 1.8 times in Leichhardt and 2.0 times in Marrickville since 1991; and

· the median rent for flats and units increased 1.5 times in Ashfield, 2.0 times in Leichhardt and 1.8 times in Marrickville since 1991.

3.2.2 Median Purchase Price Growth

Separate houses

Median purchase prices for separate houses in Marrickville LGA tracked those in Greater Sydney up until around 1996, after which they diverged. The divergence became greater from 2007 to 2008, and in 2014 median purchase prices for Marrickville increased rapidly to around $1.3 million, leaving Greater Sydney purchase prices behind at around $800,000.

In real terms, Marrickville house prices doubled between 1997 and 2003, and have almost doubled again since 2003.

Former Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs began with higher median purchase prices, at just under $400,000 in 1991, and generally maintained similar growth patterns up until 2014. However, between 2007 and 2012 median purchase prices for separate houses in Leichhardt LGA tended peaked slightly higher than the Ashfield LGA, but merged again in 2013 with both peaking at approximately $1.5 million in 2015.

2. Figure 3‑1: Median Purchase Price, Separate Houses, March Quarter 1991 to June Quarter 2015, Adjusted for Inflation (March Quarter 2016 Dollars)

Strata dwellings

Median purchase prices for strata dwellings in Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs have tracked prices for Greater Sydney since around 2010 after having previously been slightly lower than both Greater Sydney and New South Wales. Strata Dwelling Purchase prices peaked at around $675,000-$700,000 in 2015 for these former LGAs and Greater Sydney. Purchase prices from strata dwellings in Leichhardt LGA, while starting at a similar point to Greater Sydney at approximately $250, 000 saw steeper increases from 1996 to 2001 and a high amount of variability between 2001 and 2005, spiking between around $800,000 and $600,000. From 2006 purchase prices for strata dwellings in Leichhardt followed similar growth patterns to Greater Sydney, peaking at approximately $850,000 in 2015.

3. Figure 3‑2: Median Purchase Price, Strata Dwellings, March Quarter 1991 to June Quarter 2015, Adjusted for Inflation (March Quarter 2016 Dollars)

3.2.3 Median Rental Price Growth

Separate houses

Median rental costs for separate houses in the former Marrickville, Leichhardt and Ashfield LGAs have remained higher than those for Greater Sydney and New South Wales for the duration of the time series. While each of the LGAs follows a similar trend over the time period, the rental costs for separate houses in Leichhardt remain higher than those in Ashfield and Marrickville LGAs, staring at around $450 in 1990 and peaking at around $800 in 2015. The Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs track closely over the time period, both beginning at just over $400 in 1990 and peaking at approximately $750 in 2015. Generally these LGAs experienced increases between 1996 and 2001 before prices stagnated from 2001 to 2007, sitting between $450-$500 for Marrickville and Ashfield and $550 and $600 for Leichhardt. Prices began increasing again from 2001 to 20015

4. Figure 3‑3: Median Rental Price, Separate Houses, March Quarter 1990 to June Quarter 2015, Adjusted for Inflation (March Quarter 2016 Dollars)

Strata dwellings

Median rents for strata dwellings in Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs have been consistently lower than those in Greater Sydney for the duration of the time series. The difference has been around $25-$50 per week lower for most of the time series, but expanding out to a maximum of $100 per week lower for a brief period in 2001 for Marrickville. While rents for strata dwellings in the Leichhardt LGA began lower than Greater Sydney, they increased, converging with Greater Sydney in 1998 at around $350. From 1998 to 2015, median strata rents for Leichhardt were generally higher than Greater Sydney; however they converged for brief periods in 2010 at around $450 and 2012 at around $480 per week.

5. Figure 3‑4: Median Rental Price, Strata Dwellings, March Quarter 1990 to June Quarter 2015, Adjusted for Inflation (March Quarter 2016 Dollars)

3.3 Market Delivery of Affordable Housing

3.3.1 Overview

Affordable Purchase

Affordable purchase in the former Marrickville LGA is limited to households in the upper half of the moderate income band and to first quartile strata properties in the suburbs of Enmore, Newtown and Tempe. Such properties comprise only 4% of dwellings sold during the period. Analysis by bedroom shows that these dwellings are likely to be studio and one bedroom apartments, which means that affordable purchase is not available for larger and family households in any income band.

There was no affordable purchase in the former Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs.

It is therefore unlikely that any new build strata products would be affordable through the market as these would equate to at least the median (and more likely the third quartile) sale price, or would be available to only the top of the moderate income band at best. All family households with children would be excluded from affordable purchase.

The findings also indicate that the vast majority of those needing affordable purchase housing in the study area are unlikely to have their needs met through the market without planning intervention.

Affordable Rental

Affordability is somewhat better for rental, however, availability is restricted with affordable rental not available for larger and family very low and low income households and very limited stock affordable to very low income households.

Very low income households at the upper end of the band can affordably rent a boarding house room in Enmore/Newtown, Lewisham/Petersham, Marrickville, Ashfield and Summer Hill noting that such rooms are about 2% of stock advertised.

Low income households can affordably rent a boarding house room within Inner West LGA, and can affordably rent a median studio/one bedroom apartment in Dulwich Hill and Croydon, noting that these products comprise around 4% of stock advertised.

Moderate income households can generally affordably rent boarding house rooms and median studio/one bedroom apartments and two bedroom apartments in some suburbs. These products comprise around 62% of stock advertised, with two bedroom dwellings comprising around 26% of stock.

As such, the vast majority of households needing affordable rental housing in Marrickville LGA are excluded from affordable rental through the market, and will continue to be excluded in the future without strong planning intervention.

3.3.2 Affordable Purchase in Study Areas

Overview

There are few opportunities for affordable purchase within the former Marrickville LGA. Affordable purchase is limited to those in the upper half of the moderate income household band and to the purchase of first quartile strata properties in the suburbs of Enmore, Newtown and Tempe. A number of suburbs have no affordable first quartile products including Marrickville, Petersham, St Peters, Stanmore and Sydenham while Lewisham and Dulwich Hill are only affordable to those in the very top of the band.

When data is analysed by bedroom, affordable purchase is limited to studio and one bedroom apartments and for moderate income households in the upper half of the income band for the suburbs of Enmore, Lewisham and Newtown and for those in the upper quarter of the income band in Petersham and St Peters.

There is no affordable purchase in the former Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs apart from a median one bedroom in Haberfield, however only one such apartment was sold and so the finding is not reliable.

Affordability analysis

Affordability by quartiles

The table below indicates that there were no housing products in the first, second or third quartiles that would have been affordable for purchase by very low or low income purchasers in suburbs within the Inner West LGA in the year ending April 2016.

No separate houses at the first quartile were affordable to any of the target groups in any of the suburbs studied.

First quartile strata dwellings were affordable to the top 50% of moderate income households in Enmore and Newtown, the top 25% of moderate income households in Tempe, and only the very top few percent of moderate income households in Dulwich Hill and Lewisham.

No first quartile affordable purchase is available to any group in Camperdown, Marrickville, Petersham, St Peters, Stanmore, Sydenham, Annandale, Ashfield, Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove, Croydon, Haberfield, Leichhardt, Lilyfield, Rozelle or Summer Hill.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

8. Table 3‑4: Median sales prices for separate houses and strata dwellings by number of bedrooms for selected areas

Suburb	Separate House				Strata
	1-2 BR		3+ BR		0-1 BR		2 BR		3+ BR
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median
Camperdown	15	$1,200,000	22	$1,675,000	9	$660,000	4	$951,250	0
Dulwich Hill	16	$1,085,000	39	$1,463,000	24	$564,500	97	$685,000	3	$817,000
Enmore	20	$1,152,500	24	$1,290,000	7	$450,000	7	$692,000	0
Lewisham	13	$1,100,000	19	$1,402,500	7	$450,000	7	$692,000	0
Marrickville	64	$1,072,500	105	$1,325,000	47	$520,000	99	$651,000	19	$935,000
Newtown	65	$1,040,000	54	$1,366,000	20	$445,750	11	$750,000	6	$1,043,750
Petersham	11	$1,030,000	46	$1,365,000	16	$505,000	35	$818,000	1	$1,045,000
St Peters	32	$978,800	25	$1,255,585	5	$520,000	9	$668,000	4	$1,017,500
Stanmore	20	$1,232,500	65	$1,570,000	15	$550,000	21	$720,000	3	$1,227,000
Sydenham	8	$860,000	6	$1,147,500	0		0		0
Tempe	14	$867,500	34	$1,070,000	2	$425,000	2	$805,000	3	$1,100,000

Affordability
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income

Source: JSA 2016 using sales data from Red Square for the year ending April 2016

9. Table 3‑5: Median sales prices for separate houses and strata dwellings by number of bedrooms for selected areas

Suburb	Separate House				Strata
	1-2 BR		3+ BR		0-1 BR		2 BR		3+ BR
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median
Annandale	52	$1,223,000	80	$1,800,000	24	$582,500	31	$826,500	5	$1,150,000
Ashfield	18	$1,375,000	93	$1,550,000	44	$486,500	187	$680,000	28	$825,000
Balmain	41	$1,357,000	110	$2,045,000	7	$600,000	25	$973,500	8	$1,902,500
Balmain East	7	$1,730,000	26	$2,535,500	2	$713,500	7	$1,112,500	2	$1,352,500
Birchgrove	12	$1,310,000	31	$2,180,000	2	$637,250	4	$985,500	4	$1,110,000
Croydon	10	$1,072,500	17	$1,500,000	0		7	$640,000	1	$835,000
Haberfield	10	$1,292,500	80	$2,068,393	1	$450,000	22	$790,970	3	$1,118,000
Leichhardt	82	$1,124,000	102	$1,413,500	13	$605,000	33	$921,000	12	$1,175,000
Lilyfield	21	$1,250,000	64	$1,495,000	8	$630,000	13	$825,000	6	$1,430,000
Rozelle	50	$1,223,350	79	$1,561,500	21	$680,000	20	$1,052,500	20	$1,835,000
Summer Hill	11	$1,325,000	28	$1,562,500	13	$580,000	41	$731,000	3	$910,000

Affordability
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income

Source: JSA 2016 using sales data from Red Square for the year ending April 2016

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

3.4 Linear Regression Analysis

3.4.1 Results

A linear regression of sales data has been carried out to better understand the factors contributing to housing affordability in the previous Marrickville, Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs for separate houses and strata properties. Results are shown in the tables below.

11. Table 3‑7: Regression analysis - Former Marrickville LGA– Separate Houses by price, date, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, number of parking spaces, land area and postcode for the year to April 2016

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.58	The variables used in the analysis predict 58% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Number of Bedrooms	$65,373	Each bedroom adds $65,000 to the sale price
Number of Bathrooms	$136,760	Each bathroom adds $137,000 to the sale price
Parking	$49,056	Each parking space adds $49,000 to the sale price
Area	$1,540.80	Each square metre of land area adds $1,540 to the sale price
Post Code 2204 (Marrickville)	-$254,190	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2042 (Newtown/Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2204 sell for $254,000 less
Post Code 2203 (Dulwich Hill)	-$180,580	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2042 (Newtown/Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2203 sell for $181,000 less
Post Code 2050 (Camperdown)	$170,850	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2042 (Newtown/Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2050 sell for $171,000 more
Post Code 2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	-$174,880	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2042 (Newtown/Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2049 sell for $175,000 less
Post Code 2044 (Sydenham/Tempe/St Peters)	-$338,360	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2048 (Stanmore) and 2042 (Newtown/Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2044 sell for $338,000 less
Constant	$668,460

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

12. Table 3‑8: Regression analysis – Former Ashfield and Leichhardt LGAs – Separate Houses by price, date, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, number of parking spaces, land area and postcode for the year to April 2016

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.58	The variables used in the analysis predict 58% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Number of Bedrooms	$61,941	Each bedroom adds $62,000 to the sale price
Number of Bathrooms	$231,090	Each bathroom adds $231,000 to the sale price
Parking	$30,210	Each parking space adds $30,000 to the sale price
Area	$2,267.80	Each square metre of land area adds $2,300 to the sale price
Post Code 2038 (Annandale)	$598,680	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2038 sell for $600,000 more
Post Code 2039 (Rozelle)	$485,020	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2039 sell for $485,000 more
Post Code 2040 (Leichhardt)	$318,770	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2040 sell for $320,000 more
Post Code 2041 (Balmain, Balmain East and Birchgrove)	$1,007,600	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2041 sell for $1,000,000 more
Post Code 2130 (Summer Hill)	$194,840	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2130 sell for $195,000 more
Post Code 2132 (Croydon)	-$218,790	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2131 (Ashfield) and 2045 (Haberfield), dwellings in Post Code 2132 sell for $220,000 less
Constant	Not statistically significantly different from zero

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

13.

14. Table 3‑9: Regression analysis – Former Marrickville LGA – Strata by price, date, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, number of parking spaces, and postcode for the year to April 2016

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.60	The variables used in the analysis predict 60% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Number of Bedrooms	$168,720	Each bedroom adds $169,000 to the sales price
Number of Bathrooms	$157,050	Each bathroom adds $157,000 to the sales price
Parking	$29,372	Each parking space adds $29,000 to the sales price
Post Code 2204 (Marrickville)	-$57,286	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham), 2048 (Stanmore), 2044(Sydenham/Tempe/St Peters) and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2204 sell for $57,000 less
Post Code 2203 (Dulwich Hill)	-$48,039	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham), 2048 (Stanmore), 2044(Sydenham/Tempe/St Peters) and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2203 sell for $48,000 less
Post Code 2050 (Camperdown)	$90,544	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham), 2048 (Stanmore), 2044(Sydenham/Tempe/St Peters) and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2050 sell for $91,000 more
Constant	$188,850

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

15. Table 3‑10: Regression analysis – Former Leichhardt and Ashfield LGAs – Strata by price, date, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, number of parking spaces and postcode for the year to April 2016

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.47	The variables used in the analysis predict 47% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Number of Bedrooms	$221,750	Each bedroom adds $220,000 to the sales price
Number of Bathrooms	$167,020	Each bathroom adds $170,000 to the sales price
Parking	$175,040	Each parking space adds $175,000 to the sales price
Post Code 2039 (Rozelle)	$301,860	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2038 (Annandale), 2132 ( and 2045 (Croydon), 2045 (Haberfield) and 2040 (Leichhardt, dwellings in Post Code 2039 sell for $300,000 more
Post Code 2041 (Balmain, Balmain East and Birchgrove)	$224,040	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2038 (Annandale), 2132 (Croydon), 2045 (Haberfield) and 2040 (Leichhardt, dwellings in Post Code 2039 sell for $225,000 more
Post Code 2130 (Summer Hill)	$106,830	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2038 (Annandale), 2132 (Croydon), 2045 (Haberfield) and 2040 (Leichhardt, dwellings in Post Code 2039 sell for $105,000 more
Post Code 2131 (Ashfield)	-$132,180	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2038 (Annandale), 2132 (Croydon), 2045 (Haberfield) and 2040 (Leichhardt, dwellings in Post Code 2031 sell for $130,000 less

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

16. Table 3‑11: Regression analysis – Former Marrickville LGA – Strata by price, date, strata area and postcode for the year to April 2016

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.84	The variables used in the analysis predict 84% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Strata area	$4,191.80	Each square metre of strata area adds $4,192 to the sales price
Post Code 2204 (Marrickville)	-$117,380	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham) 2048 (Stanmore), and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2204 sell for $117,000 less
Post Code 2203 (Dulwich Hill)	-$86,538	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham) 2048 (Stanmore), and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2203 sell for $87,000 less
Post Code 2050 (Camperdown)	$102,090	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham) 2048 (Stanmore), and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2050 sell for $102,000 more
Post Code 2044 (Sydenham/Tempe/St Peters)	-$120,230	Compared to dwellings in Post Codes 2049 (Lewisham/ Petersham) 2048 (Stanmore), and 2042 (Newtown/ Enmore), dwellings in Post Code 2050 sell for $120,000 less
Constant	$310,720

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

17. Table 3‑12: Regression analysis – Former Leichhardt and Ashfield LGAs– Strata by price, date, strata area and postcode for the year to April 2016 (sample size too small to differentiate between postcodes).

Parameter	Coefficient	Comment
R²	0.55	The variables used in the analysis predict 55% of the variation in prices
Days	Not significantly different from zero	There has been no price growth in the period
Strata area	$5,199.00	Each square metre of strata area adds $5,200 to the sales price
Constant	$218,490

Source: JSA 2016, using data from EAC Redsquare and JSA analysis

3.4.2 Assessment of affordability based on LRA

It is unlikely that any separate house will be affordable in Inner West LGA, and in any case, there are limited development opportunities for such products. As an example, a two bedroom, one bathroom house on a 200 m² lot without parking in the cheapest Post Code area (2044) would be expected to sell for $905,000; and hence would not be affordable to any very low, low or moderate income household.

The best predictor of the price of strata dwellings is the strata area. The table below sets out the likely sales price and affordability for minimum sized studio, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments, with and without parking, for postcodes 2044, 2049/2048/2042 and 2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130.

The analysis shows the limited ability of the market to deliver affordable housing. All very low income households are excluded, and the only product affordable to some low income households is a 35 m² studio apartment with no parking in Post Code 2044. Moderate income households have more choice, with studio and one bedroom apartments with and without parking affordable to much of the income band; however affordability of two bedroom apartments is limited, with a two bedroom apartment without parking in Post Code 2044 affordable to the upper 34% of the income band.

Strategies to support market delivery of affordable housing should therefore focus on development opportunities for smaller dwellings in Post Code 2044.

18. Table 3‑13: Strata Dwelling affordability

Dwelling	Post Code	Estimated Sales Price	Affordable to
Studio Apartment (35 m²)	2044	$337,000	All moderate income households and the upper 20% of low income households
	2049/2048/2042	$457,000	The upper 49% of moderate income households
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$400,000	The upper 80% of moderate income households
Studio Apartment (35 m²) with parking (allow 18 m²)	2044	$412,000	The upper 73% of moderate income households
	2049/2048/2042	$532,000	The upper 7% of moderate income households
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$494,000	The upper 30% of moderate income households
One Bedroom Apartment (50 m²)	2044	$400,000	The upper 80% of moderate income households
	2049/2048/2042	$520,000	The upper 14% of moderate income households
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$478,000	The upper 40% of moderate income households
One Bedroom Apartment (50 m²) with parking (allow 18 m²)	2044	$475,000	The upper 39% of moderate income households
	2049/2048/2042	$595,000	Not affordable
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$572,000	Not affordable
Two Bedroom Apartment (70 m²)	2044	$484,000	The upper 34% of moderate income households
	2049/2048/2042	$604,000	Not affordable
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$582,000	Not affordable
Two Bedroom Apartment (70 m²) with parking (allow 18 m²)	2044	$559,000	Not affordable
	2049/2048/2042	$679,000	Not affordable
	2038/2131/2132/2040/2039/2130	$676,000	Not affordable

Source: JSA 2016 using results of Linear Regression Analysis

4 Assessment of Value Uplift and Land Value Capture

4.1 Overview

Land in the former Leichhardt LGA is mostly zoned R1 and B2. Residential land typically has FSR 0.50-0.60. Heights are generally not controlled, but are likely to be limited by FSR.

Detailed results of modelling are shown in Table 4-1 below.

There are three proposed redevelopment areas under the Sydenham to Bankstown – draft Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. These are discussed below.

Proposed changes in Sydenham include shop top housing and medium to high rise housing in areas currently zoned B5, B7, IN2 and IN1. Existing FSRs and height are 0.95 in the industrial zoning with no height restriction and 1.75 in the business zoning with height of 14.0 metres (four stories). Existing development is 2-3 storey factories and showrooms.^{^[79]} The economics of redevelopment appear quite favourable and there is likely to be considerable opportunity for value capture in this precinct, in line with modelling related to the rezoning of industrial land.

Existing development is 2-3 storey factories in the industrial areas and generally single storey separate housing in the residential areas. Existing residential flat buildings are typically three storey walk-ups.^{^[80]} The economics of redevelopment of the industrial land are likely to be quite favourable, with considerable opportunity for value capture. The economics of redevelopment of existing separate housing is less favourable, and is likely to require quite liberal controls allowing six storey construction or higher for redevelopment to occur. Opportunities for value capture range from 7% for six stories to 15% for 14 stories. The economics of redevelopment of existing flat buildings will also require quite liberal controls, with redevelopment likely to require a minimum of eight stories to be viable, and opportunities for value capture ranging from 1% for eight stories to 10% for 14 stories.

There are three proposed redevelopment areas under the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. These are the Camperdown Precinct, currently zoned IN2, Taverners Hill Precinct currently zoned R1 and Leichhardt Precinct, currently zoned B2. Details of proposed changes are no longer available from Urban Growth NSW, pending consideration of feedback to draft proposals. Based on our modelling, and depending on the final details of planning controls, Construction of residential flat buildings of three storeys and over are likely to be profitable in Camperdown, as are construction of six storeys in Leichhardt in B2 zoning and construction of three stories in Leichhardt in areas of separate housing. Consequently, opportunities for value capture would be expected, ranging from 2% to 20% for Camperdown, 3% to 18% in areas of Leichhardt currently zoned B2 (Leichhardt Precinct) and 3% to 23% in areas of Leichhardt currently zoned R1 (Taverners Hill Precinct).

4.2 Modelling (Redevelopment)

Overview

Three scenarios have been considered for the land purchase, that is the value of the land prior to the uplift in land values as a result of changes to planning controls.

Median house price X 1,000 / median lot size

Median two bedroom strata price X 14

In the third scenario, the land cost is taken as an average price for an industrial zoned lot of 1,000 m² in Marrickville LGA as estimated using recent sales data;^{^[82]} and an average price per square metre for recent sales of industrial land in Camperdown.^{^[83]}

Profit has been estimated as Sales price less land purchase and construction cost, and has been estimated as a percentage of land purchase and construction cost.

The results of the modelling are shown in the table below.

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Table 4‑1: Potential Redevelopment Scenarios for Selected Post Codes

Scenario 1 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.75m	$5.01m	$9.53m	-$4.23m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.05m	$0.28m	2%	Nil
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$4.55m	$5.01m	$10.45m	$0.88m	9%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.90m	$6.32m	43%	12%
2048 (Stanmore)	$6.48m	$5.01m	$9.44m	-$2.06m	-18%	Nil	$10.02m	$18.87m	$2.36m	14%	2%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$5.73m	$5.01m	$10.58m	-$0.17m	-2%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.15m	$5.39m	34%	9%
2050 (Camperdown)	$9.22m	$5.01m	$10.78m	-$3.46m	-24%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.56m	$2.31m	12%	1%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$4.23m	$5.01m	$9.90m	$0.66m	7%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.80m	$5.55m	39%	10%
2204 (Marrickville)	$5.02m	$5.01m	$9.60m	-$0.43m	-4%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.20m	$4.16m	28%	7%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.75m	$13.37m	$25.40m	$3.29m	15%	2%	$23.39m	$44.45m	$12.31m	38%	10%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$4.55m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$9.94m	56%	15%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$20.81m	75%	18%
2048 (Stanmore)	$6.48m	$13.37m	$25.16m	$5.31m	27%	7%	$23.39m	$44.03m	$14.15m	47%	13%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$5.73m	$13.37m	$28.20m	$9.10m	48%	13%	$23.39m	$49.35m	$20.23m	70%	18%
2050 (Camperdown)	$9.22m	$13.37m	$28.74m	$6.15m	27%	7%	$23.39m	$50.30m	$17.68m	54%	14%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$4.23m	$13.37m	$26.40m	$8.81m	50%	13%	$23.39m	$46.20m	$18.58m	67%	17%
2204 (Marrickville)	$5.02m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$7.21m	39%	10%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$16.39m	58%	15%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$7.66m	$5.01m	$10.99m	-$1.69m	-13%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.98m	$4.29m	24%	6%
2131 (Ashfield)	$3.31m	$5.01m	$10.20m	$1.87m	23%	5%	$10.02m	$20.40m	$7.06m	53%	14%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$10.46m	$5.01m	$14.81m	-$0.66m	-4%	Nil	$10.02m	$29.63m	$9.14m	45%	12%
2132 (Croydon)	$3.57m	$5.01m	$8.97m	$0.39m	5%	Nil	$10.02m	$17.94m	$4.34m	32%	8%
2045 (Haberfield)	$3.05m	$5.01m	$11.88m	$3.82m	47%	13%	$10.02m	$23.76m	$10.69m	82%	20%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$5.94m	$5.01m	$12.87m	$1.91m	18%	3%	$10.02m	$25.74m	$9.77m	61%	16%
2039 (Rozelle)	$7.97m	$5.01m	$16.73m	$3.74m	29%	7%	$10.02m	$33.45m	$15.45m	86%	20%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$4.29m	$5.01m	$10.73m	$1.42m	15%	2%	$10.02m	$21.45m	$7.14m	50%	13%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 1	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$7.66m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$8.27m	39%	11%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$20.22m	65%	17%
2131 (Ashfield)	$3.31m	$13.37m	$27.20m	$10.52m	63%	16%	$23.39m	$47.60m	$20.90m	78%	19%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$10.46m	$13.37m	$39.50m	$15.67m	66%	17%	$23.39m	$69.13m	$35.27m	104%	23%
2132 (Croydon)	$3.57m	$13.37m	$23.92m	$6.98m	41%	11%	$23.39m	$41.86m	$14.90m	55%	15%
2045 (Haberfield)	$3.05m	$13.37m	$31.68m	$15.27m	93%	22%	$23.39m	$55.44m	$29.00m	110%	24%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$5.94m	$13.37m	$34.32m	$15.01m	78%	19%	$23.39m	$60.06m	$30.73m	105%	23%
2039 (Rozelle)	$7.97m	$13.37m	$44.60m	$23.27m	109%	24%	$23.39m	$78.05m	$46.69m	149%	28%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$4.29m	$13.37m	$28.60m	$10.94m	62%	16%	$23.39m	$50.05m	$22.37m	81%	20%

Scenario 2 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.89m	$5.01m	$9.53m	-$4.38m	-32%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.05m	$0.14m	1%	Nil
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$9.75m	$5.01m	$10.45m	-$4.32m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.90m	$1.12m	6%	Nil
2048 (Stanmore)	$8.81m	$5.01m	$9.44m	-$4.38m	-32%	Nil	$10.02m	$18.87m	$0.04m	0%	Nil
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$9.87m	$5.01m	$10.58m	-$4.31m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.15m	$1.26m	6%	Nil
2050 (Camperdown)	$10.06m	$5.01m	$10.78m	-$4.29m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.56m	$1.47m	7%	Nil
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$9.24m	$5.01m	$9.90m	-$4.35m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.80m	$0.54m	3%	Nil
2204 (Marrickville)	$8.96m	$5.01m	$9.60m	-$4.37m	-31%	Nil	$10.02m	$19.20m	$0.22m	1%	Nil

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$8.89m	$13.37m	$25.40m	$3.14m	14%	2%	$23.39m	$44.45m	$12.17m	38%	10%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$9.75m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$4.74m	21%	4%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$15.61m	47%	13%
2048 (Stanmore)	$8.81m	$13.37m	$25.16m	$2.99m	14%	2%	$23.39m	$44.03m	$11.83m	37%	10%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$9.87m	$13.37m	$28.20m	$4.96m	21%	5%	$23.39m	$49.35m	$16.09m	48%	13%
2050 (Camperdown)	$10.06m	$13.37m	$28.74m	$5.31m	23%	5%	$23.39m	$50.30m	$16.84m	50%	13%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$9.24m	$13.37m	$26.40m	$3.79m	17%	3%	$23.39m	$46.20m	$13.57m	42%	11%
2204 (Marrickville)	$8.96m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$3.27m	15%	2%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$12.45m	39%	10%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$10.26m	$5.01m	$10.99m	-$4.28m	-28%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.98m	$16.95m	8%	Nil
2131 (Ashfield)	$9.52m	$5.01m	$10.20m	-$4.33m	-30%	Nil	$10.02m	$20.40m	$8.55m	4%	Nil
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$13.83m	$5.01m	$14.81m	-$4.02m	-21%	Nil	$10.02m	$29.63m	$5.78m	24%	6%
2132 (Croydon)	$8.37m	$5.01m	$8.97m	-$4.41m	-33%	Nil	$10.02m	$17.94m	-$0.46m	-3%	Nil
2045 (Haberfield)	$11.09m	$5.01m	$11.88m	-$4.22m	-26%	Nil	$10.02m	$23.76m	$2.65m	13%	1%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$12.01m	$5.01m	$12.87m	-$4.15m	-24%	Nil	$10.02m	$25.74m	$3.70m	17%	3%
2039 (Rozelle)	$15.61m	$5.01m	$16.73m	-$3.90m	-19%	Nil	$10.02m	$33.45m	$7.82m	31%	8%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$10.01m	$5.01m	$10.73m	-$4.30m	-29%	Nil	$10.02m	$21.45m	$1.42m	7%	Nil

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2038 (Annandale)	$10.26m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$5.68m	24%	6%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$17.63m	52%	14%
2131 (Ashfield)	$9.52m	$13.37m	$27.20m	$4.31m	19%	4%	$23.39m	$47.60m	$14.69m	45%	12%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$13.83m	$13.37m	$39.50m	$12.31m	45%	12%	$23.39m	$69.13m	$31.91m	86%	20%
2132 (Croydon)	$8.37m	$13.37m	$23.92m	$2.18m	10%	Nil	$23.39m	$41.86m	$10.10m	32%	8%
2045 (Haberfield)	$11.09m	$13.37m	$31.68m	$7.23m	30%	8%	$23.39m	$55.44m	$20.96m	61%	16%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$12.01m	$13.37m	$34.32m	$8.94m	35%	9%	$23.39m	$60.06m	$24.66m	70%	18%
2039 (Rozelle)	$15.61m	$13.37m	$44.60m	$15.62m	54%	14%	$23.39m	$78.05m	$39.05m	100%	23%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$10.01m	$13.37m	$28.60m	$5.22m	22%	5%	$23.39m	$50.05m	$16.65m	50%	13%

Scenario 3 ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost three stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost six stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.96m	$5.01m	$10.45m	$3.48m	50%	13%	$10.02m	$20.90m	$8.91m	74%	18%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.96m	$5.01m	$9.60m	$2.63m	38%	10%	$10.02m	$19.20m	$7.22m	60%	16%
2038 (Camperdown)	$4.50m	$5.01m	$10.99m	$1.48m	16%	2%	$10.02m	$21.98m	$7.45m	51%	14%

Suburb	Land purchase Scenario 2	Construction cost eight stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %	Construction cost 14 stories	sale price	profit	profit %	LVC %
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.96m	$13.37m	$27.86m	$12.54m	82%	20%	$23.39m	$48.76m	$23.41m	92%	21%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.96m	$13.37m	$25.60m	$10.28m	67%	17%	$23.39m	$44.80m	$19.45m	77%	19%
2038 (Camperdown)	$4.50m	$13.37m	$29.30m	$11.43m	64%	16%	$23.39m	$51.28m	$23.38m	84%	20%

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Limitations of modelling

4.3 Marginal uplift from increased height and/or density

4.3.1 Overview

The analysis is conducted on a marginal basis, that is only the additional costs and additional value are considered. As such the purchase cost of the land, site costs and the like are ignored.

4.3.2 Modelling (Additional Saleable Floor Area)

The modelling uses assumptions as set out above in section 7.2.2.

Table 4‑2: Potential Marginal uplift for Selected Post Codes

Marginal uplift ($ ’ 000,000)

Suburb	Construction cost per floor	sale price	Uplift	Uplift %	LVC %
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	$1.67m	$3.18m	$1.50m	90%	21%
2044 (St Peters/ Sydenham/ Tempe)	$1.67m	$3.48m	$1.81m	108%	24%
2048 (Stanmore)	$1.67m	$3.15m	$1.47m	88%	21%
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	$1.67m	$3.53m	$1.85m	111%	24%
2050 (Camperdown)	$1.67m	$3.59m	$1.92m	115%	24%
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	$1.67m	$3.30m	$1.63m	98%	22%
2204 (Marrickville)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2038 (Annandale)	$1.67m	$3.20m	$1.53m	92%	21%
2131 (Ashfield)	$1.67m	$3.66m	$1.99m	119%	25%
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	$1.67m	$3.40m	$1.73m	104%	23%
2132 (Croydon)	$1.67m	$2.99m	$1.32m	79%	19%
2045 (Haberfield)	$1.67m	$3.96m	$2.29m	137%	27%
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	$1.67m	$4.29m	$2.62m	157%	29%
2039 (Rozelle)	$1.67m	$5.58m	$3.90m	234%	34%
2130 (Summer Hill)	$1.67m	$3.58m	$1.90m	114%	24%

5 Testing the Feasibility of Contribution Rates

5.1 Rationale and considerations in setting a contribution rate

It should be noted that the modelling is general and based on medians and averages. Larger lots and lots with greater heights and density would be expected to support higher levies.

5.2 Effect of levy on viability

5.2.1 Overview of Findings

The tables below show the impact of Affordable Housing levies of 15% and 5% on development viability in terms of existing zoning, post code and height.

A similar argument can be put forward for redevelopment of existing low rise residential flat buildings, and in any case quite high densities would be required to support redevelopment.

The highest profits are associated with rezoning of industrial land, and a 15% levy is generally supportable across these areas.

Considering recent development in inner Sydney, most redevelopment is taking place on rezoned industrial land, due to its lower value as industrial land and the larger lot sizes available.

5.2.2 Likely impact on development of 15% target

19. Table 5‑1: Redevelopment of separate housing:

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2204, 2038, 2041	2044, 2203, 2131, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2130	2045, 2040, 2039
8		2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2132	2044, 2131, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14		2042, 2048, 2050	2044, 2049, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

20. Table 5‑2: Redevelopment of existing units (also likely to be similar for better value commercial property such as office buildings)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6	2132	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
8		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14		2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2132, 2130	2041, 2045, 2040, 2039

21. Table 5‑3: Redevelopment of industrial land (also likely to be similar for poorer value commercial property such as car yards)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3		2044, 2204, 2038
6		2038 (viable at 14%)	2044, 2204
8			2044, 2204, 2038
14			2044, 2204, 2038

5.2.3 Likely impact on development of 5% target

22. Table 5‑4: Redevelopment of separate housing:

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2204, 2038, 2041	2040, 2130	2044, 2203, 2131, 2045, 2039
6		2042, 2048, 2050	2044, 2049, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
8		2042	2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14			2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

23. Table 5‑5: Redevelopment of existing units (also likely to be similar for better value commercial property such as office buildings)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
6	2132	2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2045, 2040, 2130	2041, 2039
8		2042, 2044, 2048, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2132	2049, 2050, 2038, 2041, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130
14			2042, 2044, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2203, 2204, 2038, 2131, 2041, 2132, 2045, 2040, 2039, 2130

24. Table 5‑6: Redevelopment of industrial land (also likely to be similar for poorer value commercial property such as car yards)

Stories	Post Codes not viable	Post Codes not viable with levy	Post Codes viable with levy
3		2038	2044, 2204
6			2044, 2204, 2038
8			2044, 2204, 2038
14			2044, 2204, 2038

5.3 Conclusion

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Attachment 4: Report on Public Submissions

Report on public submissions received

Introduction

The exhibition period for the Affordable Housing Policy (Policy) started on 11 December 2016 and ended on 13 February 2017. A total of 29 submissions were received during the exhibition period. An additional four submissions were received up until 14 March 2017.

Of all 33 submissions, 27 were received from individuals while 6 were received from organisations.

The organisations that lodged submissions included:

· Shelter NSW

· Link Housing

· NSW Federation of Housing Associations

· Save Dully Action Group

· UrbanGrowth NSW

· Urbanesque Planning P/L

Of all submissions received, 79% supported the Policy while 21% did not support the Policy.

The contributions of all submissions were considered during the preparation of the final version of the Policy.

Public Exhibition Period

The public were invited to make submissions on the Policy via Council’s online submissions form during the public exhibition period. Along with this, access to the three documents comprising the Policy as well as an outline of the Policy’s rationale were made available on Council’s dedicated ‘Have Your Say’ webpage.

During the exhibition period, the webpage received a total of 676 visits while document downloads totalled 300.

A media release about the Policy being on public exhibition was issued on 16 December 2016. Council also advertised the exhibition period in its eNews editions between December 2016 and February 2017.

As well, a presentation by consultant, Dr Judith Stubbs, on the Policy was made to a Joint Local Representation Advisory Committees (LRAC) meeting on 20 September 2016. This provided LRAC members with an opportunity to learn more about the extent of housing stress in the LGA as well as to ask questions about the Policy’s value capture model and the proposed affordable housing targets.

Various inquiries about the Policy from residents, developers and stakeholders were also responded to by the Affordable Housing Officer and Council’s consultant during and after the public exhibition period.

Acknowledgment

Summary

Below is a summary of all submissions received, including a snapshot of each submission’s comments.

List of Submissions

Record No.	Support Policy	Not Support Policy	Date Received	From (Suburb)	Snapshot
144699.16	1		16-Dec-16	Marrickville	No comment
144701.16		1	16-Dec-16	Marrickville	There needs to be a clearer definition and evidence of hardship.
145039.16	1		20-Dec-16	Newtown	This is an essential policy for Council
146451.16	1		22-Dec-16	Marrickville	No comment
146683.16	1		22-Dec-16	Enmore	There is a need for diversity in a healthy, ethical and vibrant community.
223.17	1		24-Dec-16	Newtown	No comment
266.17	1		01-Jan-17	Marrickville	No comment
350.17	1		03-Jan-17	Haberfield	Survey design unsatisfactory. Council needs to protect the unique position of Haberfield as a heritage suburb from over-development.
3667.17	1		13-Jan-17	Leichhardt	Would like to see affordable housing targets even higher.
3696.17	1		12-Jan-17	Petersham	Recommends active involvement with the Sydney Alliance and exploring opportunities to partner with Habitat for Humanity.
4448.17	1		16-Jan-17	Ashfield	A commitment to provide affordable housing is needed, notably to single parents who work in the local area.
5891.17	1		19-Jan-17	Leichhardt	Highly relevant for the rapid price escalations taking place in both the housing purchase and rental markets across the inner west. Additional comments on vesting title of new affordable housing stock with a registered CHP and opportunities for new social housing to be mixed with affordable housing
8941.17	1		24-Jan-17	Rozelle	Recommends specific parcels of land dedicated to affordable housing and capping rental increases.
8942.17	1		25-Jan-17	Lewisham	Policy should also refer to the taxation system, in particular, a more appropriate capital gains tax and the removal of subsidies such as negative gearing.
9144.17	1		26-Jan-17	Marrickville	Recommends mobile housing for government land as is the case in Victoria.
9301.17	1		30-Jan-17	Tempe	Supports building apartments near train stations.
13396.17	1		01-Feb-17	Sydney	Shelter NSW - Queries raised in relation to the application of the 15% affordable housing target.
13411.17	1		02-Feb-17	Ashfield	Recommends more well-designed small affordable housing dwellings and sufficient green spaces and safe walking pathways etc.
13413.17		1	03-Feb-17	Dulwich Hill	The real issue is declining home ownership rates.
13414.17	1		04-Feb-17	Annandale	Policy will contribute to a socially richer and more diverse community, as well as maintaining housing opportunities for vulnerable groups and workers in essential/community sectors.
13416.17	1		06-Feb-17	Lilyfield	No comment.
13418.17		1	06-Feb-17	Camperdown	Targets should be reduced and not exceed the recommended 5-10 percent target.
14456.17	1		10-Feb-17	St Peters	Policy should apply 15% affordable housing to both large developments as well as medium and small developments.
14469.17	1		10-Feb-17	Drummoyne	Policy should encourage supply of affordable houses to assist families to remain in the LGA.
14473.17	1		10-Feb-17	Petersham	Policy needs to improve affordable housing options for eldery people.
14576.17	1		12-Feb-17	Surry Hills	NSW Federation of Housing Associations - Supports the policy in its intentions, its targets and its proposals to the NSW Government; pleased that it also contains performance indicators to measure outcomes. Suggestions include sale of any government land should include a requirement for an ambitious component of social and affordable housing to be incorporated in the development – recommends this be 30 percent target.
14477.17	1		13-Feb-17	Chatswood	Link Housing - no comments.
14479.17	1		13-Feb-17	Enmore	Local community needs affordable decent places to keep this area vibrant and liveable and retain sense of community.
15143.17		1	13-Feb-17	Dulwich Hill	Policy is inappropriate since it only considers Redfern-type 14-storey towers for places like Dulwich Hill.
-	1		15-Feb-17	Sydney	UrbanGrowth - Commends IWC for seeking to address the challenge of housing affordability and diversity. Notes numeric targets differ from the content in draft policy.
-		1	21-Feb-17	Dulwich Hill	Policy will encourage over-development.
-		1	21-Feb-17	Dulwich Hill	Save Dully Action Group - Supports the broad aim of the draft council Affordable Housing Policy but believes policy will result in overdevelopment. Other issues of concern: protecting existing affordable housing, lobbying on broader policy issues, Sydenham Bankstown Corridor, infrastructure contributions and inadequate community consultation.
-		1	14-Mar-17	Pymble	Unbanesque Planning - Policy will be counterproductive in the supply of affordable housing, will be a burden on developers and land owners and will lead to a loss of employment generating land.
Total (33)	26	7
Percentage	79%	21%

List of submissions with comments and responses

Below is a list of all submissions received showing their comments in full and the responses to them.

Public Submissions on the Draft Affordable Housing Policy

No. 144699.16

Date: 16 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 144701.16

Date: 16 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Comments:

I feel the definition of lower income households could be manipulated by some individuals who could meet the criteria and then go on to have a high net worth (students, people remarrying into wealth etc.). There needs to be a clearer definition and evidence of hardship. For purchases by these people, it must be dictated that the property cannot be sold for more than CPI increases or an agreed increase rather than at market values which would give them a windfall. It is not fair that they may make a below market purchase only to resell at market rates to detriment of other persons in need. The policy must address this loop hole before imposing these obligations on developers. The policy should also address whether private individuals may purchase these cheaper properties to lease at lower rates for say, ten or fifteen years, and then be given the opportunity to sell them at market rates. They should also have adjusted strata fees, no land tax, reduced rates, if they are making this concession to assist lower income households.

Response:

The Policy relates to affordable rental housing. Properties acquired by Council are owned in perpetuity and form part of its affordable rental housing portfolio. These Council owned properties are rented in accordance with household income limits set by State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

No. 145039.16

Date: 20 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

This is an essential policy for Council. The establishment of a 15% and 30% requirement will send a clear, reasonable, and viable message to the private sector as well as State government.

Response:

Council’s contribution to reducing housing stress within the Inner West will be modest. State and Federal governments will need to introduce stronger policies and programs in order to effectively address the affordable housing crisis. Apart from improving affordable housing supply, the full impact of Council’s policy needs to be measured in terms of its impact on the State government and the local government sector. Feedback indicates that Council’s policy has been widely recognised within both levels of government.

No. 146451.16

Date: 22 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 146683.16

Date: 22 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

There is a need for diversity in a healthy, ethical and vibrant community, as well as rights to the individual with less means to access to employment and services in the inner west.

Response:

The need to sustain a diverse and vibrant community underpins Council’s policy.

No. 223.17

Date: 24 Dec 2016

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 266.17

Date: 1 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 350.17

Date: 3 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

First, I would like to object to the first question above. It only asks if I support "the" draft Affordable Housing Policy, yes or no. For people like me who generally support a policy but have issues with some part of the draft policy, we either have to answer "yes" to show our support generally in which case our comments are likely to be disregarded, or we have to answer "no" because we don't support all the exhibited draft policy, in which case our comments are also likely to be disregarded. In either case, it is an inaccurate response. Having this one question (instead of eg "Do you support "an" Affordable Housing Policy?" followed by other questions and requests for comments) throws some doubt on the whole exhibition. Now for my substantive objection to part. My only real concern with the council amalgamation was whether Inner West Council would recognise and protect the unique position of Haberfield as a heritage suburb. It was the first "garden suburb" in Australia and is recognised on the National Estate. It has detailed and specific provision for its preservation. I know other suburbs have heritage conservation areas, but the position of Haberfield is special. I also know that great swathes have been cut through Haberfield for the West Connex, and the State Government's Parramatta Road upgrade provisions may also be damaging, but these should be reasons to fight harder to protect the suburb, not support or go along with the destruction, It seems that at its first attempt, Inner West Council has failed to recognise and protect Haberfield. This may be because the policy writer originally drafted the policy for Marrickville Council and it was extended to all the Inner West Council without looking at other parts, but it is still a concern. I assume it was not submitted to the Heritage Officer Ashfield prior to going on exhibition. I object to any reference to 6 and 14 storeys in Haberfield. I don't care if this is stated to be only for Parramatta Road. I don't care if it is stated to be only a theoretical exercise in what would be the position if such developments were otherwise allowed. By even mentioning 6 and 14 storeys (14 storeys!!) in the Haberfield, it is an acknowledgement that such might be permitted, and therefore an acceptance of it which will make it that much harder for Council to object to such over-development of this heritage suburb. These should be deleted, and a note added that Haberfield has been excluded due to its unique heritage value and special development controls which will not allow large development of the type contemplated by the Policy.

Response:

The comment relating to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only responses in the survey form will be passed onto the Communication and Engagement Team. With respect to concerns of overdevelopment and its impact on heritage values, the Policy objective was only to assess feasible affordable housing contributions in relation to redevelopment costs across the local government area, including Haberfield. Recommending certain density levels by postcode was not part of the Policy’s objective. Rather it is Inner West Council’s existing LEPs relating to Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt that set out both the aims of local environmental planning provisions for land as well as the kinds of redevelopment and densities permitted within the LGA’s various land zones. In addition, variations to existing planning controls is a matter for Council to determine in keeping with local environmental planning provisions and identified local heritage values.

No. 3667.17

Date: 3 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Yes, I support the affordable housing targets but would like to see them even higher. For smaller developments I would like to see a financial contribution going into a central funding pool.

Response:

The proposal to levy affordable housing contributions, either financial or in terms of units, from smaller developments was considered during the drafting of the Policy. Based upon modelling, however, it was decided that the 15% affordable housing target should apply to developments over and above a threshold of 20 units or 1,700sqm. Applying a levy to smaller developments below this threshold was considered a potential disincentive to such developments taking place in keeping with the existing LEPs/DCPs.

No. 3696.17

Date: 13 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Good work with this. I refer to: 2.4 Priority Strategies Responding to these 'Priority' Strategies would be assisted by: 1. Active involvement with the Sydney Alliance http://www.sydneyalliance.org.au/values_we_share 2. Exploring opportunities to partner with Habitat for Humanity (practical applications for the locality): http://habitat.org.au/nsw/ Please investigate and consider.

Response:

Like Council, the Sydney Alliance has urged the Great Sydney Commission to make a stronger commitment to affordable housing in its District Plans and has also helped to increase public awareness about unacceptable levels of housing stress (rental and purchase). The AHO subscribes to the Sydney Alliance’s regular newsletters and updates. Support for or involvement in future Sydney Alliance events and campaigns remain an option where appropriate.

No. 4448.17

Date: 16 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Yes. Council needs a commitment to provide affordable housing. Notably to single parents who work in the local area.

Response:

Council’s research shows high levels of housing stress among single parents on very low to moderate incomes together with families more generally within the Inner West. Single parents who work in the local government area and who fulfil the eligibility criteria for Council’s affordable housing are encouraged to apply when any of these units become available to rent.

No. 5891.17

Date: 19 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

The draft policy appears well researched and prepared and is highly relevant for the rapid price escalations taking place in both the housing purchase and rental markets across the inner west. I assume that registered community housing organisations would be invited through an EOI process to tender to operate the affordable housing generated through the application of the policy. It will be important for the recipient CHP to commit to retaining the stock as affordable rental for extensive periods of time so as to cumulatively build a reasonable level of affordable stock for future generations. If Council decided to vest title of any of this new affordable housing stock with a registered CHP (to enable the CHP to use this equity to borrow to generate further affordable housing stock) then Council should consider caveats such as ensuring the additional stock is inner West based and is leased as affordable rental for extensive periods of time The City of Sydney includes housing stock suitable for people on very low incomes in with its affordable housing stock as part of its overall target. Would Inner West Council also consider some opportunities for new social housing to be mixed with affordable housing, especially if the NSW Government, either through its Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF) or through Communities Plus was to become a partner in site specific major housing redevelopment with Council and developers.

Response:

Council’s existing affordable housing units are currently managed by a registered CHP. Following the expiry of the current management agreement, future acquisitions will also be managed by a CHP via an EOI process. Vesting of Council’s affordable housing stock is not presently on the agenda. The possibility of having a mix of social and affordable housing in site-specific projects funded through SAHF or other programs will always be considered where appropriate.

No. 8941.17

Date: 24 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

As someone who was born and raised in Rozelle my whole life, I can't imagine living anywhere else. Most young people these days can't afford to live anywhere in Sydney, let alone in the inner west. Even for childless double income mid twenty somethings with post-secondary qualifications it's unachievable except on extremely high incomes. 30% of our combined after tax income of $85,000 p.a. is around $500 per week that we can afford in rent or mortgage payments. There aren't many places available for that price range and what is available is in hot demand. Other countries in the world, like the Netherlands have specific parcels of land dedicated to affordable housing and capping rental increase. I support the proposed affordable housing policy and request that the inner west council make further efforts to ensure that people can be able to live in the Inner West.

Response:

The Policy contains a number of strategies and actions designed to improve housing affordability in the Inner West. One of these strategies is to lobby the State government to have higher affordable housing targets in the District Plans (especially the Central Plan) and for higher targets to be achieved on government owned land such as the Bays Precinct. Council’s proposed 5-10 year Housing Action Plan will be devoted to reducing housing stress in the Inner West.

No. 8942.17

Date: 25 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Yes. Affordable housing is also an important part of maintaining a true community where all strata of the community are represented to preserve understanding and appreciation of social differences as well as the different economic contributions each can bring. The value capture issue is an important one to deal with. Indeed Councils proposal is conservative in that arguments can be put forward that no-one, including long term residents should serendipitously profit from a planning decision by Government to any extent at all. In this regard the policy is too narrow in that adopts no position on the taxation system which could deal with this through more appropriate capital gains taxation and the removal of subsidies such as negative gearing.

Response:

The focus of the Policy was primarily to strengthen Council’s planning powers, immediately and in the future, to protect and increase the availability of affordable housing in the local government area. It is certainly the case that other measures, such as reform of the taxation system, including negative gearing and capital gain tax, would contribute to addressing the housing affordability crisis (both rental and purchase). Lobbying the Federal government to reform the taxation system is supported. In is proposed that such specific measures, as advocating for changes to negative gearing and capital gain tax, be include in the 5-10 year Housing Action Plan.

No. 9144.17

Date: 26 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

I think this is a very important social issue and am very pleased the inner west council is taking steps to address it. I did read about a company that has designed mobile housing for government land in Victoria that could be easily moved if the land was later required for building roads later.

Response:

Alternative design proposals and products and their applicability within the existing planning system are important to investigate. Recently Council has investigated Big World Homes that provide a transitional housing product geared to people currently unable to get into home ownership.

No. 9301.17

Date: 30 Jan 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Many people have nowhere to live. Many investors have negative income so why not make this an opportunity to allow for building apartments near the station area for bigger land properties? This will help include the general public assist in meeting high demands and for council to gain some profits too.

Response:

The Policy proposes that applying the 15% affordable housing target to redevelopments across the local government area offers Council the most promising mechanism to improve the supply of affordable housing. Council has also advocated that higher affordable housing targets should apply to major State urban renewal projects, including those adjacent to train stations. On negative gearing, refer to our response to submission no. 8942.17 above.

No. 13396.17

Date: 1 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Shelter NSW

Attachment: Yes

Comments:

See PDF file attached. Please note that this is a 2nd lodgment of the submission. The version lodged a few hours ago had some minor mistakes in it, which have been corrected; the file attached is a corrected version.

Response:

Refer to the response to this submission in the section on attachments below.

No. 13411.17

Date: 2 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

We are a family of 4 (parents - work as a teacher and a carer and 2 young sons -3 & 6yrs) who live in a small (69sq m) 2 bedroom apartment which we modified to create a space as functional as possible for 4. We fixed up the front garden and have created a green space which neighbours often comment positively on. We use our local parks and green spaces daily and walk to school. We actively believe that it is possible to live in a small space but it is essential that everyone has ownership of private space, there is public green space and community covered space when people live in such small homes. I have collected a lot of information about well designed affordable small spaces. I will lobby the council to retain open construction spaces used by West Connex so it can be used to benefit the majority of the community - green spaces and community spaces, well designed affordable housing and plenty of green space is essential if our community is to thrive. Over sized developments in the area may house great numbers of people in a small space but don't always create positive living situations. Please consider carefully the way design and clever use of space really affects people and the environment. Positive living situations create community, where people support one another, less crime and health issues. Badly designed spaces without sufficient green space and safe walking pathways impact very badly on the local community. We are currently suffering from additional pollution, reduced safe walking paths and a community who largely don't want WestConnex tunnels and the impending unfiltered chimney. Thank you for considering these points which as a member of the community living in a small affordable space, I believe are essential to success of any projects.

Response:

It is certainly the case that well designed urban precincts and affordable housing together with ample green space contribute to healthy and diverse communities. While the Policy primarily focusses on measures to directly strengthen Council’s planning powers to protect and increase the availability of affordable housing, the design of the urban form and the degree to which it contributes to positive lifestyles is also very important. Guidelines regarding planning proposals are incorporated in Council’s LEPs and DCPs. Inquiries and opportunities to influence Council decision-making regarding building design standards and the public benefit deriving from redevelopments should be directed to the Strategic Planning team.

No. 13413.17

Date: 3 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Individual

Attachment: Yes

Comments:

This is a pathetic response to an invented problem with skewed data collection. The real issue is declining home ownership rates which this policy fails to address.

Response:

Refer to the response to this submission in the section on attachments below.

No. 13414.17

Date: 4 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Ensuring a proportion of housing stock is available for affordable housing will contribute to a socially richer and more diverse community, as well as maintaining housing opportunities for vulnerable groups and workers in essential/community sectors.

Response:

The Policy is designed to help promote both of these outcomes.

No. 13416.17

Date: 6 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 13418.17

Date: 6 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

The council’s proposed affordable housing targets should be reduced and not exceed the recommended 5-10 percent target. Why should we do more than our fair share. Existing rate payers and residents will be impacted by overcrowding, reduced amenities as more people use the already limited parks, sports fields, schools etc. It may also reduce overall property values. Please reconsider!

Response:

The research undertaken by Council indicates chronic levels of housing stress throughout the Inner West local government area especially for very low, low and moderate income households and for families. These levels of housing stress have serious impacts on the health and well-being of households and their children. They also have harmful effects on social diversity and the local economy. A 15% affordable housing target is not only feasible in terms of development costs but it also more adequately addresses the significant need for affordable housing. The concerns expressed in relation to the possibility of overcrowding and increased pressures on community amenities are well taken. However it should be noted that the Policy is not advocating higher densities nor does it express any tolerance for overcrowding and its detrimental impacts on social infrastructure. However where decisions are made to approved redevelopment proposals involving higher densities, then best practice in the provision of adequate social infrastructure to serve such residential and commercial redevelopments should apply.

No. 14456.71

Date: 10 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

In general I support this policy but I do not believe it goes far enough. Why enforce a minimum of 15% affordable housing only for large developments? I think this should apply for medium and small developments also.

Response:

For a response to this concern, refer to the response provided to submission no. 3667.17 (3 Jan 2017).

No. 14469.17

Date: 10 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

I support, but am also conscious of young families like my own, who desire to remain in the area, but not in a unit, rather a home. It's distressing to think we may never be able to avoid it & this campaign may be misleading if it only targets specific groups.

Response:

Council’s capacity to significantly influence the housing market and escalating costs of rental and purchase housing is limited. Our Policy and Affordable Rental Housing Program is designed to lessen housing stress for very low to moderate income households and families but it will not bring about a radical change to current housing trends. Interventions by State and Federal governments are necessary if the shortfall in affordable housing supply is to be effectively addressed. It should be noted that Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program (ARHP) is an ‘affordable housing’ program, not a social housing program. As such, ARHP needs to be responsive to community needs and comply with State legislation (State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009) as noted previously.

No. 14471.17

Date: 10 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

At 70 and single, I have being on waiting list for Public Housing since 1992 first and a number of other affordable housings as well over those years, it seems I am still no closer to be housed affordably and securely. I am a local for nearly 20 years. It's high time governments tackle the problem firmly and produce results. At long last, this is a step in the right direction.

Response:

The Policy recognises the housing difficulties faced by many senior people within our community. Staff from Council were involved in helping draft South Sydney Regional Organisation of Council’s (SSROC) submission to the Greater Sydney Commission towards the end of last year. That submission called for the State government to introduced higher affordable housing targets in the District Plans and on government owned land. Assisting asset poor older people find affordable housing is part of the Policy.

No. 14477.71

Date: 13 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Link Housing

Attachment: No

Comments: None

No. 14479.17

Date: 13 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

Yes, there is a really big need for more affordable housing, especially housing that is liveable - with adequate insulation to protect against extreme temperatures and save power in the long run, as well as housing without black mould or dampness. I have found it very hard to find a place without a lot of black mould for under $230/room (to share) - which is pretty ridiculous- how are most people meant to afford this area. Especially single parents, students, people who are underemployed or unemployed etc. We need options and affordable decent places to keep this area vibrant and liveable and retain sense of community.

Response:

The Policy recognises these concerns. By strengthening its planning powers, forming partnerships with CHPs and lobbying State and Federal governments, Council hopes to make a valuable contribution towards easing the housing affordability crisis locally.

No. 14576.17

Date: 12 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: NSW Federation of Housing Associations

Attachment: Yes

Comments:

Note that I was unable to attach a second file - the Federation's Industry Strategy. I can supply this separately if you like.

Response:

Refer to the response to this submission in the section on attachments below.

No. 15139.17

Date: 13 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Save Dully Action Group

Attachment: To be submitted.

Comments:

The Save Dully Group would like to make a submission on these important documents but has not had time as yet to do this. We intend to make a submission within the next ten days, given that Dulwich Hill has been extensively mentioned through the document, and we apologise for not being able to do this before this time. We request this extension. I clicked the "No" box because I was forced to.

Response:

Refer to the response to this submission in the section on attachments below.

No. 15143.17

Date: 13 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Individual

Attachment: No

Comments:

This policy does not consider all the options for social or affordable housing. It only considers a "supply" only option. To my mind it considers Redfern-type 14-storey towers for places like Dulwich Hill which is entirely out of character and inappropriate. There is no consideration for such major environmental factors as heritage and the importance of the character of the housing stock in Dulwich Hill and Marrickville. These factors all lead me to believe this is a badly thought-out policy which will be highly unpopular in our area.

Response:

The concern for overdevelopment is acknowledged. However, as was pointed out in the response to submissions nos. 350.17 and 8942.17 above, the primary Policy objective was only to assess feasible affordable housing contributions in relation to redevelopment costs across the local government area, including Dulwich Hill and Marrickville. Recommending certain density levels by postcode was not part of the Policy’s objective. Rather it is Inner West Council’s existing LEPs relating to the former councils of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt that set out both the aims of local environmental planning provisions for land as well as the kinds of redevelopment and densities permitted within the LGA’s various land zones. In addition, variations to existing planning controls is a matter for Council to determine in keeping with local environmental planning provisions and identified local heritage values. It is certainly the case that demand-side initiatives can assist to make housing (rental and purchase) more affordable. One example of this is reform of negative gearing and capital gain tax. In is proposed that a wider range of measures be included in the proposed 5-10 year Housing Action Plan.

Late Submissions

No.

Date: 14 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: Yes

Source: UrbanGrowth

Attachment: Yes, refer to letter attached.

No.

Date: 21 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Individual

Attachment: Yes, refer to letter attached.

No.

Date: 21 Feb 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Save Dully Action Group

Attachment: Yes, refer to submission attached.

No.

Date: 14 Mar 2017

Do you support the draft AHP?: No

Source: Urbanesque Planning P/L

Attachment: Yes, refer to letter attached.

Attachments to Submissions

Seven of the submissions supplied attachments ranging from letters to documents comprising several pages. Responses to key concerns expressed in each of these attachments are provided below.

No. / Date Received

Source and Response

No. 13396.17

Date: 1 Feb 2017

Source: Shelter NSW

Response:

· Clarity of affordable housing targets – The view was expressed that the Policy required a clearer outline of its affordable housing targets. In response, the Affordable Housing Policy has been amended to include a clearer outline of the targets proposed. Refer to pages 11, 12, 17 and 18 of the Affordable Housing Policy.

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 (SEPP 70) – The submission supported Council’s application for inclusion in SEPP 70 with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) as a way of giving Council a greater capacity to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. Rather than lodging a planning proposal during the application process, the submission recommended that recommended that Council seek the approval to apply an affordable housing target to the entire LGA based. We welcomed this recommendation which supports Council’s current interest in exploring the acceptability of this alternative mechanism with DPE.

· Contributions is cash – The submission opposes the use of money collected from mandatory developer contributions for affordable housing to be used for other public purposes. The Council has other mechanisms available to it to collect developers’ money for other public purposes. It is recommended that Council delete the words ‘or other public purpose’ where it appears on page 18 and ‘if council wished to redirect a proportion of the value capture to another public purpose’ on page 23, when finalizing the Policy. This recommendation has merit. However discussions with Council’s planners during the development of the Policy strongly recommended that ‘or other public purpose’ be retained.

· Smaller developments and the application of the 15% target – The submission asks if the 15% target applies to smaller developments. The Policy exempts developments of less than 20 dwellings or having a GFA of less than 1,700sqm. Commercial GFA is to be included when calculating affordable housing contributions.

No. 13413.17

Date: 3 Feb 2017

Source: Individual

Response:

· Effectiveness of Policy – The submission contends that the “proposed Affordable Housing Policy will be effectively useless, if anything, it will have the opposite to the desired effect. Development will be further constrained, limiting the amount of supply and increasing the cost.” In addition “(w)inners will be large companies such as Mirvac and Meriton” while the “average builder/developer has nowhere near enough time or financial resources for such schemes”. The Policy’s modelling is at odds with this contention. In addition, the Policy exempts developments of less than 20 dwellings or having a GFA of less than 1,700sqm which tend to be associated with average builders/developers.

No. 14576.17

Date: 12 Feb 2017

Source: NSW Federation of Housing Associations

Response:

· Site feasibility assessments – The submission contends that “there is merit on close collaboration between Councils to develop the expertise and mechanisms to assess developer’s site viability assessments. Specifically we believe that there needs to be complete transparency with the Council being in control of these assessments.” This recommendation is supported. Also inclusion in SEPP 70 based upon an affordable housing target applicable to specific types of development across Council may obviate the need for tough negotiations with private developers over arrange of site feasibility assessments.

· Community land trust model – The submission recommends Council consider a community land trust model or similar, granting long term leases for developments? It is asserted that such a model would stimulate investment and that the model could “be explored with neighbouring councils for such a trust.” The feasibility of a land trust scheme appears to have merit and would be worth evaluating.

· Getting Affordable Housing Constructed – The submission notes that “the community can have fears about the scale and bulk of some developments”. It therefore recommends “(m)ore precise definition of local character, more consultation and engagement with communities about this and joint working with the affordable housing industry are necessary.” The submission suggests that Council “could sponsor an exemplar project to attract interest and community input?” This recommendation merits investigation.

No. -

Date: 14 Feb 2017

Source: UrbanGrowth

Response:

· Consultation - UrbanGrowth’s offer to consult with Council with respect to the Bays Precinct is most welcome.

· Numeric targets - In relation to the Policy’s numeric targets, it is case that the 15% affordable housing target which applies to redevelopments of 20 units or more or an FSA of 1,700sqm or higher is based upon modelling undertaken by Council’s consultant. The 30% target for the Bays Precinct, however, is based upon a resolution of Council. At the time of the Policy’s release, insufficient information was available to Council about the plans for the Bays Precinct, including its residential component. Council has indicated its intention of conducting a feasibility study with respect to affordable housing targets once sufficient information on the Bays Precinct plan has been released by the State government.

No. --

Date: 21 Feb 2017

Source: Individual

Response:

· Community consultation – The submission contends that consultation relating to the Policy was inadequate and that “(i)f Council is to truly represent the views of residents, consultation on issues of such importance must be authentic”. The submission calls on Council to (a) re-exhibit the policy (b) hold a public forum to explain the policy and its relationship to the State government’s rezoning proposals and (c) distribute leaflets to residents which provide information on the policy and advertise the forum. While Council has followed standard procedure in inviting submissions from the public during an exhibition period and using its resources such as eNews to publicise the exhibition period, ways of communicating more effectively including the use of public forums, should be explored.

· Overdevelopment – The submission asks “(w)hy is Council proposing 14 storey unit blocks for low income residents when more studies are showing that this lifestyle has health risks?” Concerns about overdevelopment are certainly legitimate. However it should be noted that the Policy is not proposing higher densities in any of the Council’s postcodes. Rather its mission was to establish the feasibility of applying affordable housing targets to various zones and sites across Council. For a more detailed response to this issue, refer to the response provided to the Save Dully Action Group’s concern about Policy and overdevelopment directly below.

No. -

Date: 21 Feb 2017

Source: Save Dully Action Group

Response:

· Overdevelopment – The view was expressed that the Policy either proposes or encourages overdevelopment which would have a detrimental impact on the liveability and heritage in Dulwich Hill. In response we would like to emphasise that the Policy makes no such proposal regarding higher densities in any of the Council’s postcodes.

The purpose of the Policy was to examine the cost of residential redevelopment within the former council areas of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt in order to determine affordable housing targets that were feasible with respect to land and construction costs. The 15% affordable housing target applying to rezoned industrial land or major residential redevelopment sites with a GFA exceeding 1,700 square metres was determined after extensive modelling throughout the LGA.

It is Inner West Council’s existing LEPs relating to Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt that set out both the aims of local environmental planning provisions for land as well as the kinds of redevelopment and densities permitted within the LGA’s various land zones. In addition, variations to existing planning controls is a matter for Council to determine in keeping with the parameters of local environmental planning provisions.

The scope of the Policy did not extend to evaluating existing LEPs or DCPs nor did it extend to the evaluation of State controlled projects such as the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor or the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. Council’s evaluations of such projects are incorporated in Council’s submissions to the State government with respect to such major urban redevelopment projects.

· Loss of affordable housing – The loss of affordable housing through redevelopment and the need for Council as the consent authority to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing within the LGA was also expressed in this submission. Council would like to emphasise its determination to apply the provisions in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and implement a social impact process to help preserve existing stocks of affordable housing. A detailed response to a specific development within Dulwich Hills that threatens to reduce affordable housing provision will be provided in due course to the group.

· Expanding the range of actions – The submission recommended an extension of measures, including demand-side actions, to increase the availability of affordable housing. These included demand-side initiatives. Attachment B contains an assessment of the (former) Leichhardt Council’s Housing Action Plan’s strategies and actions. This assessment constitutes part of the endeavour to extend the affordable housing ‘toolkit’. This document will inform the development of Council’s proposed 5-10 year Housing Action Plan. Consideration to adding specific demand- side initiatives, such as changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, will also form part of this exercise.

· Linkage to infrastructure contributions – The submission notes that the “NSW Government is proposing a special infrastructure contribution from development. It is not clear whether both your target, and the government's levy, are chasing the same pot of money and what the final outcome would be.” Clarification about this issue will be sought from State authorities and the findings will be conveyed to the group.

No. -

Date: 14 Mar 2017

Source: Urbanesque Planning P/L

Response:

· The submission asserts that “(a)ffordable housing policy should be formulated and implemented at state government level”, that it is “essentially a local tax on development for the benefit of the Council” and that “market forces and over-arching state level planning policy should be allowed to shape communities and growth including affordable housing policy”. The evidence underpinning the Policy relating to these assertions, however, generate different conclusions. In particular, the Policy argues that the sharing of land value uplift deriving from planning decisions is not a tax and that the market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households in the LGA. Nor is the market replacing existing housing stock lost through gentrification and redevelopment that is affordable to these groups. These findings provide clear justification for the Inner West Council to actively seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through its planning instruments and policies. It should be noted that this is in keeping with Council’s legislative obligations e.g. Object 5(a)(viii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) relating to ‘the maintenance and provision of affordable housing’ and with pressing community needs.

The seven attachments discussed above can be found in the separate document Attachments to Public Submissions.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Attachment 6: Supplementary Strategies and Actions

Summary of (former) Leichhardt Council’s Strategies and Actions for Delivering Housing Choice and Affordability

Background

On 6 December 2016, Council passed a resolution endorsing the draft Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture.

Item 7 of this resolution commits Council to preparing a “5-10 year housing action plan to implement the Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) based on the Policy’s background data and Best Practice in Value Capture position paper, and drawing on existing Council research and plans.”

Leichhardt Council’s Housing Action Plan 2016 -2025 forms an essential part of existing research and plans.

Prepared by Stacey Miers from SLM Consulting on behalf of Leichhardt Council, the Housing Action Plan (HAP) aimed to address the growing economic and social disparity within Leichhardt and the Sydney metropolitan housing markets, in terms of housing choice and affordability. It explored ways to deliver better housing options and to address current and future unmet housing needs in the Leichhardt local government area.

In addition, the HAP was also undertaken in response to a number of Leichhardt Council resolutions that focussed on housing supply and ways to:

· better deliver housing choice options;

· support the capacity of older residents to age in place;

· address the ongoing problem regarding affordable housing supply, in high-value land areas such as Leichhardt.

As well, the HAP drew upon previous housing work undertaken by Leichhardt Council, in particular its Affordable Housing Strategy adopted in 2009.

Relevant aspects of Marrickville Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy 2009-2011 will also be utilised in the development of the 5-10 year housing action plan.

Assessment of Strategies and Actions in Leichhardt’s HAP

Listed below is an assessment of the various actions contained in each of the HAP’s seven strategies. The actions have been evaluated against four criteria: (a) whether or not they are being addressed by current practice (b) the extent to which they are encompassed by the new policy (c) their relative importance and (d) whether or not the Affordable Housing Officer’s position will require extra resources to implement them. It should be noted that this is a preliminary assessment which will be subject to further review in the light of other existing research and plans, as well as the priorities of the proposed 5-10 year Housing Action Plan.

Strategy 1: Understanding Key Population and Housing Characteristics (Demographic Analysis)

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy - Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by Affordable Housing Officer (AHO)	Notes
Action 1	Council investigate options to better monitor population and housing issues. The aim of this work will be to assist Council in its understanding and response to any long-term economic and social impacts associated with changes in local and regional demographics.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Sources relating to population and housing issues are cited in Background Paper of Affordable Housing Policy (AHP).
Action 2	Council work in collaboration with other councils and Government agencies on creating uniformity across the different ‘housing definitions’ and data collection regimes. The aim of this work is to support a level of consistency regarding the collection of housing data so that any future response to housing supply issues at a regional, subregional and local level can be better understood and addressed.	Yes	Part	Low	Yes	Sources relating to ‘housing definitions’ and data are cited in South Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils’ (SSROC) submission to Greater Sydney Commission on District Plans.
Action 3	Council monitor, document and benchmark approvals for all relevant housing types, including affordable rental housing, diverse living models and aged housing options.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Council has statutory obligation to monitor boarding houses in LGA. Assistance required from Strategic Planning.
Action 4	Council to monitor and report on population change and housing supply shifts in the LGA on an annual basis. Staff will regularly report on data collection results to Council, sub regional partners and the wider community.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Data and analysis of population change and housing supply shifts included in AHP.
Action 5	Council continue to purchase Profile ID Census data analysis and purchase forecasting data to be updated regularly and made available on the Council website.	Yes	Profile ID license purchased.	Profile ID license purchased.	Profile ID license purchased.	Profile.ID’s community profile available on Council’s website.
Action 6	Council to explore the potential to use State Environmental Planning Policy – Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability (2004) to allow for vertical villages in the R1 Residential Zone (or other residential zones). The aim will be to create more innovative options for older residents to age in place.	No	Nil	Medium	Yes	Responsibility to be shared between teams e.g Strategic Planning and Community Services and Culture..

Strategy 2: Addressing Housing Choice and Affordability on Urban Redevelopment Projects

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by AHO	Notes
Action 1	Council to work with other local government and Government agencies aimed at supporting opportunities to deliver a mix of housing types. This work will focus on the development and implementation of a sub-regional policy framework aimed at addressing the identified unmet housing need at a local and regionally level.	Yes	Part	High	No	Council collaborates with SSROC on these issues e.g SSROC’s submission on affordable housing to Greater Sydney Commission on District Plans.
Action 2	Council to develop and implement clear and transparent governance arrangements for addressing identified unmet housing need linked with rezoning, value uplift and density bonuses in connection with Councils Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy.	Yes	Whole	High	Yes	Development of VPA for Inner West Council to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 3	Council aim to deliver a percentage of affordable housing as rental or via a shared equity model in urban renewal sites.	Yes	Whole	High	Yes – likely to be labour intensive for Strategic Planning / AHO	Affordable housing targets cited in AHP. Discussions held with UrbanGrowth and Depart. Planning & Environment re Bays Precinct.
Action 4	Council undertake research to identify governance and financial arrangements required to deliver joint-venture equity projects (or other joint-venture projects).	Yes	Part	High	Yes	Refer to Hay Street Car Park redevelopment. Joint venture partner is Link Housing.
Action 5	Council evaluate any opportunity to support ‘Expression of Interest’ to the Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF) that is consistent with Council polices and would deliver new social and affordable housing dwelling in Leichhardt through either Phase1 or any following phases.	Yes	Part	High	Yes	Refer to Link Housing’s initial application for funding under SAHF re Hay Street Car Park redevelopment.
Action 6	Pending a response from the Department of Planning, Council staff to conclude their assessment on the financial feasibility of developing the air space above the Hay Street Car Park for affordable housing.	Yes	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.

Strategy 3: Mechanisms to Support the Supply of Affordable Housing including Affordable Housing Bonds

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by AHO	Notes
Action 1	Council consider expanding its existing policy position to address housing deficiencies.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Action described in general terms. Partially addressed in AHP.
Action 2	Council identify sites appropriate for redevelopment that would support mixed-use development and address identified deficiencies in respect of key worker housing, student housing, supported living and aged housing and consult with land owners and relevant stakeholders in keeping with Council’s Community Engagement framework.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Action partially addressed in AHP. Current Affordable Rental Housing Program (ARHP) accommodates key workers.
Action 3	Council amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 to include a definition of affordable housing.	No	Part	High	Yes	Following adoption of AHP (28 March 2017) existing LEPs in IWC re affordable housing need to be reviewed.
Action 4	Council continue to work with the Centre for Affordable Housing and other organisations to develop criteria for the allocation of affordable housing funds or dedication of units to community housing providers.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Inquiries have been made re dedication of units to community housing providers in local redevelopments.
Action 5	Council to develop governance arrangements for an affordable housing fund to manage the collection of funds and expenditure … dedicated for affordable housing.	Clarification required.	Clarification required.	Clarification required.	Clarification required.	At a NSW parliamentary inquiry In 2014, Marrickville Council proposed a three per cent levy on property developers that would apply to dwellings of more than $200,000 and be similar to existing schemes such as the successful City of Sydney and Willoughby models.
Action 6	Pending a response from the Department of Planning, Council staff to conclude their assessment on the financial feasibility of developing the air space above the Hay Street Car Park for affordable housing.	Yes	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.	Joint venture with Link Housing underway.	Same as Draft Strategy 2, Action 6 above.
Action 7	That Council continue to seek the support of Inner City Mayors to prioritise a study on: · The broader social and community impacts regarding the lack of affordable housing in the inner city region, · The economic impact (costs) to business, · The development of affordable housing bond guarantees. The impact on the health and wellbeing of key workers in connection with limited affordable housing in the inner city region.	No	Nil	Low	No	Clarification required. Refer to Facilitating Affordable Housing Supply in Inner City Sydney: A Case Study of 22 Inner City Sites, Prepared for Housing Affordability Fund on behalf of Inner City Mayors’ Forum, 29 July 2011. SSROC undertakes studies into some of these issues.
Action 8	Council develop strategic guidelines to underpin its relationship with affordable housing providers. The guidelines should outline Council role and responsibilities regarding affordable housing allocation, tenancy eligibility and property management.	Yes	Part	High	No	Guidelines on Council’s responsibilities regarding affordable housing allocation, tenancy eligibility and property management set out in Affordable Housing Management Agreement relating to Lewisham affordable housing units.
Action 9	Council to continue its work with SSROC towards the development of a briefing paper on “Affordable Housing Bonds”.	No	Nil	Medium	No	Status of SSROC’s inquiry into Affordable Housing Bonds to be determined.
Action 10	Council prepares a report on the feasibility and possible application of “Affordable Housing Bonds Guarantees in collaboration with other council's.	No	Nil	Medium	No	No direct cost if report prepared by SSROC.
Action 11	Council to work with other councils to lobby State and Federal Government to support funding arrangements, which encourage investment opportunities to deliver affordable housing options.	Yes	Part	High	No	Refer to SSROC’s submission on affordable housing to Greater Sydney Commission on District Plans. Also Commonwealth Government's recent announcement to establish a ‘bond aggregator’ i.e. establish an independent finance body to attract large scale private investment in social and affordable housing.

Strategy 4: Support the introduction of Affordable Housing Targets

Potential Actions

Action No.

Action Description

Current Practice

In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil

Priority - High, Medium, Low

Extra Resources Required by AHO

Notes

Action 1

Council work with the other Councils and the NSW State Government and statutory bodies on the inclusion of affordable housing targets linked to income as a subset of the broader housing supply targets for inclusion in metropolitan, regional, subregional and district plans.

Yes

Whole

High

Yes

Refer to SSROC’s submission as well as Council’s submission on affordable housing to Greater Sydney Commission on District Plans.

Action 2

Council develop and implement a methodology for delivering housing choice and affordable housing targets as a subset of broader housing supply targets.

Yes

Whole

High

Methodology incorporated in AHP.

Strategy 5: A Framework for Leichhardt to Deliver Affordable Housing Supply into the Future

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by AHO	Notes
Action 1	Council review its Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) to include objectives and clauses for affordable housing, thus creating the necessary linkages with State Environmental Planning Policy 70 – Affordable Housing (Revise Schemes) (2002) in which Leichhardt Council is identified as needing affordable housing.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Council’s Affordable Housing Working Group (AHWG) has discussed requirements for a revised LEP in light of Council’s application for inclusion in SEPP 70. Strategic Planning to undertake this work, which is likely to be labour and time intensive. (The reality is that although planning controls can be selectively reviewed at any time, in general the full LEP is only likely to be replaced every 10 years or so.)
Action 2	Council undertake a review of its Housing Policy (and associated planning controls) on a five yearly basis.	Yes	Nil	Medium	Yes	Marrickville’s Affordable Housing Strategy 2011 was reviewed during late 2015/early 2016. Leichhardt’s Housing Action Plan currently under review. Both reviews will inform development of 5-10 Housing Action Plan.
Action 3	Council amend its Development Control Plan 2013 to include affordable housing contribution rates.	No	Nil	N/A	N/A	DCPs do not have contribution rates.
Action 4	Council complete its Section 94 review to include a contribution plan to support affordable housing options.	No. (This can only be done if we have the inclusionary zoning).	Nil	Medium	No	Future review of s94 plans associated with three former councils discussed by AHWG. Review to be undertaken by Strategic Planning with assistance from a consultant. (At the moment legally s94 plans cannot collect funds for affordable housing).
Action 5	Council work with the NSW State Government to introduce affordable housing targets.	Yes	Part	High	Yes	Refer to SSROC’s submission on affordable housing to Greater Sydney Commission re District Plans. Discussions with Depart. Planning & Environment have also been held re targets and Council’s SEPP 70 application.
Action 6	Council work with the NSW State Government to introduce a framework that would permit local government to deliver on identified affordable housing targets.	Yes	Part	High	Yes	Refer to Strategy 5, Action 5 immediately above.

Strategy 6: Ways to Facilitate Housing Choice & Affordability

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by AHO	Notes
Action 1	Council continue its work with other councils in requesting that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment include additional housing types (as defined in the Standard Instrument LEP land use matrix) with the aim of delivering broader housing choice.	No	Part	Medium	Yes	SSROC could assist with pursuing this action. To be undertaken in partnership with Strategic Planning.
Action 2	Council continue to work with other councils in calling on the NSW Government to introduce Sydney wide diverse living targets and to support the development of planning mechanisms to deliver better housing choice.	No	Part	Medium	Yes	SSROC could assist with pursuing this action. To be undertaken in partnership with Strategic Planning.
Action 3	Council to identify aspirational benchmarks/targets per capita for diverse dwelling types. The aim is to deliver more housing choice options (including housing for older people, supported living, student housing, key workers and people employed in creative industries).	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Some benchmarks included in AHP. Refer to 2.9, Key Performance Indicators.
Action 4	Council will continue to develop a framework to supply secondary dwellings/laneway housing in line with clear design principles for inclusion in Leichhardt DCP. The design principles will address issues such as; laneway accessibility, sight line provisions, urban design, heritage and conservation concerns, garbage disposal, lot size, solar access and parking.	Yes	Nil	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning as part of preparation of the new IWC DCP.
Action 5	Councils Section 94 contributions plan should be reviewed to ensure that secondary dwellings/laneway housing are a separate development category that is reflective of the lower development impacts associated with this form of dwelling.	Yes	Nil	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning. Refer to Strategy 5, Action 4 above.
Action 6	Council should review its planning controls to assess the potential to deliver ‘Manor Houses’ and ‘Multi-Dwelling Housing’ with the goal of expanding housing choice options.	No	Nil	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 7	Council should continue its work with Universities and other relevant institutions to develop best practice examples and principles in addressing housing supply impacts and urban design issues.	No	Nil	Low	Yes	Project to be undertaken with assistance from Strategic Planning.
Action 8	Council to develop a policy that provides standards and guidance on boarding house development applications for both applicants and staff. In line with this work, staff should review Leichhardt Development Control Plan (2013) with regard to Boarding House amenity and design standards.	Yes	Part	Medium	Yes	Applicable to IWC. Project to be undertaken with assistance from Strategic Planning.

Strategy 7: Identified Key Strategic Sites, Centres and Corridors with the Opportunities to Deliver Housing Choice and Diversity

Potential Actions

Action No.	Action Description	Current Practice	In New Policy – Whole, Part, Nil	Priority - High, Medium, Low	Extra Resources Required by AHO	Notes
Action 1	Council continue its Strategic Sites, Centres and Corridors study.	Yes	Part	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 2	Council to identify and adopt criteria (including distance from major transport nodes, access to open space and community infrastructure) in its strategic plans and planning controls to facilitate housing diversity in appropriate locations.	Yes	Part	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 3	Council to identify sites that have the potential to provide viable housing options for older residents.	Yes	Part	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 4	Council Officers will continue to seek opportunities to deliver aged housing along the ridgelines within walking distance of the high street shops and essential services. The location of aged housing in such locations would provide older residents with the option of continuing to live within the municipality and age in place.	Yes	Part	Medium	No	Project to be undertaken by Strategic Planning.
Action 5	Council will advocate that the NSW Government and statutory bodies deliver affordable rental housing and diverse living models in accordance with evidence-based benchmarks in the Bays Precinct and other urban renewal projects.	Yes	Part	High	Yes	Discussions with UrbanGrowth and Depart. Planning & Environment on Bays Precinct have taken place. Further discussions are to be arranged.
Action 6	Council should work with relevant NSW State Government and statutory bodies on redevelopment opportunities to include affordable housing in identified sites/precincts.	Yes	Whole	High	No	Discussion with Depart. Planning & Environment re inclusion in SEPP 70 currently underway.
Action 7	Council to advocate for a ratio of 40% private, 30% affordable and 30% social housing on urban renewal project on government owned land.	No	No	Refer to notes.	No	Refer to affordable housing targets applying to urban renewal areas and government owned land.
Action 8	Council to advocate that any social housing redevelopment project result in no net loss in social housing dwellings.	Yes	Whole	High	No	Preventing net loss of affordable and social housing dwellings incorporated in AHP.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 4

Subject: Addressing Domestic and Family Violence in the Inner West

File Ref: 17/4718/27897.17

Prepared By: Joe Banno - Acting Team Leader, Community Planning and Development

Authorised By: Erla Ronan - Group Manager Community Services and Culture

SUMMARY

This report provides an update on Council’s partnerships with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence across the Inner West Local Government Area. Domestic and family violence is a significant community safety issue, a principle local policing issue and a major concern for wellbeing.

Initial outcomes from the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign, Love Bites, the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project and White Ribbon Day have seen positive early results and this report recommends Council continue to support these initiatives on an annual basis for four years as part of the Operational Plan for 17/18, 18/19 19/20 and 20/21 to the value of $78,000. Such a commitment will strengthen Council’s existing community partnerships and support Council’s role as a leader in community education and help to reduce incidences of domestic and family violence.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Noting that Inner West Council is working in partnership with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence, that the following priorities are funded in the 4-year Operational Plan 17/18, 18/19 19/20 and 20/21.

a. $20,000 program funding annually to continue and expand the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

b. $15,000 program funding annually to continue the delivery of the Love Bites program in local secondary schools across the Inner West

c. $25,000 program funding annually to support Council’s significant partnership in guiding the implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project

2. Noting the partnerships between Inner West Council and the three Police Local Area Commands to present White Ribbon Day, that Council allocate $18,000 annually for four years as program funding to continue Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, the three local Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees to deliver local White Ribbon Day events.

BACKGROUND

Providing community leadership in community safety is an important responsibility of Council. Through local community partnerships Council is able to work towards creating a safe community for everyone.

Domestic and family violence is a significant community safety issue in the Inner West Local Government Area (LGA). Information provided by local Police Local Area Commands indicates the prevalence of domestic and family violence across our community. In the Leichhardt Local Area Command, Officers have reported that domestic violence is the number one contributing factor to all assaults. In the Marrickville Local Area Command, Officers have reported that domestic violence is the most resource intensive category of work with almost 40% of assaults being domestic violence related.

Inner West Council works in partnership with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations in addressing domestic and family violence across the Inner West LGA, including;

· Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre

· Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee

· Inner West Domestic Violence Liaison Committee

· Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Area Commands

· Inner West Love Bites

· National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN)

· White Ribbon

· Local sporting groups

· Local businesses

Through these partnerships Council aims to collectively bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

Discussion - Outcomes Achieved Through Current Initiatives

Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

The Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign is Council’s partnership with Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre to raise community awareness about respectful relationships and the prevention of domestic and family violence and the abuse of children. The campaign also provides information to assist people to access support and services.

The former Leichhardt Council resolved to make use of Council work and industrial vehicles to promote health and wellbeing campaigns (C367/14 October 2014). Following from this, the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign was developed, and Council resolved to allocate $10,000 to promotional materials (C635/15) and a further $10,000 for staff to implement phase two of campaign (C46/16).) The promotional campaign included posters, street flags, street banners, bus stop advertisements, outdoor pull-up banners, stickers, and Keep Cups (re-usable coffee cups). Promotional material was distributed locally to schools, businesses, sporting groups and religious organisations.

Social media was used widely to support the campaign.

Effectiveness of the Campaign

Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre experienced a 58% increase in domestic violence as a presenting issue in clinics and counselling. The centre attributes this to the local awareness campaign re-enforcing national messages. The centre has subsequently been successful in obtaining additional grant funding to continue and expand their work to support women experiencing domestic and family violence. The centre has advised that the most effective and useful Speak Out phase two promotional resources were street flags, banners, and promotional posters and flyers for high street businesses and community organisation distribution.

It is proposed that Council build on the success of the promotional campaign, and invest $20,000 annually to facilitate the development of new promotional materials with Inner West Council branding over the next 4 years. This investment will build on the success, visibility and momentum of the campaign commenced in 2016, and spread the message across Inner West Local Government Area.

Love Bites

In February 2016, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to allocate $15,000 to NAPCAN, (in consultation and collaboration with the Inner West Love Bites) to fund the delivery of Love Bites training to 400 young people in the Leichhardt area during 2016 (C46/16).

Love Bites is an interactive school-based domestic, family and relationship violence and sexual assault prevention education program aimed at young people aged 14 – 16 years.

The program is delivered in schools through a collaborative network of trained service providers from local organisations, known as Love Bites facilitators. Training is provided by NAPCAN. In the Inner West, Love Bites is co-ordinated and delivered by Inner West Love Bites. Inner West Love Bites is a working group of the Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee. Rozelle Neighbourhood Centre is the lead organisation.

Council’s funding allocation of $15,000 delivered the program to 408 students across the Inner West as indicated in Table 1 (refer to Attachment 1). There was an overwhelmingly positive response to the 2016 program by participating students, with only one participant reporting that they did not think that Love Bites applies to real life.

This report proposes a continued annual investment by Council of $15,000 per year over four years to support students to be educated and creatively engaged in bringing about generational change to end domestic and family violence. This annual investment will also support key relationships with community partners in this effort.

Inner West Respectful Relationship Project

In April 2016, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to allocated $25,000 to scope and plan a partnership between Leichhardt Council, Ashfield Council, Marrickville Council and NAPCAN to create generational change to end domestic and family violence (C204/16).

The Inner West Respectful Relationship Project draws on the support across the Inner West Council (Ashfield Council (MM9/2016), Leichhardt Council (C204/16) and Marrickville Council (C0316 Item 1)) to create generational change to end domestic and family violence in our community by providing every child and young person in the Inner West LGA with the opportunity to participate in respectful relationships education.

Inner West Council has partnered with NAPCAN and formed a community steering group to undertake community consultation and scope the development and implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project. The project steering group includes representation from:

· Inner West Council (Community Development)

· Inner West Council (Children’s Services)

· Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre

· Department of Education

· Inner West Love Bites (Rozelle Neighbourhood Centre)

· NAPCAN

· Western Sydney University (Centre for Educational Research)

· Metro Assist

· Eaton Street Centre / Leichhardt OSHC Network.

Community consultation and engagement has been undertaken by NAPCAN and the project steering group as part of the project scoping phase, mapping existing education and prevention initiatives being undertaken by local schools and organisations (ensuring the project complements rather than replaces existing initiatives) as well as identifying the needs for and interest in participating in respectful relationships education.

The outcome of the scoping phase will be a practical implementation plan to guide the facilitation of opportunities for all children and young people to participate in respectful relationships education. At the time of writing this report NAPCAN had not produced the final scoping study report.

A progress report prepared by NAPCAN in December 2016 (refer to Attachment 2) outlines the significance of this project in light of local, state and national interest and momentum for the prevention of domestic and family violence and respectful relationship education.

In order to facilitate Council’s ongoing commitment to community safety as well as bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships, a $25,000 annual investment from Council over four years is proposed. This will support the priorities of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project, assist in maintaining local, state and national interest and momentum and build a culture of respect and self-regulated behaviour.

White Ribbon Day

White Ribbon is Australia's male-led campaign to prevent men's violence against women. The campaign culminates each year with White Ribbon Day on 25 November (also known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women). White Ribbon Day is acknowledged by local community groups and businesses across Australia through awareness raising activities and events. Men and women are called to wear a white ribbon or wristband as a visual symbol of their commitment and take the White Ribbon Oath (I will stand up, speak out and act to prevent men’s violence against women. This is my Oath).

The former Ashfield Council worked in partnership with local community organisations, Ashfield Local Area Command and key member organisations of the Inner West Domestic Violence Liaison Committee to host a local White Ribbon Day event. The former Ashfield Council has previously committed $5,000 to White Ribbon Day.

In December 2015, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to host a White Ribbon Day event in 2016 (C635/15). Further to this, in February 2016 the former Leichhardt Council allocated $10,000 to develop the event in consultation with Leichhardt Local Area Command and the Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee. (C46/16)

The former Marrickville Council worked in partnership with local organisations to support an annual White Ribbon Day event by providing assistance and in-kind support to develop, promote and help operate the event, including personnel. The event, a collaboration of local service providers who work with children and/or family members experiencing domestic and family violence, including Marrickville Local Area Command, has been led by Metro Assist.

In 2016, Inner West Council partnered with key local community organisations, each of the three the Local Area Commands across the Inner West LGA (Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville) and member organisations of the two local domestic violence committees to present a series of three localised events to mark White Ribbon Day and encourage members of the community to take the White Ribbon Oath. These events are outlined in Table 2 (refer to Attachment 3).

White Ribbon Day in Rozelle was presented in partnership with Leichhardt Local Area Command and supported by Rotary, Youth Off the Streets and other local organisations.

White Ribbon Day in Marrickville was led by Metro Assist in partnership with Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, Marrickville Local Area Command and other local organisations.

White Ribbon Day in Summer Hill was presented in partnership with Ashfield Local Area Command, Metro Assist, Youth Off the Streets and The Infants Home.

White Ribbon Day provides important opportunities to engage the wider community in interactive awareness raising activities and events that encourage people to stand up, speak out and act to prevent men’s violence against women. In order to continue Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees for White Ribbon Day, an $18,000 annual investment from Council over four years is proposed.

This investment will allow Council to build on the success of the 2016 White Ribbon events and build further local partnerships that continue Council and the community’s efforts to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report recommends that Council include annual funding of $78,000 in the 4-year Operational Plan 17/18, 18/19 19/20 and 20/21 to support the following programs:

1. $20,000 program funding annually to continue and expand the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

2. $15,000 program funding annually to continue the delivery of the Love Bites program in local secondary schools across the Inner West

3. $25,000 program funding annually to support Council’s significant partnership in guiding the implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project

4. $18,000 program funding annually to continue Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, the three local Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees to deliver local White Ribbon Day events.

5. All programs will be evaluated to assess impacts and outcomes in order to inform ongoing partnerships and investment.

CONCLUSION

Inner West Council is well placed to provide a leadership role in addressing domestic and family violence in our community. Council has developed partnerships with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence. These partnerships support community wellbeing and are aligned with Priority 3 of the Inner West Council Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities - Social Vitality, Creativity, Quality of Life.

Local partnership programs and initiatives including the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign, Love Bites, the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project and White Ribbon Day enable Council and the community work together to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Table 1: Inner West Love Bites – Workshops Delivered in 2016
2.⇩	Inner West Respectful Relationships Project - Scoping Phase Update
3.⇩	Table 2: Inner West White Ribbon Day Events – 2016

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 5

Subject: Council response to Draft Central District Plan

File Ref: 17/4718/26983.17

Prepared By: Kieren Lawson - Student Town Planner

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report discusses the draft Central District Plan (draft Plan) prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC). The draft Plan is on public exhibition until 31 March 2017. The draft Plan is generally supported and will provide much needed planning direction that does not presently exist at this level for councils. This report recommends that Council make a submission on the draft Plan seeking amendments that will strengthen the final Plan primarily in respect of infrastructure provision, the orderly delivery of new housing, provision of affordable housing and environmental outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Receive and note this report;

2. Make a submission on the Draft Central District Plan based on the contents of this report.

BACKGROUND

The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) released six draft District Plans for Greater Sydney on 23November 2016. The draft Plans aim to facilitate well-coordinated, integrated and effective planning for land use, transport and infrastructure across the Greater Sydney Region over the next 20 years. The Inner West Council (Council) area is located within the Central District, which also comprises Sydney City and surrounding inner suburban areas extending westwards to the Strathfield local government area. This report outlines comments from Council officers concerning the draft Plan. The report follows the structure of the draft Plan and provides comments under the relevant headings, as follows:

1. Role and implementation of the draft plan

2. A Productive City

3. A Liveable City

4. A Sustainable City

A copy of the draft Plan is publicly available at: http://www.greater.sydney/central-district

A detailed submission based on the contents of this report will be forwarded to the GSC by 31 March 2017.At the LRAC meeting on 14 March 2017, the contents of this report were supported with the following resolution concerning the inclusion of the following matters within Council’s submission:

1. The policy positions of the former Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville Councils in respect of the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy, and the Bays Precinct Renewal Project.

2. References to Sydney’s beautiful and natural resources and assets such as our harbor, heritage, waterways, parks, greenspace and industries where these have not adequately addressed.

DISCUSSION

1. Role and Implementation of the draft Plan

Part 1.1 of the draft Plan identifies the role of district planning as being the middle level of planning, connecting local planning measures with metropolitan planning for the Greater Sydney Region. It is agreed that there is a critical for this level of planning to be provided given the failure of the last sub regional plans to progress beyond draft stage in 2008. However, the main criticism of the current draft Plan is that in many respects the level of detail it contains is more akin to that which would be in a metropolitan level plan.

The draft Plan was expected to provide a clear link between the broad strategic direction for metropolitan Sydney provided by A Plan for Growing Sydney and local level planning. This linking is integral for newly amalgamated councils that require a new local environmental plan to be prepared that will be required to be supported by district level analyses, evidence and guidance to inform and best shape districts from a productivity, livability and sustainability perspective. This simply has not eventuated as the focus of the draft Plan does not provide the anticipated level of guidance to local planning.

Specifically, much of the directions and actions are indirect, ambiguous and in most areas identify opportunities without clear metrics or targets. Council’s submission will recommend that the final District Plan include more details, targets and direction on all its key elements particularly with regard to land use, transport and infrastructure. Higher level information and direction should be limited to the new Metropolitan Plan which is to be finalised concurrently with the District Plans.

A key component of the vision for the Central District and in all of the three principle themes within the draft Plan (Productivity, Liveability, and Sustainability) is the need for an efficient and sustainable transport system within the Central District. In this regard, the draft Plan identifies a wide range of current and planned transport infrastructure. Excluded from these projects/initiatives is the guided electric vehicle system for Parramatta Road that has been endorsed by the joint Inner West Council/Canada Bay Council study. Detailed independent analyses undertaken for this transport option have found it to be superior to the rapid bus system currently proposed by the State Government and should be identified as a matter for further investigation in the draft Plan.

The Parramatta Road corridor as it stands is symbolic of chronic underinvestment by the State in public transport and private sector. Such a transformative piece of infrastructure would reposition this key transport corridor, would align with the Government’s intent to renew and revitalise land uses and act as a catalyst for private investment to remodel and enhance quality of the urban environment along Parramatta Road.

A copy of the Council study will be included with Council’s submission.

2. A Productive City

The draft Plan identifies the high level of both public and private investment that is presently occurring within the Central District. Part 3 on ‘A Productive City’ identifies the major urban renewal projects in the district, with particular projects such as The Bays Precinct; Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor; and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy taking place across the Inner West Council area. The draft Plan notes that the high levels of investment in these urban renewal precincts offer a rare opportunity to maximise infrastructure contributions.

In December 2016, Infrastructure Australia identified that existing funding options for infrastructure is unable to provide sufficient funding to meet future infrastructure needs. In this regard, the draft Plan makes reference to the potential for value capture to fund infrastructure demands. However, unlike affordable housing, no metric is provided in the draft Plan for value capture. Accordingly, there is a high likelihood that the current growth phase will end prior to the resolution of a value capture mechanism and Council recommends that a value capture mechanism from the Infrastructure Australia’s December 2016 Report be adopted and applied via the District Plan for the major renewal precincts and corridors to provide adequate funding for housing, recreation, infrastructure and public services in the district.

The support to grow innovation and creative industries under Productivity Priority 2 is another key focus area for Council. This priority aims to provide flexibility in land use zones for creative industries, providing affordable space for creative hubs, enhancing synergies and connectivity between health and education facilities and supporting opportunities for a diversity of housing choices. This priority is also highlighted by Council under our draft Statement of Vision and Priorities, which advocates for the retention of industrial lands (Priority 1), improving access to affordable housing (also Priority 1) and supporting innovative and creative industries (Priority 6). It is considered that this aspect of the draft Plan could be further strengthened with a clear direction that no further rezoning of industrially zoned land to non-employment zoned uses should be supported in the Inner West area until an urban strategy and supporting local housing strategy has been finalised. It is also considered that the emerging Sydenham Creative Hub project (that recently received Gateway determination) should be identified within the draft Plan as an example of how to manage changes in employment trends and promote creativity industry hubs.

Council’s submission recommends officers include the need to fund public art and place making programs within urban renewal precincts (a proportion of which pays adequate attention to the working history of sites such as the Rozelle Goods Yard, Balmain Power Station etc.). There is also a need to extend the Camperdown-Ultimo Education and Health precinct (see Figure 3.1, p.34 of the draft Plan) to include the Camperdown Precinct of the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS).

The draft District Plan also identifies the importance of protecting and managing employment and urban services land from the pressures of rezoning to retail and residential uses. Such rezonings have the potential to have longer term growth and productivity implications for Greater Sydney. In this regard, the draft Plan recommends that planning authorities take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment and urban services lands unless there is a clear direction in the regional plan, the District Plan or an alternate strategy endorsed by councils.

Another priority highlighted in the draft District Plan is improving 30-minute access to jobs and services given that traffic congestion and parking is an important issue that the Central District community wants addressed. The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) undertake to collaborate with Transport for NSW and the relevant stakeholders to maximize the economic and land use opportunities created by investment in transport infrastructure and to integrate land use and transport outcomes. At a local level there is also a need to provide walking and cycling infrastructure to improve access throughout the district to support this outcome.

It is noted that there are nine strategic/district centres nominated within the draft Plan. These centres are focus areas for future productivity and investment. It is unclear within the draft Plan as to what the thresholds are and the methodology used to identify these centres. In this context, Council’s submission should query the role of the Ashfield Town Centre in particular as a potential district centre, particularly as similar sized centres that provide a comparable function (eg. Campsie) have been identified as District Centres with little justification. As does Campsie, Ashfield is also a population-serving centre that plays an important role in supporting the District’s productivity, vibrancy and accessibility.

The status of the Camperdown industrial lands within the former Leichhardt and Marrickville local government areas bordering Parramatta Road is not clearly addressed within the draft Plan. Specifically, under the PRUTS this land has been identified for future employment uses. This was on the basis of representations made by Council as part of the PRUTS consultation process after it was initially identified for housing intensification. However, in the draft Plan this area is included within the housing capacity targets (p.96-97) and is loosely identified within the Camperdown-Ultimo Health and Education Collaboration Precinct. To assist strategic planning for this area this conflict must be clarified in the final Plan.

3. A Liveable City

The draft Plan outlines housing targets for the Central District with 5-year and 20-year housing delivery targets. Whilst Council appreciates the need for specific targets on housing supply, the way in which the targets are presented is unclear. The main reason for this is that the targets have been subject to multiple revisions between overlapping Metropolitan and regional plans. For example, Table 4-3 of the draft Plan provides a housing target of 157,500 for the Central District and 725,000 for Greater Sydney (p. 93), whereas the metropolitan plan sets a target of 664,000 by 2031 (see page 65 of A Plan for Growing Sydney). This is a consequence of changing variables such as immigration and lifestyle choices (such as occupancy rates) and demonstrates the limitations of planning for targets over a long time frame.

There is also an inadequacy in the identification of housing numbers that will be achieved within identified urban renewal precincts as well as that which councils have previously planned as part of their current Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plans. These factors combined create a misleading picture of the actual demand and supply situation in local government areas which can lead to inappropriate and unnecessary planning proposals for residential development.

Greater clarity is required over the 5 and 20-year housing forecasts and how they relate to major renewal precincts such as Parramatta Road and the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor. Specifically, in the latter instance there has not been a demonstrable case made that the new transport infrastructure (Metro line) is creating additional capacity to justify an increase in the population of the Marrickville and Dulwich Hill centres. In explanation, the fact that there will be a more frequent service does not mean that capacity will be greater particularly at the eastern end of the extension and with substantial increases in residential density proposed to the west in Canterbury and Bankstown.

It should also be noted that as part of the MLEP 2011 process urban design studies of the Marrickville and Dulwich Hill centres were undertaken that led to increases in residential densities. These studies carefully balanced the need to preserve the character of these centres with the need for increased housing densities. As part of its involvement in the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy Council officers have consistently drawn this to the attention of the DP&E. In this regard, whilst some modifications have been made to the scale of development proposed, overall, the scale of development proposed is still excessive. This is reflected in the strong opposition to the strategy from the local community (particularly the Dulwich Hill community).

Accordingly, the draft District Plan should be amended to provide more clarity around the rationale for increased density in renewal corridors where these are linked to new transport infrastructure. Final decisions on the extent of residential rezonings should be done through the proposed local housing strategies where a proper evaluation of the impacts of increased densities can be determined.

Action L1 (Section 4.3.1 of the draft Plan) requires councils (in collaboration with GSC/DPE) to develop local housing strategies that respond to the stated housing targets. The development of local housing strategies is supported however given the extent of development that the Inner West area is currently experiencing, it is considered that new major planning proposals should be limited to designated precincts/corridors where adequate analyses and supporting infrastructure plans are in place and that changes outside of these designated areas are not pursued until such a strategy is in place. This would enable the development of targeted value capture mechanisms to fund infrastructure and an evaluation of the actual demand and supply for housing to be undertaken. Furthermore, the desire to accelerate housing supply must be cross-referenced with all other land use needs, especially employment so that strategic, district and local planning is not solely driven by housing supply demands.

Liveability Priority 2 identifies the need for housing diversity across the Central District ‘to respond to the needs of the existing and future local housing markets, and deliver quality design outcomes for both buildings and places’ (p. 100). Whilst the focus on high quality design is important it is considered that the main liveability focus in this area needs to be on the provision of adaptable and affordable housing. Adaptable and affordable housing are pivotal to maintaining the existing character and urban brand of “Sydney’s Inner West”, where planning and development balances gentrification and investment with maintaining diversity and affordability for the community. In this regard, the current 5-10% target of affordable housing is considered inadequate and should be adjusted on a district by district basis to reflect the different circumstances of each.

It is recommended that the GSC adopt the resolutions from Council’s December 2016 meeting (under Item 7), including commitment to a minimum 15% affordable housing target for the Inner West Council area. This commitment was reaffirmed by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 28 March 2017 where it resolved to endorse its draft Affordable Housing Policy for exhibition. Councils draft policy implements a mandatory 15 percent affordable housing contribution on certain development.

Other priorities identified for a liveable city include facilitating the delivery of safe and healthy places; facilitating enhanced walking and cycling connections; conserving heritage and unique local characteristics; and fostering the creative arts and culture (which requires affordable housing for artists and creative practitioners who can be financially vulnerable however play a vital component of a creative ecosystem). These priorities must be considered by the relevant planning authority when developing and / or assessing planning proposals.

4. A Sustainable City

Sustainability Priorities 1-3 of the draft Plan focus on protecting and improving our waterways and delivering Sydney’s Green Grid. Council officers support these measures; however a greater focus should be made on improving not just “protecting” the District’s waterways.

Improved access to Sydney’s foreshore along the Balmain Peninsula is supported as this would contribute to the expansion and delivery of Sydney’s Green Grid. However there may be challenges when negotiating rights of way where access is limited due to private ownership.

The priority projects listed on page 141 of the draft Plan to achieve Iron Cove Greenway and Cooks River Open Space Corridor is supported, however it is noted that there is a mapping error that excludes Callan Park, Rozelle from this corridor. This space is the largest park in the Council area and one of our most significant parklands, supporting the Iron Cove Greenway and Cooks River Open Space Corridor. These existing recreational spaces, combined with additional recreation spaces provided as part of major urban renewal precincts (e.g. The Bays Precinct, Parramatta Road) must support a variety of inclusive recreational uses.

The draft Plan highlights the importance of protecting, enhancing and extending the urban canopy when developing strategic plans. These priorities are supported by Council staff and are already reflected in a number of Council policies such as the Urban Forest Strategy and the Street Tree Master Plan which establish Council's commitment to the holistic management of the urban forest.

The draft Plan adopts the United Nations Paris Agreement objective of net-zero emissions by 2050 which is supported. However, it is considered the means by which this is achieved should comprise a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The draft Plan also advocates the development of environmental performance targets and benchmarks. This action is supported provided the targets and benchmarks established facilitate the delivery of world class urban renewal.

The draft Plan recognises the need to support opportunities for district waste management. Resource management and waste recovery infrastructure is a key component of supporting additional residential development, particularly within identified growth areas. A focus on innovation, including on site or locally based waste management facilities, is required to ensure that waste management is part of an integrated solution which supports environmental sustainability. The retention of industrial land is also critical to the provision of adequate waste management facilities to support the growing population.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments on the draft Central District Plan were received from all relevant staff / areas of Council including Business Relations, Economic Development, Strategic Planning, Community Services, Environmental Services, Parks and Reserves, and Resource Recovery.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public consultation of the draft Plan is being undertaken by the Greater Sydney Commission with the exhibition closing on 31 March 2017.

CONCLUSION

This report is generally supportive of the draft Central District Plan on the basis that it will provide strategic planning direction for Council in key areas. However, the main criticism of the current draft Plan is that in many respects the level of detail it contains is more akin to that which would be in a metropolitan level plan.

Specifically, much of the directions and actions are indirect, ambiguous and in most areas identify opportunities without clear metrics or targets. This report recommends that Council make a submission on the draft Plan seeking amendments that address key issues including infrastructure provision, the orderly delivery of new housing, affordable housing provision and environmental outcomes.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

General Note on District Plans - GSC - November 2016

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 6

Subject: Planning Proposal Request - 183 & 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham

File Ref: PDA201600077/334.17

Prepared By: Maxine Bayley - Strategic Planner

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

Council has received a planning proposal request for 183 and 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham.

The application proposes to rezone 183 New Canterbury Road from IN2 Light Industrial to R4 High Density Residential to allow a 3, part 4 storey, residential flat building on 183 New Canterbury Road with basement carpark accessed via New Canterbury Road on the land. 203 New Canterbury Road is proposed to be rezoned from IN2 Light Industrial to R2 Low Density Residential to reflect the use of the site as a dwelling house.

The proposal is consistent with the land use direction that the former Marrickville Council set for the site and adjacent industrial properties and is supportable from a strategic land use perspective. Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel has reviewed the proposal.

This report recommends that Council support the planning proposal request and forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway assessment. The report also recommends that site specific planning controls be developed for the site to be incorporated into Part 9.36 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Support the planning proposed request for 183 & 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham to rezone and set development controls for the land;

2. Forward the planning proposal to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

3. Request that it be delegated plan making functions in relation to the planning proposal; and

4. Resolves to develop site specific planning controls to apply to the future development at 183 New Canterbury Road for inclusion in MDCP 2011 Part 9.36 (Commercial Precinct 36) and that these be publicly exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal.

BACKGROUND

The former Marrickville Council considered several reports on the appropriate future land use direction for IN2 Light Industrial zoned properties within this section of New Canterbury Road, Lewisham. At its meeting of 5 June 2012 Council considered the following submission regarding properties located on New Canterbury Road and Wardell Road (including the subject sites) with an IN2 Light Industrial zoning:

· Submission (1f) - 133-203 New Canterbury Road, 180-218 New Canterbury Road & 1 Wardell Road, Petersham

A group of submitters seek a rezoning of a number of adjoining properties from IN2 Light Industrial to a more flexible mixed-use zone that allows residential, retail and creative-industry uses. Submitters also seek an increase in the FSR from 1:1 to 2.5:1 to allow redevelopment to four storeys with pronounced corner elements. Submitters argue that with the current IN2 zoning, these properties will continue to operate below their commercial potential and do not reflect the kind of uses demanded in the area.

The following officers comments were made in response to the submission: These arguments are supported and reflected in other land use changes that are being proposed within the LGA. It is considered that such a rezoning would help to reactivate this precinct, located at the western end of the Petersham shopping strip. The rezoning and increased FSR is supported in general terms, but should be guided by a master planning process for the precinct. It is recommended below that this be undertaken as part of the next MUS review.

Council resolved to adopt the report’s recommendation as follows:

Recommendation (1f): that the rezoning of 133-203 New Canterbury Road, 180-218 New Canterbury Road & 1 Wardell Road, Petersham from IN2 Light Industrial to a suitable mixed-use zone, and increase in the FSR for these sites from 1:1 to 2.5:1 be considered by Council as part of the next review of the MUS, and be informed by a masterplan for these sites and the surrounding precinct.

837070

Figure 1: IN2 Light Industrial and B5 Business Development zoned properties on New Canterbury Road & Wardell Road (subject sites shown in red outline)

Since this time, the former Marrickville Council resolved to support the rezoning of 147 New Canterbury Road (land which is within this precinct) from IN2 Light Industrial to B5 Business Development to permit redevelopment of the site for the purposes of a mixed use residential and commercial development. This amendment (known as Amendment No. 5) was gazetted on 15 January 2016. The planning controls applying to this site permit a FSR of 1.5:1 and a building height of 14 metres (to support a four storey built form).

Council received a planning proposal request for Nos. 183, 203 and 218 (on the southern side of New Canterbury Road) in July 2016. Council officers undertook a preliminary assessment of the proposal (which included a referral the Architectural Excellence Panel) that identified significant issues with the application, particularly relating to the site at 218 New Canterbury Road. The applicant was advised that, in its current form, Council would not support the planning proposal. The advice re-iterated that planning for this area should be undertaken in a holistic manner, rather than via piecemeal planning proposals. Notwithstanding, the advice noted Council’s previous support for the planning proposal at 147 New Canterbury Road and recommended that should the applicant wish to proceed, an application for the northern side of New Canterbury Road only could be considered.

To date, a Marrickville Urban Strategy review process (as referred to in the previous Marrickville Council’s resolution) has not been undertaken. Despite this, proponent led planning proposals require consideration by Council based on the merits of the application. Accordingly, whilst a masterplan for the entire precinct (as previously resolved) is preferable from an orderly planning perspective rather than assessment of ad-hoc proponent led planning proposals Council is required by the EP&A Act 1979 to assess these proposals.

The principle that has been applied to the merit assessment of site specific planning proposals such as this within this precinct is that they may be supported provided they do not compromise the orderly planning of other sites identified for future master planning. Based on this principle, it is considered that the proposed amendments to 183 New Canterbury Road can achieve a development outcome which can occur independently of other sites within the precinct and will not compromise future options for these sites. This is the same scenario that applied for the rezoning of 147 New Canterbury Road.

DISCUSSION

183 and 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham, are currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial under MLEP 2011 and have a combined site area of approximately 1432m². 183 New Canterbury Road is an irregularly shaped allotment with a frontage of approximately 17 metres and is currently used as a ceramic tile outlet and contains an office building with an internal car parking arrangement. It is adjoined to the west by 203 New Canterbury Road which has a frontage of approximately 5.5 metres and consists of a dwelling house. Despite its IN2 Light Industrial zoning, it is clear this is a purpose built dwelling house and is currently being used for this purpose. There is no evidence that the site has ever been used for industrial purposes.

Figure 2: 183 New Canterbury Road viewed from New Canterbury Road

Figure 3: 203 New Canterbury Road as viewed from New Canterbury Road

The sites are parts of the Petersham Commercial Precinct in Part 9 of the MDCP 2011 (Precinct No. 36) and are located west of the Petersham B2 Local Centre zoned retail area. The surrounding land uses include a mix of light industrial land uses, commercial land uses including a service station, an Officeworks outlet, traditional shop top housing developments and a pub (Huntsbury Hotel). As stated previously, 147 New Canterbury Road has recently been rezoned to permit a mixed use development. Low density residential dwellings are located immediately north of the site on The Boulevarde, as well as to the west adjoining the IN2 Light Industrial zone on New Canterbury Road.

Building stock in the area is generally rundown with some sites containing non-active frontages to New Canterbury Road. The area is well located within walking distance of the Petersham commercial precinct, Petersham railway station and Lewisham railway and light rail stations, as well as bus routes along New Canterbury Road.

Immediately north of the site are low density residential properties which are within the Lewisham Estate Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) which adjoins the sites. Hunter Street also contains Petersham Public School which extends from Hunter Street through to West Street. West Street provides signalised access onto New Canterbury Road in both directions.

Planning Proposal

The planning proposal request seeks an amended zoning for 183 New Canterbury Road to R4 High Density Residential, with a floor space ratio of 1.35:1 and a maximum building height of 14 metres. Indicative concept plans were submitted with the application, including a massing concept for 183 New Canterbury Road only (203 New Canterbury Road does not form part of the proposed development site). The indicative concept plans provide for a 3 part 4 storey residential flat building with a total gross floor area of 1501m² to accommodate approximately 20 units.

203 New Canterbury Road is proposed to be rezoned to R2 Low Density Residential, with a building height control of 9.5 metres and a floor space ratio of 0.6:1, consistent with adjoining low density residential properties. Car parking is provided as basement parking, with access directly off New Canterbury Road. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the submitted traffic and parking assessment and raised no issues with the planning proposal.

The massing concept indicates a building form of a predominantly 3 storey building with a 4^thstorey projection at the eastern site boundary adjoining 163-181 New Canterbury Road (Officeworks site). A 4 metre front setback is provided to New Canterbury Road. A side setback of 3 metres is provided to 203 New Canterbury Road and a 6 metre setback to the rear of the site. Where the proposed building is not built to the boundary on the eastern side, a setback of 6 metres is provided.

The architectural floor plans submitted indicate units addressing New Canterbury Road, 203 New Canterbury Road and rear of the site towards the rear of properties located on The Boulevarde. Balconies are shown on the building façade facing south, building rear facing north and towards 203 New Canterbury Road to the west. Copies of the planning proposal report and architectural plans are included as ATTACHMENT 1.

Current zoning

The sites are currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial under MLEP 2011 (see Figure 1). 183 New Canterbury Road operates as a tile showroom and 203 New Canterbury Road contains a single storey dwelling house. 183 New Canterbury Road is one of six remaining lots zoned for light industrial uses on the northern side of New Canterbury Road (including the dwelling house at No. 203 New Canterbury Road). Eleven lots are zoned for light industrial uses on the southern side of New Canterbury Road. The size of the lots varies significantly, with some occupied by traditional shop top housing premises, whilst other larger sites comprise purpose built factories and warehouses. On the southern side Nos. 218, 204 New Canterbury Road & 1 Wardell Road are also substantially sized landholdings.

Proposed zoning

The planning proposal seeks a R4 High Density Residential zone for 183 New Canterbury Road and a R2 Light Density Residential zone for 203 New Canterbury Road. The objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone in MLEP 2011 are as follows:

- To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

- To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

- To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

- To provide for office premises but only as part of the conversion of existing industrial and warehouse buildings or in existing buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes.

- To provide for retail premises in existing buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes.

- To provide for well connected neighbourhoods that support the use of public transport, walking and cycling.

203 New Canterbury Road is a purpose built residential dwelling house and should be zoned to reflect its historical and current use. It is unclear how it became zoned for industrial purposes, however it is not an appropriate zone for the site should the zoning of 183 New Canterbury Road change, and its rezoning to R2 Low Density Residential is supported. It is noted that the applicant made attempts to acquire 203 New Canterbury Road to consolidate it with 183 New Canterbury Road, as recommended by the AEP, however were unsuccessful.

Accordingly, 183 New Canterbury Road is located adjacent to a low density residential zone. The proposed zoning of R4 High Density Residential is the appropriate zone for the site subject to appropriate development standards to achieve a residential development compatible with the adjoining low density residential site. A B5 Business Development zone was applied to 147 New Canterbury Road to permit residential development whilst maintaining an active street frontage via select commercial uses (excluding retail). The extension of retail uses from the main Petersham commercial precinct is not appropriate. If 183 New Canterbury Road formed part of a larger amalgamated site this approach may be desirable. However, as the site is proposed to be developed independent of other sites, it is unlikely that a ground floor commercial use would be viable. The proposed R4 High Density Residential zone is considered suitable for the site, when considered in combination with the proposed FSR and built height controls for the site.

Building Height

Currently (due to the IN2 Light Industrial zoning) there is no maximum height of building control for the sites. Building height is broadly controlled by the floor space ratio and reflects the industrial zoning of the site. The building height applied to 147 New Canterbury Road was 14 metres to reflect a 4 storey built form. Building heights for properties to the west of this site should be reduced to reflect the transition into a low density residential area.

Advice on proposed building height was provided by the AEP as part of their consideration of the original planning proposal request. Although this planning proposal is a modified version of the original application (as the site at 218 New Canterbury Road has been removed from the application), the original advice is still applicable to 183 New Canterbury Road. Comment from AEP members has also been sought for this amended application.

The advice from the AEP, communicated to the applicant as part of Council’s preliminary advice was that, if 203 and 183 New Canterbury Road were not amalgamated, any redevelopment of 183 New Canterbury Road should be limited to 3 storeys (or 11 metres). Despite this advice, the planning proposal request is seeking a 14 metre height control, which allows a 4 storey built form. On the architectural plans attached to the application, this additional building height is to accommodate a second level to unit 15 and is located at the eastern boundary, adjacent to the blank side wall of the Officeworks development at 163-181 New Canterbury Road.

The AEP has further reviewed the proposal and made the following recommendation:

The small built element at Level 3 (roof level) could be supportable. If Council wishes to compensate the applicant for FSR loss due to the recommendation for a 6.0m setback to the west boundary, there is capacity to gain some FSR at the rear of Level 3 (roof level). A slight increase in bulk at the rear may be considered provided that a minimum of 9.0m setback to the west boundary is achieved.

The proposal for a 14 metre height control to be applied across the entire site is not consistent with the direction given by the AEP. However, it is acknowledged that the proposed 4 storey pop-up element will not be highly visible from the public domain and only applies to a small portion of the south eastern corner of the site. Additionally, the limited FSR to be applied to the site will largely determine the bulk and scale of the proposed built form.

It is recommended that the 14 metre Height of Building control proposed for the site be supported subject to the development of site specific planning controls limiting the location of the 4^th storey element to the south eastern corner of the site only. Further, the planning controls will stipulate that any development application incorporating a 4^th storey elements must demonstrate that the additional height is not obtrusive or highly visible from New Canterbury Road. It will also need to be demonstrated that the 4^th storey elements does not unduly impact the amenity of 203 New Canterbury Road or any other surrounding properties.

9834473

Figure 4: MLEP 2011 Height of Building control for subject and adjoining sites

FSR

The proposed 1.35:1 FSR for the site is supported and considered a satisfactory response to the site’s relationship to adjoining low density residential dwellings. It is noted that adhering to the setback controls (see below) to be included within the site specific DCP may have implications for the proposal’s FSR.

As noted within the AEP’s advice, it may be possible for this displaced FSR to be allocated to the roof element provided the impacts are not unreasonable. These are matters which can be further considered at DA stage. Regardless of the final built form outcome, the proposed FSR is considered suitable for the site.

Built Form

Setbacks

The AEP has previously provided advice regarding appropriate setbacks on 183 New Canterbury Road. This advice has generally been adopted for the current planning proposal with the exception of the western boundary adjoining 203 New Canterbury Road. The AEP raised concern that the proposed 3.0 metre setback might block solar access for certain units (11, 12, 89 & 19), and recommended a 6.0 metre setback from the western boundary. The planning proposal application maintains a 3.0 metre setback from the balconies on the western side of the proposed development for a number of units. The proponent has submitted additional information to demonstrate how units will be able to receive solar access despite privacy screening.

The AEP has considered the revised plans and maintained its objection to this proposed setback as it considers it will limit sun access and compromise living areas’ outlook. The AEP also notes that the proposed 3.0m side setback does not conform to minimum recommendations in the Apartment Design Guide, which states that ‘at the boundary between a change in zone from apartment buildings to a lower density area, increase the building setback from the boundary by 3.0m’. The AEP reiterates it original advice that a 6.0 metre setback should be provided to the western boundary. The proposed 4.0 metre setback to units with a primary outlook of New Canterbury Road and the 6.0 metre north-facing rear boundary setback are supported.

It is recommended that the planning controls include a requirement for a 6.0 metre setback to the western boundary, however this may be varied provided it can be demonstrated good amenity is achieved for the units and maintained for the property at 203 New Canterbury Road. All other planning controls for setbacks will be as per the AEP’s advice which is consistent with the current planning proposal. As discussed previously, it is considered that any lost FSR as a result of the proposed 6.0 metre setback to the western boundary can potentially be relocated to the roof element of the development.

Heritage

The site is not a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. However, it is in close proximity to a heritage item (the Huntsbury Hotel) and adjacent to the Lewisham Estate Heritage Conservation Area. A separate Heritage Conservation Area (Petersham Shops Commercial Precinct) extends along the main commercial area of New Canterbury Road to the intersection of Hunter Street. However, this HCA excludes the heritage item at 127 New Canterbury Road (the Huntsbury Hotel). Any development application lodged for either site will need to address impacts upon the HCA and nearby heritage items.

LEGEND
	Heritage Conservation Areas
	Heritage Items

Figure 5: MLEP 2011 Heritage Map for subject site and adjoining sites

MDCP 2011 Planning Precinct

The site and surrounds are within Planning Precinct No. 36 (Petersham Commercial Precinct) in Part 9 of the MDCP 2011. Relevant desired future objectives from the DCP for this planning proposal include:

- To allow and encourage a greater scale of development within the commercial centre, including the provision of new dwellings near local shops, services and public transport, to meet the market demand, create the opportunity for high access housing choice and support sustainable living.

- To ensure new development at rear upper levels is a maximum of four storeys and is designed to be subservient to retained portions of contributory buildings or infill development to the street building front.

- To support pedestrian access, activity and amenity including maintaining and enhancing the public domain quality.

- To ensure the design of higher density development protects the residential amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

- To facilitate efficient parking, loading and access for vehicles that minimises impact to streetscape appearance, commercial viability and vitality and pedestrian safety and amenity.

As noted previously, these sites are not intended to function as part of the Petersham retail strip. Instead they act as a buffer to residential areas and provide support to the retail strip. It is considered that the planning proposal broadly meets the objectives of this precinct as it is providing additional housing close to shops and centres, will not permit development greater than 4 storeys in height and attempts to protect adjoining low density residential zones through limited building height and floor space ratio.

Architectural Excellence Panel

The AEP has considered both the original application for the site and revised plans as part of the amended application. The AEP has concluded that is supportable subject to matters previously discussed in this report.

Traffic and Access

A traffic and parking assessment was provided with the planning proposal. Council’s Development Engineer has considered the report and raised no issues with the planning proposal. Further consideration will be undertaken as part of any development application for the site.

Site Contamination

A Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) was undertaken for the subject sites. Council’s Environmental Officer reviewed the above DSI and noted that the DSI report contained an incorrect conclusion about the site suitability for the proposed rezoning, and this incorrect conclusion was included in the planning proposal document. The DSI concludes that the site is currently suitable for the proposed rezoning despite identifying contamination issues and the need for a remedial action plan (RAP) to be developed. Despite this, Council’s Environmental Officer has concluded that the contamination is relatively minor, and can be readily managed with an RAP. It was also noted that 203 New Canterbury Road was not included in the assessment, however it appears to have existing use rights as residential, which is generally considered a low risk of contamination. Notwithstanding, contamination is a common occurrence in residential areas in the Inner West, so prior to any future developments, further investigations should be undertaken to assess contamination at this property.

It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed Clause 6 of SEPP55. Some additional work will be required as part of a development application on the site including:

· Further investigations to include 203 New Canterbury Road, and address data gap limitations of the DSI

· Preparation of a RAP to adequately address contamination issues across the site

· Groundwater management plan will be required if future developments are expected to intercept groundwater.

Affordable Housing

At its meeting of 6 December, Council considered a report on a draft Affordable Housing Strategy for public exhibition. The report, which was adopted by Council, recommended that an affordable housing target of 15% for developments with a gross floor area of 1,700m² or greater be set. The architectural plans accompanying the planning proposal show a gross floor area of 1,501m². Therefore, the proposal does not meet the threshold to trigger the policy requirements. However, should a development application lodged for the site show a gross floor area of 1,700m² or greater, the policy should be enacted and a 15% affordable housing dedication be required.

Consistency of Proposed LEP Amendment with Strategic Planning Policies

To rezone industrially zoned land, Council needs to ensure that adequate strategic justification is provided for the proposed changes. The following discussion provides an assessment of the proposal against State Government and Council strategic planning directions for the Marrickville LGA and Petersham commercial centre.

A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney, released in December 2014, is the NSW Government’s plan for the future of the Sydney Metropolitan Area over the next 20 years. The Plan provides key directions and actions to guide Sydney’s productivity, environmental management, and liveability – including the delivery of housing, employment, infrastructure and open space.

A Plan for Growing Sydney contains a number of broad objectives relating to the supply of housing across the Sydney area. It notes that Sydney’s population growth will require an additional 664,000 dwellings to 2031. The document contains overarching principles on how to accommodate population growth and housing supply relevant to this planning proposal including:

- Principle 1: Increasing housing choice around all centres through urban renewal in established area; and

- Direction 2.1: Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

It is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with these directions and principles as it will provide additional residential accommodation in close proximity to existing services and public transport.

Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056

The Greater Sydney Commission has been tasked with reviewing A Plan for Growing Sydney as well as developing draft District Plans. As part of the review of A Plan for Growing Sydney, a new document entitled Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056, which is seen as the first part of the process of reviewing A Plan for Growing Sydney, has been developed and publicly exhibited. The need for this document has arisen out a shift in the focus of strategic planning since the release of A Plan for Growing Sydney. The document seeks to redefine the community’s understanding of Greater Sydney as a metropolis of three cities, being Eastern City, Central City and Western City.

This document provides broad objectives in relation to the future operation of Greater Sydney, including A Productive Sydney, A Liveable Sydney and a Sustainable Sydney. It is considered that this planning proposal is generally consistent with the broad aims of this document as it seeks to provide additional residential accommodation within an existing centre well located to services and public transport.

Draft Central District Plan

The draft Central District Plan (dCDP) aims to progress strategic planning for the Central Sydney district (which includes council areas of Inner West, Bayside, Burwood, Canada Bay, Randwick, Strathfield, City of Sydney, Waverly and Woollahra) by:

- progressing the directions of A Plan for Growing Sydney

- identifying planning priorities for the District and the actions to achieve them.

Housing

The dCDP notes the planning principles contained within A Plan for Growing Sydney and identified three that remain current and underpin many of the priorities of this draft District Plan, including:

Principle 1: Increasing housing choice around all centres through urban renewal in established areas

Increasing housing close to centres and stations makes it easier to walk or cycle to shops or services, and to travel to work or other centres; reduces traffic congestion; and makes our neighbourhoods more community oriented.

Increasing the variety of housing available makes it easier for people to find a home that suits their lifestyle, household size and their budget.

Locating new housing in centres delivers a range of economic, environmental and social benefits to the community. Research by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has similarly found that productivity benefits arise from a more compact city.

As discussed previously, it is considered that the planning proposal is consistent with this principle.

The dCDP establishes a housing target for the Inner West Council to provide an additional 5,900 dwellings by 2021. It requires Council to undertake a number of actions in relation to housing supply, including the following:

- monitor and support the delivery of Inner West’s five-year housing target of 5,900 dwellings

- investigate local opportunities to address demand and diversity in and around local centres and infill areas with a particular focus on transport corridors and other areas with high accessibility.

Whilst the proposed dwelling yield from the planning proposal is modest, it will assist Council in meeting its dwelling target, whilst increasing housing diversity in close proximity to a local centre and public transport.

Industrial or Employment Lands

The dCDP also notes that whilst providing additional housing is critical, it should not occur at the expense of land zoned for industrial or employment uses. The document notes that ‘despite high demand for employment and urban services land in the Central District, there has been significant market speculation and pressure to rezone them to retail and residential uses’. To manage this potential conflict, the document advises a precautionary approach as follows:

Productivity Priority 5: Protect and support employment and urban services land

Relevant planning authorities should take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment and urban services lands, or adding additional permissible uses that would hinder their role and function. The exception being where there is a clear direction in the regional plan (currently A Plan for Growing Sydney), the District Plan or an alternative strategy endorsed by the relevant planning authority. Any such alternative strategy should be based on a net community benefit assessment (i.e. analysis of the economic, environmental and social implications) of the proposed exception, taking account of a District-wide perspective in accordance with Action P5.

How these matters are taken into account is to be demonstrated in any relevant planning proposal.

The planning proposal was lodged with Council prior to the release of the dCDP. Regardless, it is considered important to consider the potential implications of the rezoning of this industrial land. Prior to the release of the dCDP, Council staff adopted a set of employment land rezoning principles to guide future rezoning proposals in light of the strong interest in rezoning industrial land in the former Marrickville Council area as considered by Council within a report on 25 October 2016. In order to following the precautionary approach recommended by the dCDP, it is appropriate to assess the planning proposal against these principles, as follows:

· Principle 1: Council will take a cautious approach to rezoning industrially zoned lands and generally only support rezoning where supported by a State and/or local planning strategy. The proposal is consistent with this principle as Council has previously resolved to investigate the area for other land uses. Additionally, Council and the DP&E have previously supported the rezoning of a nearby site from light industrial to permit a mixed use development.

· Principle 2: Any rezoning submission that seeks to rezone industrial land must be wholly or predominantly for other employment uses (other than retail). The planning proposal is not consistent with this principle as the rezoning is for residential purposes. However, the rezoning of 203 New Canterbury Road is seeking to reflect the current use of the site as a residential dwelling. The rezoning of 183 New Canterbury Road will result in the loss of employment uses from the site. The loss is considered to be minimal as the site is small. Despite the inconsistency with this principle, it is considered acceptable in the context of the area and the rezoning of 147 New Canterbury Road which has been endorsed.

· Principle 3: Where a rezoning submission seeks to rezone industrial land to a new employment use, the new use(s) must be based on a needs/supply & demand assessment. As stated previously, the rezoning is not seeking to accommodate a new employment use. Therefore, this principle is not applicable to this application.

· Principle 4: A rezoning submission that seeks to create a predominantly residential zone / use should generally not be supported on the basis that this would result in permanent loss of employment lands. Such proposals will only be considered / supported where a needs assessment establishes that there is no viable employment uses and there is a State and / or local planning strategy that identifies a need for housing on the land. As stated previously, the land zoned light industrial within this area is generally underutilised or not being used for light industrial purposes. It is not considered reasonable to require commercial floor space to be provided within the proposed development due to the relatively small size of the site. The former Marrickville Council resolved in 2012 to reconsider the zoning of this land.

· Principle 5: Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 created buffer areas (B7, IN2) in some location between the core industrial area and surrounding residential areas. The continuation of this approach in suitable locations is appropriate to minimise conflicts between industrial and residential uses and act as a buffer or transition area. A minor live/work component can be included as part of this buffer area where it can be shown to provide for emerging / knowledge based and creative industries. This principle is not relevant to this site. The IN2 is not operating as a buffer between a core industrial area and surrounding residential areas.

· Principle 6: Retail uses will only be supported as part of mixed use developments where they are small scale and provide for the needs of the local population. This principle is not relevant as no retail uses are associated with the planning proposal.

· Principle 7: Large industrial lots should be preserved for traditional IN1-type industries and any fragmentation or encroachment of incompatible land uses should be avoided. 183 New Canterbury Road is a relatively small site zoned for light industrial uses. It is not considered to be a large lot, nor part of core IN1 General Industrial employment lands.

· Principle 8: Land-use changes which create fragmented or isolated industrial land holdings should be avoided. As stated elsewhere in this report, site specific rezoning applications are not desirable from a planning perspective. This planning proposal will result in the adjoining site (163-181 New Canterbury Road) being left isolated. However, its current use as an Officeworks outlet is considered more of a retail land use than an industrial land use. It is anticipated that, over time, most of the IN2 sites within this precinct will seek to be rezoned for other uses.

· Principle 9: Land use changes that may cause conflict with the traditional land uses should not be supported. The proposed residential zoning for the site is not expected to cause conflict between existing land uses. As previously discussed, although 203 New Canterbury Road forms part of this planning proposal, this site is a residential dwelling house as is proposed to be zoned to reflect this situation. Subject to the planning controls to be applied to 183 New Canterbury Road limit its development potential, it is not considered the planning proposal will cause undue conflicts.

Marrickville Urban Strategy

The Marrickville Urban Strategy (MUS) was adopted by Council in 2007 and established a vision and co-ordinated directions addressing a range of planning, community, and environmental issues, to guide short, medium and long term strategic planning policies for the Marrickville LGA. The MUS was developed in response to employment and housing targets established through the draft South Subregional Strategy and its overriding strategy, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy City of Cities, A Plan for Sydney’s Future (December 2005).

The MUS does not specifically discuss the subject site or surrounds however it does support the aim of locating additional residential development in and around existing centres with good public transport and services. The MUS advocates the retention of ‘strategic’ employment land located at Marrickville and Sydenham, and the rezoning of certain isolated or fragmented industrial areas. Although not specifically identified as suitable for rezoning, it is considered that the site and surrounds meet the following criteria established in the MUS as suitable for future detailed master planning:

• Is located close to a centre;

• Is redundant from historical industry perspective;

• Is well serviced by public transport;

• Is within walking distance of public open space;

• Development can occur in a way that responds to aircraft, road or rail noise;

• Provides opportunities for improving public domain;

• Is not located close to strategic assets (port, airport or freight lines); and

• Rezoning would not result in conflicts between residential uses and industrial uses that impact upon residential amenity, and hinder business competitiveness.

Therefore, the planning proposal is considered to be consistent with the criteria established in the MUS relating to the rezoning of land.

State Policies and Directions

The proponent has undertaken as assessment of the proposal against all relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and section 117 Directions which is provided at ATTACHMENT 1. Council officers have reviewed the assessment and are in general agreement regarding the assessment provided.

Proposed Planning Controls

The proponent has proposed site specific planning controls for inclusion within the MDCP 2011. Council officers will continue to work with the application on the development of controls deemed suitable for the site. Should the proposal receive Gateway determination these planning controls will be public exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments from Council’s Environmental Services Section, Architectural Excellence Panel and Development Engineer have been incorporated into this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public participation in the form of community consultation would occur should Council resolve the support the planning proposal request and the DP&E issue a Gateway determination to allow for the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

CONCLUSION

This report assesses a planning proposal request received for 183 and 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham, to rezone the sites from IN2 Light Industrial to R4 High Density Residential and R2 Low Density Residential respectively. It is considered that the application has strategic merit and should be forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment for Gateway determination. It is also recommended that site specific planning controls be developed for 183 New Canterbury Road to inform the future development of the site.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Planning Proposal Documentation: 183 & 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 7

Subject: Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities

File Ref: 17/4718/26970.17

Prepared By: Gill Dawson - Manager Environment and Urban Planning

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

On 6 February 2017 the Department of Planning and Environment placed on public exhibition the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (see Attachment 1) for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities. The SEPP includes proposed changes to the NSW planning system intended to make it easier for schools, TAFEs, universities and child-care providers to build new facilities and refurbish / add to existing structures and sites.

Council officers have reviewed the draft against existing Council policies to determine the potential impacts and outcomes.

This report provides a summary of the draft amendments and a draft submission (see Attachment 2) on the amendments is attached to this report for the Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and endorse this report which forms the basis of the submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the draft SEPP for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities.

BACKGROUND

The background documents to the SEPP indicate that population growth in NSW is forecast to increase by 28% to almost ten million people by 2036. The number of children under five will climb 18 percent to over 600,000, and the total population under 15 years of age will grow by 23 per cent to more than 1.8 million. It is estimated this will result in demand for:

· an additional 15 new schools a year until 2031 (235 schools);

· refurbishment or replacement of one-third of existing school assets;

· an additional 2,700 long day child care centres required by 2036 to meet shortages and projected demand; and

· expansion of existing TAFE and universities to cater for increases in student numbers.

To deal with the significant additional pressure to be placed on existing social infrastructure the Department of Planning has produced the draft SEPP for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities which aims to:

· create a standalone NSW policy for all educational establishments and childcare to cover all applicable planning provisions;

· urgently accommodate additional capacity in child care facilities and schools; and

· streamline approval processes by allowing more education and childcare development to proceed without consent or without the need for a full development application (eg. exempt & complying development)

To ensure all new and refurbished social infrastructure is of high quality and consistent across the State, principles and guidelines have been proposed in the following drafts:

· Better Schools Design Guide

· Child Care Planning Guideline

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES

The draft SEPP includes a range of controls and changes to existing provisions which the Department of Planning and Environment and the NSW Government predict will allow for significant expansion of the existing networks of schools and child care centres across Sydney. There are:

· Site Compatibility Certificate – These provisions will permit a school site to adopt the zoning of adjoining land to enable development that is permissible on adjoining land to also be carried out on the school site despite the provisions of the applicable LEP. These provisions will also facilitate the disposal of surplus educational sites.

· Mandated childcare - Requires ‘centre-based childcare’ as a permitted land use in IN2 (Light Industrial) and R2 (Low Density Residential).

· Land use definitions – New definitions for childcare facilities for inclusion in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Standard Template and all Inner West LEPs (Leichhardt / Marrickville / Ashfield)

· Changing status of non-government private schools – Non-government schools to be prescribed as public authorities through amendment to Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 to enable them to use development without consent provisions

· Significant increases in the education and childcare land uses and development which can be undertaken as development without consent (including exempt development) and through the complying development certificate (CDC) process – Greater allowance for development without consent and full development applications. Works permitted will include:

o one storey building such as library, classroom and cafeteria (exempt)

o car park (of not more than one storey) (exempt)

o demolition of buildings / structures (exempt)

o mobile childcare (exempt)

o emergency temporary relocations of childcare services (exempt)

o secondary/supporting building up to four (4) storeys or 22 metres (CDC)

Development without consent provisions will permit development that will allow for an increase in the numbers of student and staff numbers at the existing school that is not greater than 10% of the numbers at the site during the previous 12 months and that does not contravene any existing development condition. In other instances complying developments resulting in more than 50 new students will require an assessment by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

These provisions will apply to both public and private schools.

3. Replacing Council Development Controls Plan (DCP) provisions – The proposed SEPP and associated changes will replace similar planning controls that some development control plans have. Some of these are drawn from State and National standards, for the purpose of centre-based child care:

o numbers of children;

o age ratios of children;

o glazed areas (windows);

o operational or management plans or arrangements;

o demonstrated need or demand for child care services;

o proximity of facility to other early childhood education and care facilities;

o fencing;

o laundry and hygiene facilities;

o space requirements – indoor space;

o space requirements – outdoor space (including natural environment and shade);

o toilet and hygiene facilities;

o ventilation and natural light;

o administrative space;

o nappy change facilities; and

o any matter provided for in the Child Care Planning Guideline

Attachment 3 (see attached) summarises the key differences between existing Inner West Council (IWC) DCP provisions and the draft SEPP.

Where the draft SEPP does not replace important DCP provisions such as plans of management and hours of operation, it is recommended the final SEPP should be supplemented with requirements that replicate key DCP controls that would otherwise be lost. If this proposal is not accepted then the final SEPP should be amended to leave these DCP controls in place.

DISCUSSION OF KEY CHANGES

1. Zoning of schools sites

The proposed SEPP would include provisions allowing site compatibility certificates to be issued to permit a school site to adopt the zoning of adjoining land to enable development and specifically facilitate the disposal of surplus educational sites.

This provision contradicts the listed aims and objectives of the SEPP which include an urgent need for new schools (15 a year for 20 years) and additional capacity within existing schools. This was an issue during the translation of Council LEPs into the NSW government Standard Template. The varied and inconsistent zoning of many schools across Sydney is a result of that process. Council’s submission objects to this proposed provision on the basis that SP2 (Infrastructure) is the most appropriate zoning for educational facilities.

In former Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville Councils educational establishments are currently zoned SP2 (Infrastructure) within existing local environmental plans.

2. Mandates ‘centre-based childcare’ as a permitted land use in IN2 (Light Industrial)

As identified in former Leichhardt Council’s Industrial Lands study it is essential that these lands zoned for employment generating purposes be retained for job provision now and into the future. Currently the LEPs of former Marrickville and Ashfield Councils permit childcare facilities within the IN2 zone with consent. When the three LEPs are consolidated these designations will be the subject of review. Mandating childcare in the IN2 zone could result in further loss or fragmentation of industrial lands and increases the propensity for land use conflicts. Adjoining industrial uses and the associated pollution, noise, truck movements etc could have significant detrimental impacts upon the amenity and possibly health of children attending proposed new facilities.

Council’s submission object’s to this provision because of the risk it poses for the loss of industrial land and potential impacts on children’s health.

3. Expansion of education and childcare development without consent and exempt and complying provisions

The significant range of land uses, development and works allowed using these provisions could see a substantial increase in the capacity of existing school sites and establishment of new school and child care facilities. This would include private schools recognised as public authorities. The same provisions may also remove a consent authority’s ability to mitigate the impacts or refuse elements / whole proposals that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring residents and businesses, plus the future users of these facilities. For example under the Draft SEPP:

· No masterplanning is required for individual sites or precincts to determine the long-term needs and cumulative impacts

· The SEPP does not explicitly state that its provisions do not apply to existing or draft heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

· Bush fire prone land and coastal wetlands are not excluded from new development without consent and exempt & complying provisions

· Councils do not retain the ability to set conditions on developments to minimise impacts on existing local communities, including hours of operation and size of car parking facilities

· Non-discretionary development standards, such as locations, proximity to other facilities and site area/coverage/dimensions is not a matter for consideration.

These provisions, under the changes, will apply to both public and private schools. Council should express concern about how this provision could lead to poor development outcomes with adverse impacts on surrounding communities and on the pupils and teachers of schools that expand without consent using exempt and complying provisions.

4. Development Controls Plans (DCPs)

The draft SEPP provisions aim to replace the planning objectives and controls for child care and education that are in some development control plans (see examples page 3). This would reduce Council’s ability to implement controls specific to local areas and assess the merits and need for individual proposals. On particular the proposed SEPP would supersede the Leichhardt DCP that sets a maximum capacity of 90 childcare places. This will likely substandard development outcomes which do not best serve the established community.

5. Unencumbered indoor and outdoor space requirements

The draft SEPP encourages the early involvement of the relevant regulatory authority, which is supported. The proposed mechanism whereby consent authorities can submit centre-based childcare development applications for regulatory authority concurrence seeking a reduction in established base minimum requirements is opposed. Minimum space allocations per child are set to facilitate child welfare and learning and should not be able to be varied on a case by case basis, as this would result in a lack of consistency and equality across the sector.

6. Need for capacity limits

Eliminating strict numerical limits for expanding schools while listing more potential development/works as development without consent or exempt/complying development will restrict consent authorities ability to mitigate the cumulative impacts. Growing cumulative impacts emphasise the need for master planning of precincts to determine long-term infrastructure need. This could result in further overcrowding and deterioration of school infrastructure as well as greater environmental impacts and should be moderated to facilitate Council involvement.

For any changes to standard metrics there needs to be evidence that demonstrates the proposed reduce metrics would result in beneficial outcomes for children and the surrounding community.

7. Consultation with Councils

Requirements of the SEPP for consultation are vague and open to interpretation by the relevant public authority including designated non-government schools, to determine whether there will be development impacts on Council infrastructure and/or services.

This draft SEPP will reduce Councils involvement in educational establishment provision, through more State Significant Development and possible introduction of JRPP / Sydney Planning Panels decisions. This will make it difficult for local government to ensure that schools are well-placed and that their impacts upon existing residents and businesses are not detrimental. This includes clause 36, which allows State significant development to ignore local environmental plans which have already been endorsed by the Minister and publicly exhibited.

This provision should be revised to ensure that Councils can challenge adverse development impacts that are understated by public authorities.

8. Zoning matters to be addressed

· Opposition to ‘centre-based child care’ within IN1 (General Industrial) zone due to potential amenity impacts on children including noise and pollution.

· ‘Mobile child care’ as exempt development should be limited to certain zones.

· Exempt and Complying development in existing schools should only be allowed within prescribed zones.

9. Land use / LEP issues to be addressed

· ‘Staff accommodation’ should be restricted in same way as student accommodation.

· The draft SEPP should exclude land identified in clause 5.3 of the Standard Instrument (Development near zone boundaries), including land within a coastal zone.

· Section 14 (6) of the draft SEPP should be reviewed or removed, which categorises land as adjacent to other land even if separated by a road as this is inconsistent with other instruments. At the least ‘classified roads’ should be excluded.

· The draft SEPP needs to include Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) exclusions for certain land identified in clause 1.19 (1)(h) of the Exempt and Complying Codes SEPP and section 117 Direction 3.5 (Development near Licensed Aerodromes).

· Schedule 1 should be consistent with other NSW government legislation and directions, for example the Standard Instrument and the Exempt and Complying Codes SEPP. Currently Schedule 1 permits development for carports and fences which is inconsistent with the Codes SEPP.

· Schedule 2 – Should include a definition for ‘habitable room’ and ‘principle private open space’.

· Schedule 3 Section 3 (1) and (2) will potentially allow for multiple buildings within university grounds to fall under complying development provisions. The controls should relate to FSR control set as per clause 40 (2)(c) of the draft SEPP, drawn from a local environmental plan (LEP).

10. Amenity / urban design issues to be addressed

· Solar access requirements for existing TAFE establishments differ from those for schools. To ensure consistency these standards should be incorporated into a separate schedule similar to those for other development types.

· Schedule 2 – Using a mean ground level as the draft SEPP proposes is a crude tool if setting development parameters and will lead to poor development outcomes.

· Allowing building heights for new schools to 4 storeys / 22 metres as complying development is excessive. Schools are quite often located within low rise residential neighbourhoods and ensuring an acceptable interface between the school and adjoining properties is of an appropriate size and scale is not possible under the current draft SEPP.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Draft SEPP was on public exhibition until 24 March 2017.

The Department of Planning and Environment has agreed that Councils can make submissions up to 7 April 2017.

CONCLUSION

The challenges posed by rapid population growth in Sydney and the need to cater for the corresponding large demand for new educational facilities and child care centres is acknowledged.

New policy and new plans are needed to provide this social infrastructure which addresses the need while not detrimentally affecting existing local suburbs and ensuring the quality of the schools and child care centres on offer is not continually compromised.

The draft SEPP would greatly expand development without consent provisions and exempt and complying development controls. It would also facilitate more State Significant Development and possible appointment of Joint Regional / Sydney Planning Panels to further exclude local government from the decision-making process.

The resultant cumulative increases in school capacity and new child care centres will result in further pressure on existing infrastructure and increased traffic/parking issues. The deployment of development without consent and exempt and complying development provisions to achieve these objectives will not allow consent authorities to minimise the negative impacts through development application consent conditions and proposed mitigation measures. The consequent urban form changes of greater size and scale of building in residential neighbourhoods will have negative impacts upon local streetscapes.

Mandating child care centres across all Sydney land zoned for light industrial purposes could result in further losses of valuable employment generating lands, which the Department of Planning has previously set aside for retention (Inner West Subregional Plan, July 2008) to ensure jobs are not lost and future economic growth can be accommodated.

Much of the currently varied and inconsistent zoning of schools across Sydney is due to Department of Planning and Environment directions and guidelines during the process of standardizing all local environmental plans across the State to zone all educational facilities to whatever the adjoining zoning was, usually for residential purposes. The proposed SEPP includes site compatibility certificate provisions which would allow the zoning of educational facilities to adopt adjoining zones to facilitate the disposal of school sites. This contradicts the stated aims and objectives of the Policy, which is to deal with a deficit in land for the purpose of educational facilities and child care centres.

The weakening of development controls and the compatibility certificate provisions could result in more haphazard educational establishment and child care centre development with many negative impacts for existing residents, students, children and their families.

There is an opportunity to introduce some of these measures alongside a targeted program of precinct master planning to identify locations for these new facilities according to best practice while minimising potential detrimental impacts. Urban Growth is the NSW Government’s urban transformation agency, charged primarily with facilitating residential and commercial development across Sydney and NSW. The opportunity exists that while undertaking research and investigations into locations for residential and commercial expansion, working alongside the Department of Education, Urban Growth identify locations for schools and child care centres according to evidence-based local and regional need. By removing development pressures on identified sites by including them in programs such as the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Plan the NSW government would provide much needed clarity and certainty for the ongoing delivery of these critical items of social infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Draft SEPP for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities
2.⇩	Establishments and Child Care Facilities (March 2017)
3.⇩	Summary of key differences between Inner West Council Development Control Plans and the draft SEPP

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 8

Subject: Proposed amendments to Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

File Ref: 17/6091/9918.17

Prepared By: Kieren Lawson - Student Town Planner

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

On 10 January 2017 the NSW Government released proposed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) for exhibition and comment. These amendments include a number of changes to the strategic and assessment operations of councils and other planning bodies across NSW. This report provides a summary of the draft amendments and a draft submission on the amendments is attached to this report for the Council’s consideration.

THAT:

1. Council receive and note this report including the draft submission at Attachment 1;

2. That the submission be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment.

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) undertook consultation with stakeholders as part of a review of the NSW planning system.

On 10 January 2017 the NSW Government released draft amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) for exhibition and comment. The proposed amendments attempt to contemporise the NSW planning system under an updated strategic and urban governance framework; improve development and consultative processes for the community; and include a number of “house-keeping” amendments to create a more legible and refined EP&A Act.

The public consultation period for the draft Bill is from 10 January 2017 to 31 March 2017.

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES

The stated key elements of the draft amendments are summarised as follows:

· enhancing community participation: establishing a new part of the Act that consolidates community consultation provisions, and requiring decision-makers to give reasons for their decisions

· completing the strategic planning framework: through local strategic planning statements, up to date Local Environment Plans and more consistent and workable Development Control Plans

· development pathways: improvements to the various development pathways and preventing the misuse of modifications

· State significant development: through better environmental impact assessment and more effective conditions of consent

· clearer building provisions: simplified and consolidated building provisions, allowing conditions on construction certificates and ensuring consistency with development approvals

· elevating the role of design: through a new design object in the act, and a Design-Led Planning Strategy

· improving enforcement: with the introduction of enforceable undertakings in compliance actions.

DISCUSSION ON KEY CHANGES

1. Update Objects and elevate the role of Design

A new object has been proposed to be inserted that promotes good design in the built environment is to be included. The updated objects have no change in intent or effect, and the emphasis to be placed on good design in the built environment. through a design object in the Act is a positive change. While this change is commended it is not supported by any other changes to the provisions within the Act and Council’s submission calls for the new object to be supported by relevant provisions.

2. Planning Decisions

The draft amendments propose a provision that will allow the Minister to direct a Council to appoint a local planning panel for carrying out the function of determining development applications. The Inner West Council has already established an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as a decision body, which is based on a four person panel model. Concern is raised with the proposed imposition of a mandatory three person panel with mandated model charter and operating procedures set by the State Government, in conjunction with a proposal that existing panels must transition to this model within 12 months.

Council’s experience through both the former Leichhardt Planning Panel and the recently formed Inner West Planning Panel is that flexibility to create a panel with more than 3 members is necessary as a means to bring in specialist expertise that is relevant to some development applications (such as arboricultural or contamination expertise). In addition, local planning panels need support from the local community (and councillors) and this is often achieved through the development of localised and tailored operating procedures. Matters such as whether or not the panel deliberates in private or not, and the procedure for delivering decisions is a matter that the Inner West Council strongly believes should not be mandated.

The draft amendments also require decision makers to give reasons for planning decisions. Support is expressed for any changes that promote transparent decision making, although more guidance is sought from the DPE around the format that the statement of reasons for decisions will need to take and the method envisaged for the public reporting of the reasons. Currently every decision of the Inner West Council regarding a development application (whether delegated or otherwise) is the subject to a written officer’s assessment report which contains a detailed analysis of the reasons for the decision. Concern is raised that the requirement to provide reasons will represent an unnecessary duplication of effort and risk overuse of unhelpful and broad reasons. Guidance is also sought from the DPE as to the process to be followed when Council or an IHAP / local planning panel do not follow the assessing officer’s recommendation.

3. Community Participation Plan

Under the proposed amendments, each planning authority will have to prepare a community participation plan that will explain how the authority will engage the community in plan-making and development decisions. As part of the introduction of the requirements for community participation plans, it is also proposed to update the current minimum public exhibition requirements.

While support is expressed for the establishment of community participation plans, concern is raised with the mandatory 14 day exhibition period for all development applications. The mandatory exhibition period may require very minor development applications (such as tree removal applications) to be notified and this could have a negative impact on assessment times. It is considered that similar to Section 96 applications, the notification period (if any) for minor development applications should be determined by the consent authority when developing the community participation plan.

4. Strategic Planning Framework

The draft amendments will require Councils to develop and publish local strategic planning statements. The vision presented by the statement is to take a 20 year horizon (consistent with regional and district plans) and must be reviewed by Council at least every 5 years. The purpose of these statements is to complete the line of sight from regional and district plan as is evidenced in the diagram below:

Source: Planning Legislation Updates – Summary of Proposals issued by DPE

The development of these statements will inform rezoning decisions and guide development thereby creating more informed decisions – this will assist when considering both Council and privately led planning proposals.

The draft amendments will also require all Councils to undertake a five yearly review of local environmental plans. This change is also supported as it will ensure LEPs are current, reflecting regional / district planning and any local changes (changes in demographics, infrastructure investment, community views etc.) and has the potential to reduce the number of spot rezonings.

5. Development Control Plans

The proposed amendments will enable the Minister to require DCPs to follow a standard format. This change is supported in principle, however the standard format will need to be developed in consultation with councils to ensure there is the right balance of consistency and flexibility.

In addition, the DPE is looking to develop and online library of model provisions. This is a non-legislative action and councils will be access and use these model provisions on an optional basis. The creation of a library of optional model provisions available through the NSW Planning Portal is supported.

6. Early consultation between neighbours

The DPE is exploring incentives for early consultation between neighbours. While support is expressed for any changes that would encourage early consultation between neighbours (i.e. prior to lodging a development application), incentives for reduced fees will only work where direct neighbours confirm their agreement (e.g. sign the architectural plans to be submitted with the DA) stating that they have reviewed the plans and raise no objections. It is noted that the DPE will be conducting a pilot with selected local council’s to trial different incentive mechanisms and administrative approaches which will inform any changes to the regulations.

Any approach to be adopted cannot be mandated and should be reasoned on good practice only. Early consultation/ negotiation will not be able to be undertaken by all landowners and for all DA’s.

7. Integrated Development

The proposed amendments include changes to the integrated development provisions that will give the Secretary of the DPE the reserve power to prevent delays and resolve conflicts between agencies. The time taken to receive advice from NSW Government Agencies can significantly delay the assessment of development applications, and Council supports any actions that that will expedite this advice. However, the proposed amendments do not include any guidance on the timeframe after which Council or an applicant can seek the Planning Secretary to act on behalf of the approval body.

8. Section 96 applications

In seeking to strengthen the deterrence for unauthorised building works, the Act is being amended to prevent planning authorities from approving a modification in relation to works already completed, other than in limited circumstances (i.e. to correct a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation).

While Council supports any actions aimed at deterring unauthorised building works, concern is raised with the amendments that would prevent planning authorities from approving a Section 96 modification application for works already completed. A more appropriate deterrence would involve changes to legislation to make it easier to prosecute land owners when unauthorised building work occurs. Whether retrospective approval is granted via Section 96 application or a Building Certificate seems irrelevant in deterring the carrying out of the unauthorised works. In addition, a Building Certificate is not an approval and does not provide the same level of certainty, nor is it a mechanism to carry out a merit assessment, in the way a Section 96 application does.

It is also proposed to amend clause 96(3) of the Act to require planning authorities to consider the statement of reasons for the original consent when considering a modification application. The purpose of this change is to ensure important elements of a development and / or conditions of consent are not lost with subsequent Section 96 applications. This change is supported.

9. Voluntary Planning Agreements

The proposed amendments provide the ability for planning agreements to be entered into for complying development proposals. It is unclear as to the circumstances under which a planning agreement would be required for a CDC. Furthermore, as planning agreements need to be publicly exhibited and CDC’s are fast track approvals it is unclear how a planning agreement can be entered into when issuing a CDC, noting that the planning agreement would most likely be with Council and the CDC may be issued by a private certifier. In the absence of further information and clarification on this matter from the DPE, Council does not support this proposal.

New provisions are also proposed allowing the Minister to make determinations or give directions about the method of determining the extent of the provision of public benefit to be made under a planning agreement. Council’s submission seeks clarification around the proposed powers of the Minister to direct VPA negotiations and the impact this may have Council abilities to achieve the best outcome for the community.

10. Complying Development

The draft amendments include new investigative powers for Council in relation to complying development. Where a complying development certificate (CDC) has been issued, councils will be able to issue a temporary stop work order on the project in order to investigate whether it is being constructed in line with the CDC. Work will be able to be stopped for 7 days, however the power will be limited to genuine complaints about building work not complying with a CDC.

Concern is raised with the imposition of these investigation requirements on Council which could have significant resourcing implications. Monitoring the actions of private certifiers should rest with the body that is responsible for private certifiers, not councils. While it is noted that the government proposes to establish a compliance levy to support councils in the role of enforcing complying development standards, with the continued expansion of complying development, there may be a necessity to establish a State body charged with the investigation and compliance of CDC matters.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments on the draft EP&A Act Amendments were received from all relevant areas of Council, most notably from the Group Manager, Development Assessment and Regulatory Services.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public consultation of the draft EP&A Act Amendments is being undertaken by the DPE, with the exhibition closing on 31 March 2017.

CONCLUSION

The draft amendments to the EP&A Act are generally supported subject to the issues raised in this report and Council’s submission being addressed by the DPE.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Draft submission on the proposed EP&A Act amendments for Council consideration

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Item No: C0317 Item 9

Subject: Statement of Vision and Priorities

File Ref: 16/6060/24777.17

Prepared By: Kathryn Ridley - Corporate Strategy Planner

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

Council is required to develop a Statement of Vision and Priorities to provide high level guidance until the creation of a new Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for the Inner West. The Statement of Vision and Priorities is considered a first step in the development of the CSP. A first draft CSP will be completed by September 2017 at which point it will be presented to the newly elected Council for consideration. The Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities was developed following a three month period of community engagement and adopted by Council in December for the purpose of community review. The Draft was then made available for comment from 12 December 2016 to 8 February 2017. A final version was presented to the Local Advisory Committee (LRAC) on 14 March 2017. It is proposed that the Statement of Vison and Priorities be adopted by Council as an interim piece of work until the implementation of a Community Strategic Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The report be received and noted.

2. The Statement of Vision and Priorities, inclusive of the amendments, be adopted as an interim document until the development and implementation of the Community Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) requires all newly amalgamated councils to prepare a statement of vision and priorities. The Statement is described as a succinct statement to “provide high level guidance for the early period of the new council, until the adoption of the first community strategic plan”. (DPC Managing Change: Guidance for Key Staff p.32). The draft Statement was prepared following a three-month period of community, LRAC and staff engagement. Over 1,700 people participated in the process. On 6 December 2016 Council adopted the Statement for the purpose of community review. The draft Statement of Vision and Priorities was displayed from 12 December to 8 February at:

· Your Say Inner West online engagement hub

· Council’s service centres

· Council’s Australia Day event in Enmore Park

· Presentations to Council’s Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs)

The Statement is an interim piece that will expire in July 2018 - or earlier, depending on the adoption date of the new Community Strategic Plan (CSP).

DEVELOPING THE CSP

The Inner West Community Strategic Plan will;

· Establish a vision for the future;

· Identify the priority issues impacting the community, now and into the future;

· Propose strategies to address the issues;

· Establish an evidence based advocacy agenda;

· Identify stakeholders responsible for delivering the CSP;

· Identify opportunities for sector partnerships;

· Identify integration with State and Regional Plans;

· Identify a series of community indicators and targets to help monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of strategy implementation;

· Be based on the social justice principles of equity, access, participation, and rights; and

· Be a minimum of ten years.

Community engagement for the CSP will launch at the Carnival of Cultures on 19 March 2017 and be informed by the community engagement strategy currently in development. The Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) and the Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs) are considered key stakeholders in the process. The engagement strategy is being developed to incorporate roles for the LRAC and SRG throughout the development of the CSP.

THE INTERIM VISION

The interim Vision reflects the most commonly identified values and ideas for the future as expressed by the community during the broader engagement process. Three Vision statements, based on community feedback, were presented to the LRAC for consideration. Following input from LRAC members, who observed that recognition of our Aboriginal heritage should form the focus of our Vision, Option 3 was revised. This option was then presented at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting on 22 November at Leichhardt Town Hall. The following interim Vision was supported;

We are Inner West, land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples, whose rich cultures, heritage and history we acknowledge and respect. Together we are an inclusive, passionate, creative, vibrant community united in our desire to build a great future for all who live and

do business here.

THE INTERIM PRIORITIES

The community satisfaction survey alone attracted over 1,000 participants. The results showed that the majority of people were concerned about the longer-term impacts of “development in the area and the flow-on effects of traffic, congestion, population growth, public transport, parking, green spaces, environmental concerns and infrastructure.” (Micromex Research 2016). Overall, eight high level Priorities emerged as a result of the community engagement. They were;

1. Planning and Development

2. Transport

3. Social vitality and quality of life

4. Sustainability and environment

5. One Council

6. Local business and industry

7. Advocacy

8. Local democracy

The purpose of the interim Priorities is to provide high level guidance to Council and inform development of an Operational Plan and Budget for 17/18.

COMMUNITY REVIEW RESULTS

In December, Council adopted the Draft Statement of Vison and Priorities for the purpose of community review. During the review period, 37 individual responses were received via Your Say Inner West. Of the 37 submissions received, 27 supported the Statement, 10 did not support it. (Please refer to the Community Engagement Summary Report attached for further information)

The Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs) were also formally invited to review the Statement. The SRGs convened for the first time in February 2017. Officers invited the SRGs to provide input after the formal closing date to accommodate their meeting schedule.

Feedback on the Priorities

Based on community and SRG feedback, some amendments to the dot points within the Priorities have been made. Amendments were made in cases whereby it was determined the changes would not require additional community consultation, i.e. they did not change the intent. Most changes were made to provide further clarification. No changes were made to the high-level Priorities, only to the supporting dot points providing the level of detail.

Two new dot points were added based on both individual and SRG feedback. They are;

Under Priority 2; Transport – “Encouraging active transport”

Under Priority 6; Local business and industry – “Encouraging socially and environmentally responsible business practises”

Where potential gaps in the Priorities have been identified it is proposed these findings be used to inform the second phase of community engagement activities informing the CSP commencing in March. This will allow Council to feedback to the broader community the ideas captured online and begin the process of taking the Priorities to the next level; i.e. confirming the gaps, developing specific objectives, strategies (to achieve these objectives) and targets.

Please refer to the Community Engagement report (attached) for the summary of the recommended amendments.

Feedback on the Interim Vision

While feedback was largely supportive, some submissions indicated differing perspectives on what the focus of the longer term (or CSP) Vision could be. It is proposed that the interim Vision be adopted and that feedback received be used to inform the development of the longer-term Vision for the Inner West as part of the CSP process. This allows for an inclusive revisit of the Vision where a broader community perspective can be considered.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Operational Plan and Budget 17/18 will factor in any specific programs and projects that specifically support implementation of the priorities. It should be noted that the current Operational Plan and Budget 16/17 supports many of the priorities as they remain largely reflective of the outcomes articulated in the community strategic plans, and therefore delivery programs, of the former councils.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council implemented a community engagement program in the creation of the Vision and Priorities. Input was gathered through:

· A community engagement forum held on 5 September 2016 at Ashfield Town Hall.

· Focus groups with members of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander, Youth and Access communities.

· Festivals and events held throughout October at Ashfield, Summer Hill and Marrickville, with Leichhardt’s Norton Street Festa.

· A survey on Council’s online engagement hub, Your Say Inner West.

· A Community Satisfaction Survey facilitated by Micromex Research.

· Staff engagement through an online and paper-based survey.

· Workshop with LRAC (Local Representation Advisory Committee – former councillors).

· Final review of by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting participants on 22^nd November at Leichhardt Town Hall.

The draft Statement of Vision and Priorities was displayed for the purpose of review from 12 December to 8 February at:

· Your Say Inner West online engagement hub.

· Council’s service centres.

· Council’s Australia Day event in Enmore Park.

· Presentations to Council’s Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs).

Over 1,700 people participated across a range of face-to-face and online methods.

CONCLUSION

The Community Strategic Plan community engagement program will commence in March. The first draft CSP will be prepared for the consideration of the incoming Council (September 2017). The Statement of Vision and Priorities is a first step in the development of the CSP and will provide direction to Council in the meantime. It will also serve to inform the Operational Plan 2017/18. Feedback received during the review period will be considered in the CSP Issues Paper and be used to inform the next phase of community engagement.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Statement of Vision and Priorities - Engagement Report for Community Review of Draft - March 2017
2.⇩	STATEMENT OF VISION AND PRIORITIES v7_Council March 2017

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

Community Review of Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities –

Engagement Report

March 2017

Overview

Inner West Council developed a draft Statement of Vision and Priorities following broad community engagement September–November 2016. The draft was displayed for community review December 2016–February 2017 and 37 responses were received. The Strategic Reference Groups were also invited to provide responses.

Engagement program

Engagement was undertaken from 12/012/16–08/02/2017.

The draft Statement of Vision and Priorities was displayed at:

· Your Say Inner West online engagement hub

· Council’s service centres

· Council’s Australia Day event in Enmore Park

· Presentations to Council’s Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs)

Responses

During the review period, 37 responses were received through the Your Say Inner West online engagement hub, and submissions from the SRGs.

The tables below show the questions asked and responses received through Your Say Inner West. Key themes from the comment analysis follow.

Analysis of comments

Comments received were individually analysed and themes, issues or gaps were identified and summarised below. Comments will be further analysed, in their entirety in the next stage of engagement for the development of the Community Strategic Plan.

Comments

Staff Response

Vision

· Acknowledge those who work, visit, study and socialise; current and future community

· Protect the existing flavour and unique nature of the inner west

· Sustainable future, …healthy community, …care for the environment/land and each other

· We are THE Inner West not “we are inner west”

· More succinct

Vision to be considered as part of CSP engagement

Planning and development

· Strengthen the language of this priority to reflect community concerns and acknowledge the impact of key development projects on the community

· Protecting the character and cohesion of the area’s unique localities

· Increasing and improving open space and facilities rather than ‘maintaining’.

· Promoting sustainable development / best environmental practice

· Facilitating integrated planning for the LGA - education, recreational / green space, health care

· Retaining employment land, supporting high street activation

Dot point 5 updated to reflect the need to not only maintain but protect, increase and improve open space. Now reads; “Protecting, increasing and improving green/open spaces” instead of maintaining

Final dot point changed to “retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating uses”

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Transport

· Managing traffic congestion and encouraging reduction in private vehicle use, supporting active transport (walking/cycling) and improving public transport”

· GreenWay is more than transport – e.g. “delivering the GreenWay as a bush corridor with foot and cycle paths”

“Promoting active transport” added as a new dot point.

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

· Address service needs for all population groups including people from CALD backgrounds, children, frail aged, homeless, people with invisible disabilities

· Inclusion and social connection for all; visual representations of inclusive communities

· Supporting health and wellbeing

All recommendations incorporated

Inclusion for “everyone” added to first dot point.

“Health” included alongside dot point 7 to now read “Health & wellbeing”

Last dot point changed to “addressing service needs of all population groups”

Sustainability and the environment

· This priority moves between major policy areas and specific projects; if specific projects are included then the list should be more comprehensive eg community gardens included but Our Solar Future omitted

· Environmental sustainability should be addressed in all priority areas

· Protecting and enhancing our natural heritage, including biodiverse green space, waterways, and vulnerable areas; reduce water run-off

· Supporting clean modes of transport

· Improving air quality with more vegetation rejuvenation

· Renewable energy facilitation and targets

· Zero waste policy – promoting waste avoidance, reuse and recycling

· More ethical and eco-sustainable products and services

· Greener streets and places, protect and enhance park and street tree coverage, mitigation of heat islands, enhanced habitat

· Reduce noise, water and air pollution through environmental sustainability

· Stronger focus on sustainability in development

· Acting to mitigate and manage the causes and effects of climate change

· Add “the Greenway and other bush areas” to the Cooks River

Dot point “Supporting local sustainability projects and initiatives” now replaces “Supporting community gardens”

Dot point 2 has been revised to incorporate biodiversity and water

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

One council

· Harmonise and improve quality of services from three former Council areas; provide basic and necessary services and amenities to residents at a reasonable cost to residents, by effective and efficient delivery and control of costs

· One Council should not be a priority; the other priorities can be achieved with one or more Councils; stop the merger of local councils

· Commit to being a carbon-neutral council - “Planning for transition to a 100% renewable organisation”.

No changes made

All comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Local industry and business

· More support for shared economies that encourage renewable energy

· More support and provision of ethical and socially/environmentally responsible businesses;

· Support community organisations based in our area which provide employment opportunities for local people, and ensure local community services.

· Creating a central marketing plan run and managed by each local Chamber group for their respective areas. Funds could be raised by an additional business council Levy.

· “Promoting environmentally sustainable business practice”.

Encouraging socially and environmentally responsible business practices has been added as a new dot point.

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Advocacy

· Addressing negative impacts of planning and development on quality of life; saving existing suburbs; population stabilisation

· Change title; Advocacy for our Community

· Engage community members and stakeholders in Council’s advocacy work; Council should be proactive not reactive

· “Requiring all development and infrastructure projects within and affecting our area be well-justified and environmentally sustainable.”

· “Local and urban projects” is unclear - “local, regional and Greater Sydney projects”?

· Add Sydenham to Bankstown corridor, the Bays Precinct, Parramatta Road development, and air quality and noise issues at the White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

Dot point 1 amended to reflect impact on quality of life and suburbs now reads; “Minimising negative impacts of development and population growth for example on quality of life, environment, infrastructure, liveability, & existing suburbs”

Last dot point amended replacing the word “urban” with “regional”. List of examples expanded to include Bays Precinct, Sydenham to Bankstown corridor, Parramatta Road development and White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Local democracy

· No democracy without elected representatives

· Range of mediums/mechanisms required to reach a broad section of community to participate in engagement processes

· Vague and jargonish – partnerships, pathways; suggest “Communicating council deliberations, plans and projects clearly and openly to all potentially interested residents”.

· Include commitment to evidence of this in Community Strategic Plan eg "Ensuring participatory community engagement and having the ability to provide evidence of this".

“Communicating council deliberations, plans and projects clearly and openly” now replaces “ Providing accessible, transparent communication”.

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Participants’ information – suburb of residence

Ashfield	1	Marrickville South	1
Balmain	3	Newtown	1
Birchgrove	1	Rozelle	3
Dulwich Hill	9	St Peters	4
Enmore	2	Stanmore	1
Leichhardt	1	Sydenham	1
Lilyfield	3	Tempe	1
Marrickville	5	TOTAL	37

Strategic Reference Groups

Council’s Strategic Reference Groups (SRGs) met for the first time in February 2017 and were presented with the draft Statement of Vision and Priorities. Due to the timing, members were invited to comment as individuals and many have done so, as well as submitting a formal response on behalf of the SRG.

SRG feedback is summarised below. No amendments were made against the Vision (as previously noted). All comments will be carried forward into the next round of engagement.

SRG

Comments

Staff response

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

No amendments requested. The Statement was received and noted.

Noted

Economic Development

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

The Economic Development SRG supported the Statement of Vision and Priorities and did not have suggestions for amendments; however the Group noted that “There was some confusion in relation to the priorities – Is Priority 1 higher than Priority 5 and 8 for example”.

Noted

Environment

Thursday, 9 February 2017

The Environment SRG suggested the vision be reworded to:

We are Inner West, land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples, whose rich cultures, heritage and history we acknowledge and respect. Together we are an inclusive, ~~passionate~~, creative, vibrant community united in our ~~desire~~ commitment to build a great and sustainable future for all who live and do business here.

The Environment SRG thought that using the word priority and then a number indicates that one area has preference over another and that it might be better to use a different system of referring to the priorities.

Generally most members of the SRG thought that the words were fluffy and repetitive, one thought it was lovely and would be proud to live in that place.

One comment was that the expression was simplistic and repetitive and not reflective of the maturity or levels in the former council’s documents

Vision to be considered as part of CSP engagement

Housing and Affordability

Monday, 13 February 2017

No comments received

Not applicable

Planning and Heritage

Thursday, 9 February 2017

· First concern, Heritage is not one of the 8 high level priorities

· We need to protect heritage buildings/items, conservation areas, state heritage objects

· List of gazetted items (both tangible and intangible) in Schedule 5 of Marrickville LEP 2011, Leichhardt LEP 2013 and Ashfield LEP 2013

· Heritage is an ongoing investigation, compare current insight to 1980’s, strong industrial heritage of Inner West

· Community Strategic Plan – more needs to be protected; if it is not in the vision statement, then where will heritage be identified in the documents flowing down

· Priority 5 of “one council”, a bit of “window dressing”, doesn’t mean we can’t tell the different stories of each former council

· Need for Vision statement to address Aboriginal heritage as well as post-settlement heritage and history.

· Vision Statement should be short, simple.

· RESOLUTION: Changes agreed by group to the Vision Statement in Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities:

We are the Inner West, with rich cultures, heritage and history. We acknowledge and respect the land of the Cadigal and Wangal peoples. Together we are a diverse and inclusive community. We are a creative and vibrant community united in our desire to plan a great future for all who live and do business here.

· RESOLUTION: Group agreed that the emphasis in Priority 1 needed to be on both industrial and employment generating lands, as follows:

“Retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating land uses” instead of “Retaining industrial land”

· RESOLUTION: Rewording of final bullet point Priority 4:

Conserve our historic places as integral to sustainability and resilience.

· Discussion on selection of major projects in IWC area under Priority 7. Yasmar Estate, WestConnex, Callan Park, why not Cooks River? Cooks River is a local item of significance, other items are State significant.

· Agreed that the feedback on the Vision and Priorities would be forwarded to Corporate Planning who are responsible for preparing the Community Strategic Plan. This feedback to be considered as a formal submission.

Vision to be considered as part of CSP engagement

Request to change the “Retaining industrial land” was made as per the recommendation to “Retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating land uses”

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Social Inclusion

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

No comments received

Not applicable

Transport

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

The members discussed the "Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities" and agreed with 'The Vision' and also recommended the inclusion of the word 'diverse' after the word ‘inclusive’ in 'The Vision' statement.

The members also suggested some changes to Priority 2 – Transport. These were:

· New dot point - Encourage Active Transport

· Add Safety and Transport Information to dot point 'Improving accessibility and connectivity' so it reads 'Improving accessibility, safety, connectivity and transport information.'

Also, a ‘road hierarchy mode’ should be added where pedestrians are listed as a first priority, followed by other users, with the motor vehicle being listed as a last priority.

Vision to be considered as part of CSP engagement

“Encouraging active transport” now included as a new dot point

All other comments noted and will inform CSP engagement and discussion paper

Young Leaders

Monday, 13 February 2017

The Young Leaders SRG supported the Statement of Vision and Priorities without amendment.

Noted

Additional comments from one member of the Environment SRG as outlined above:

Summary of amendments

Based on community and SRG feedback the following amendments have been recommended .

Original

Revised

Priority 1 - Planning and Development

· Managing and planning for population growth

· Improving access to affordable housing

· Protecting heritage buildings and items

· Providing clean, safe, welcoming public spaces

· Maintaining green/open spaces

· Maintaining our community assets e.g. buildings and land

· Retaining industrial land

Priority 1 - Planning and Development

· Managing and planning for population growth

· Improving access to affordable housing

· Protecting heritage buildings and items

· Providing well maintained, safe, welcoming public spaces

· Protecting, increasing and improving green/open spaces

· Maintaining our community assets e.g. buildings and land

· Retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating uses

Priority 2 - Transport

· Delivering the GreenWay

· Managing traffic congestion

· Provision and maintenance of local infrastructure e.g. roads, footpaths

· Improving bike paths and networks

· Improving accessibility and connectivity

· Addressing car parking issues in key locations, including residential and business districts

Priority 2 - Transport

· Delivering the GreenWay

· Managing traffic congestion

· Provision and maintenance of local transport infrastructure e.g. roads, footpaths

· Improving bike paths and networks

· Improving accessibility and connectivity

· Addressing car parking issues in key locations, including residential and business districts

· Encouraging active transport (NEW)

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

”

· Promoting inclusion, particularly for people with a disability

· Providing social hubs, meeting places and community events

· Supporting diverse, multi-cultural communities

· Improving access to recreation, both active and passive

· Promoting Aboriginal culture - past, present and future

· Improving access to community facilities, particularly for youth and seniors

· Supporting wellbeing

· Supporting the arts

· Addressing gaps in service provision e.g. childcare

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

”

· Promoting inclusion for everyone, particularly for people with a disability

· Providing social hubs, meeting places and community events

· Supporting diverse, multi-cultural communities

· Improving access to recreation, both active and passive

· Promoting Aboriginal culture - past, present and future

· Improving access to community facilities, particularly for youth and seniors

· Supporting health and wellbeing

· Supporting the arts

· Addressing service needs of all population groups

Priority 4 - Sustainability and environment

· Protecting highly vulnerable areas and habitats including the Cooks River

· Responding to, mitigating and managing the impacts of climate change

· Tree management and protection

· Promoting recycling

· Supporting community gardens

· Protecting and enhancing our natural heritage

Priority 4 - Sustainability and environment

· Responding to, mitigating and managing the impacts of climate change

· Protecting and enhancing our natural heritage including highly vulnerable areas, habitats, biodiversity and waterways for example, the Cooks River

· Tree management and protection

· Promoting waste avoidance, reuse and recycling

· Supporting local sustainability projects and initiatives

· Protecting and enhancing our natural heritage

Priority 5 - One council

· Providing equitable, integrated and efficient services across the whole LGA

· Achieving innovation in service delivery

· Establishing who we are, and what we stand for

· Undertaking long term strategic planning for the Inner West

Priority 5 - One council

· Providing equitable, integrated and efficient services across the whole LGA

· Achieving innovation in service delivery

· Establishing who we are, and what we stand for

· Undertaking long term strategic planning for the Inner West

Priority 6 - Local business and industry

· Delivering main street and town centre vitality

· Creating vibrant night-time economies

· Supporting small businesses

· Creating new jobs, particularly for young people

· Supporting innovation and creative industries

Priority 6 - Local business and industry

· Delivering main street and town centre vitality

· Creating vibrant night-time economies

· Supporting small businesses

· Creating new jobs, particularly for young people

· Supporting innovation and creative industries

· Encouraging socially and environmentally responsible business practises (NEW)

Priority 7 – Advocacy; representing our community

—

· Minimising negative impacts of development and population growth e.g. on environment, infrastructure, liveability

· Improving access to key services e.g. public transport, education

· Achieving better community and environmental outcomes on local and urban projects e.g. WestConnex, Callan Park, Yasmar estate

Priority 7 – Advocacy for our community

—

· Minimising negative impacts of development and population growth for example on quality of life, environment, infrastructure, liveability, & existing suburbs

· Improving access to key services e.g. public transport, education

· Achieving better community and environmental outcomes on local, and regional projects examples include; WestConnex, Callan Park, Yasmar estate, Bays Precinct, Sydenham to Bankstown corridor, Parramatta Road development and White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

Priority 8 - Local democracy

· Ensuring participatory community engagement

· Creating opportunities for youth engagement and pathways development

· Developing partnerships

· Providing accessible, transparent communication

Priority 8 - Local democracy

· Ensuring participatory community engagement

· Creating opportunities for youth engagement and pathways for youth involvement in local democracy

· Developing partnerships to deliver community outcomes

· Communicating council deliberations, plans and projects clearly and openly

Council Meeting

28 March 2017

STATEMENT OF VISION AND PRIORITIES

INNER WEST COUNCIL

Message from the Administrator

I am pleased to present Inner West Council’s ‘Statement of Vision and Priorities’. The Statement was developed over a three month period in close consultation with the community of the inner west and council staff. The Statement was also placed on a period of public review. The Statement sets out strategic priorities that will provide high level guidance to Council until the development of a single Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for the inner west. The CSP will establish a common direction for the new Council as we continue to work towards achieving better outcomes for the people who choose to live, work and invest in the inner west.

In preparing the Statement we asked the community what the key issues and challenges are for the inner west and what Council needed to focus on in the next 12 to 18 months. These issues formed the basis of our eight high level priorities. They are;

1. Planning and Development

2. Transport

3. Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

4. Sustainability and the environment

5. One council

6. Local industry and business

7. Advocacy

8. Local democracy.

The priorities will be further explored as we develop the Community Strategic Plan. Community engagement on the CSP is due to commence in March of 2017 with an Issues Paper designed to help us better understand the more complex challenges that we face. It will also serve to open dialogue with potential partners and stakeholders as we investigate opportunities to work together in the best interests of the Inner West.

We are in the process of identifying a set of performance indicators that will tell us whether or not we are achieving better outcomes for the community across the eight priority areas. We will be reporting against these indicators on our website. If you would like to follow our progress please visit www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au.

About the Statement

The Statement has been designed to provide high level direction and guidance for Council until the adoption of a single Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West. It will also serve to inform the development of the Operational Plan and Budget for 2017/18.

The Statement supports an outcomes based agenda for engaging stakeholders and developing partnerships, ensures the continuity of the projects commenced by the former councils and provides a shared vision for the future.

Developing the Statement

Council implemented a community engagement program in the creation of the Statement of Vision and Priorities ensuring representation consistent with our demographics. Input was gathered through;

- A community engagement forum held on 5 September 2016 at Ashfield Town Hall

- Focus groups with members of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander, Youth and Access communities

- Festivals and events held throughout October at Ashfield, Summer Hill, Marrickville, and Leichhardt’s Norton Street Festa

- A survey on Council’s online engagement hub, Your Say Inner West

- A Community Satisfaction Survey facilitated by Micromex Research

- Staff engagement through an online and paper-based survey

- A workshop with our Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC)

- Review by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting participants, 22^nd November at Leichhardt Town Hall

- A period of public review from 12 December 2016 to 8 February 2017

The community satisfaction survey was the most comprehensive engagement exercise undertaken with over 1000 residents participating. The survey showed that people are mostly concerned about the longer term impacts of “development in the area and the flow-on effects of traffic, congestion, population growth, public transport, parking, green spaces, environmental concerns and infrastructure.” – Micromex Research 2016.

Staff also examined the Community Strategic Plans (CSPs) of the former local government areas. This was to ensure that the intention and direction of the current plans were not lost. Analysis showed that the top of mind issues in the CSPs were largely reflective of those identified by the Inner West community during the engagement process.

Delivering on the priorities

Council staff are identifying the key pieces of work, planned or already in train, that support the priorities. Many have already been identified including the development and implementation of a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (supporting Priority 1), delivering the Stronger Communities Fund (supporting Priorities 2, 3 & 4) and development of a single Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West (supporting Priority 5). Some activities will address more than one priority, therefore achieving multiple community outcomes. Where gaps are identified, Council will consider any new actions required or projects that might be accelerated.

It is important to note that addressing the priorities is not solely the responsibility of Council. As is the case with the Community Strategic Plans, Council is one of several key stakeholders responsible for achieving better outcomes for the local community. Council will therefore assign high level indicators against the priorities allowing us to measure whether or not we, and our partners, are on the right track.

These indicators, along with details of Council’s key supporting projects, will be available on our website from early 2017. The Operational Plan and Budget 2017/18 will identify the relevant Council service units and programs contributing to the priorities. A draft Operational Plan and Budget will be available for community comment in April 2017. Formal reporting against the Operational Plan will continue on a bi-annual basis.

The Statement of Vision and Priorities

In adopting this Statement of Vision and Priorities Council commits to working towards a shared vision and actioning projects and initiatives identified as essential to addressing the eight priorities listed below.

The Vision and Priorities will remain in place until the adoption and implementation of a new Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West.

The Vision

The Priorities

Priority 1 - Planning and Development

· Managing and planning for population growth

· Improving access to affordable housing

· Protecting heritage buildings and items

· Providing well maintained, safe, welcoming public spaces

· Protecting, increasing and improving green/open spaces

· Maintaining our community assets e.g. buildings and land

· Retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating uses

Priority 2 - Transport

· Delivering the GreenWay*

· Managing traffic congestion

· Provision and maintenance of local transport infrastructure e.g. roads, footpaths

· Improving bike paths and networks

· Improving accessibility and connectivity

· Addressing car parking issues in key locations, including residential and business districts

· Encouraging active transport

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

”

· Promoting inclusion for everyone, particularly for people with a disability

· Providing social hubs, meeting places and community events

· Supporting diverse, multi-cultural communities

· Improving access to recreation, both active and passive

· Promoting Aboriginal culture - past, present and future

· Improving access to community facilities, particularly for youth and seniors

· Supporting health and wellbeing

· Supporting the arts

· Addressing service needs of all population groups

Priority 4 - Sustainability and environment

· Responding to, mitigating and managing the impacts of climate change

· Protecting and enhancing our natural heritage including highly vulnerable areas, habitats, biodiversity and waterways for example, the Cooks River

· Tree management and protection

· Promoting waste avoidance, reuse and recycling

· Supporting local sustainability projects and initiatives

Priority 5 - One council

· Providing equitable, integrated and efficient services across the whole LGA

· Achieving innovation in service delivery

· Establishing who we are, and what we stand for

· Undertaking long term strategic planning for the Inner West

Priority 6 - Local business and industry

· Delivering main street and town centre vitality

· Creating vibrant night-time economies

· Supporting small businesses

· Creating new jobs, particularly for young people

· Supporting innovation and creative industries

· Encouraging socially and environmentally responsible business practises

Priority 7 – Advocacy for our community

—

· Minimising negative impacts of development and population growth for example onquality of life, environment, infrastructure, liveability, existing suburbs

· Improving access to key services e.g. public transport, education

Priority 8 - Local democracy

· Ensuring participatory community engagement

· Creating opportunities for youth engagement and pathways for youth involvement in local democracy

· Developing partnerships to deliver community outcomes

· Communicating council deliberations, plans and projects clearly and openly

For the purpose of this Statement, the GreenWay is represented within Priority 2 - Transport. It is acknowldeged that, as is the case with many major projects, the GreenWay will achieve multiple community outcomes and therefore meets more than one of the Priority areas.

[1] As defined in State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 (Affordable Housing)

[2] See for example Gleeson, B. and Randolph, B. (2002) ‘Social disadvantage and planning in the Sydney Context’, in Urban Policy and Research Vol. 20(1) pp101-107; and Kellett, J. Morrissey, J. and Karuppannan, S. 2012. ‘The Impact of Location on Housing Affordability’, Presentation to 6th Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, 8-10 February 2012, Adelaide, South Australia.

[3] ABS census 2011 and JSA calculation.

[4] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[5] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[6] JSA has taken ‘normal profit’ as 10%, with this based on ABS 5676.0 Business Indicators, Australia, Table 22: Business gross operating profits/sales ratio, Current prices. This table shows average profit for Construction over the last five years as 9%. By way of further comparison, the 2015 annual report for Mirvac, a property development company, shows profit of $628 million (after interest and before taxation) for a total asset base of $6,462 million, a return on investment of 9.7%. They have thus based their calculation on likely average profit in the construction industry, whereas 15-20% may be a desired profit margin, or may include additional contingencies, perhaps including some of the contingencies that JSA had included in the build rate, which is quite conservative. The proposed 50/50 split of residual land value would appear to be more than enough to allow for such developer risk and contingencies.

[7] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[8] 20 average size units would equate to around 1,700m²Gross Floor Area.

[9] See Table 7.1 and Section 8 of JSA (2016) Value Capture Position Paper, Inner West Council.

[10] Based on a range of strategies from constituent councils including (the former) Marrickville Council’s Community Strategic Plan; and Part 4 of - (the former) Leichhardt Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy Action Plan 2008.

[11] NOTE: These sizes will preclude provision of car parking as part of the strata area and limit apartments to one bathroom.

[12] See Greater Sydney Commission (2016) Central District Plan, p 103, which states that, ‘In relevant areas, we will support councils and the Department of Planning and Environment in amending SEPP 70 — Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes). The application of the target identified in this draft District Plan should not prejudice negotiations to secure affordable housing in other locations where this target is not applicable’.

[13] See Greater Sydney Commission (2016) Central District Plan, p 103, which states that, ‘In relevant areas, we will support councils and the Department of Planning and Environment in amending SEPP 70 — Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes). The application of the target identified in this draft District Plan should not prejudice negotiations to secure affordable housing in other locations where this target is not applicable’.

[14] Gross household income

[15] Paying more than 30% of gross household income on housing

[16] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[17] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[18] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[19] That is, residual land value = value of completed development less development costs less [normal] profit; noting that uplift (or unearned land increment) = the difference between the residual land value and the market price of the land under the existing planning regime.

[20] Darcy, M. and Stubbs, J. 2005. ‘Housing and Contemporary Social Work Practice’, in Alston, M. & McKinnon, J. (eds) Social Work Fields of Practice, Oxford University Press, UK.

[21] Burke, T. and Hulse, K. 2010. ‘The Institutional Structure of Housing and the Sub-prime Crisis: An Australian Case Study’, in Housing Studies, Vol. 2. No. 6, 821-838, November 2010.

[22] NSW Government (2016) Future Directions for Social Housing in NSW, accessed online: http://www.socialhousing.nsw.gov.au/

[23] Kellett, J. Morrissey, J. and Karuppannan, S. 2012. ‘The Impact of Location on Housing Affordability’, Presentation to 6th Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, 8-10 February 2012, Adelaide, South Australia.

[24] Burnley, I. and Murphy, P. 2004. Sea Change: Movement from Metropolitan to Arcadian Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney; Burke, T. and Hulse, K. 2010. ‘The Institutional Structure of Housing and the Su-prime Crisis: An Australian Case Study’, in Housing Studies, Vol. 2. No. 6, 821-838, November 2010.

[25] See for example, JSA (2013) Background Paper: Housing Affordability, Wyong Shire Council.

[26] Walters, L (2013) Land Value Capture in Policy and Practice, Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration10.2: 5-21, page 5.

[27] Johnston, C. 2014. Capital Value Uplift and Affordable Housing, Shelter Updates, p 1.

[28] Johnston, C. 2014. Capital Value Uplift and Affordable Housing, Shelter Updates, p 1.

[29] Johnston, C. 2014. Capital Value Uplift and Affordable Housing, Shelter Updates, p2-3.

[30] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[31] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[32] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[33] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 1, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[34] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[35] Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. 2005. Practice Note on Planning Agreements, DIPNR.

[36] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[37] That is, residual land value = value of completed development less development costs less [normal] profit.

[38] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[39] Taylor, L. 2016. ‘Value Capture through Voluntary Planning Agreements Part 2, in In Focus, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.

[40] Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, c94F(1).

[41] Walters op cit, page 10.

[42] See Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, c94F(1)(a) and (b).

[43] Inclusionary zoning is a planning mechanism that seeks to ensure affordable housing is not excluded from a particular location because of environmental-planning controls or market forces (dwelling costs). It does this by requiring contributions from land developers as a condition of development consent, with the contributions being either units of affordable housing or an equivalent monetary amount (http://www.shelternsw.org.au/publications-new/factsheets-new/urban-policy-fact-sheets/423-what-is-incusionary-housing-longer-discussion/file accessed 26 May 2016).

[44] See for example Williams, P. (2000) ‘Inclusionary zoning and affordable housing in Sydney’ in Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 18, Issue. 3, 2000.

[45] Padilla, L. (1995) Reflections on Inclusionary Zoning and a Renewed Look at its Viability, Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 23: Iss.3, Article 1, pp 26 ff.

[46] http://growthcentres.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/docs/Regional_Infrastructure_Determination_Schedules.pdf accessed 8 June 2016.

[47] Johnstone (2014) op cit p. 19.

[48] Reported on Johnstone (2014) p. 19.

[49] Redfern Waterloo Authority Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006, p 9.

[50] Milligan, V., Gurran, N., Lawson, J., Phibbs, P. and Phillips, R. (2009) Innovation in affordable housing in Australia: bringing policy and practice for not-for-profit housing organisations together, AHURI, p. 47.

[51] Milligan, V., Gurran, N., Lawson, J., Phibbs, P. and Phillips, R. (2009) Innovation in affordable housing in Australia: bringing policy and practice for not-for-profit housing organisations together, AHURI, p. 50.

[52] Milligan, V., Gurran, N., Lawson, J., Phibbs, P. and Phillips, R. (2009) Innovation in affordable housing in Australia: bringing policy and practice for not-for-profit housing organisations together, AHURI, p. 47.

[53] Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. and Christensen, S.. (2008) New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications, AHURI, p. 66.

[54] Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. and Christensen, S.. (2008) New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications, AHURI, p. 69.

[55] Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. and Christensen, S.. (2008) New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications, AHURI, p. 71.

[56] Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. and Christensen, S.. (2008) New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications, AHURI, p. 87.

[57] Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. and Christensen, S.. (2008) New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications, AHURI, p. 90.

[58] AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 105 July 2008, p. 2.

[59] Faber, A. (2014) Inclusionary Housing Requirements: Still Possible? Paper presented to 2014 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

[60] Walters op cit, page 19.

[61] That is, residual land value = value of completed development less development costs less [normal] profit; noting that uplift (or unearned land increment) = the difference between the residual land value and the market price of the land under the existing planning regime.

[62] Refer analysis in Affordable Housing Policy: Background Paper, section 3.4.

[63] Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011, inspection of maps.

[64] Using Google Street View.

[65] Using Google Street View.

[66] Using Google Street View.

[67] Linear Regression Analysis for industrial zoned land for Marrickville LGA for the last year, R² = 0.64, Price = $1,087,800 + $870 x area (m²)

[68] 102/1179398 23/9/14 $3,293/m²; 1/53921 1/12/15 $4,764/m²; 1/169441, 1/655185, 43/792615, 4/9/14 $4,975/m².

[69] 20*70 m² (two bedroom apartment minimum size)*1.2 (allowance for corridors etc) = 1,680 m².

[70] In December 1999, the Act was amended to make the provision of affordable housing a specific objective of the Act; add a definition of affordable housing; and make explicit that environmental planning instruments could include provisions to provide for, maintain and regulate matters relating to affordable housing.

[71] State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 (Affordable Housing) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 each have different benchmarks and definitions which lead to quite different practical outcomes for ‘affordable housing’. SEPP 70 defines ‘very low-income’ households as those on less than 50% of median household income; ‘low-income’ households’ as those on 50-80% of median household income, and ‘moderate-income’ households as those on 80-120% of median household income for Sydney SD. Under SEPP ARH, affordable housing is defined as housing that is rented to very low, low and moderate income households for no more than 30% of their gross income; or as housing that complies with rents and eligibility criteria under the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), with the latter based on discount market rents and income eligibility limits. In some markets, the second criterion can result in households paying more than 30% of gross household income in rent (and sometimes substantially more) so that, while the housing must be rented to relevant target groups, it will not be ‘affordable’.

[72] The 2000 amendment to the EP&A Act was gazetted in direct response to the effective invalidation of Amendment 6 of South Sydney Council’s LEP (on Green Square). Significantly, this had resulted from a successful challenge to Council’s affordable housing provisions by Meriton Apartments in the NSW Land and Environment Court. The action was taken in relation to Green Square, a ‘brownfields’ redevelopment site on the old ACI Glass Factory site at Waterloo-Zetland. Green Square lies within the boundaries of South Sydney Council (SSC), and is affected by the SSC Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No. 2) – Green Square. The subject site was also affected by the Green Square Affordable Housing Development Control Plan (DCP), under which SSC aimed to include a component of housing affordable for low and very low incomes earners, who had traditionally lived in SSC area and were being rapidly displaced by gentrification. Despite the fact that the DCP provided for only 3% of residential and 1% of commercial floor space (equivalent) to be dedicated to affordable housing as defined in the DCP. Meriton mounted and was successful in having upheld, a Land and Environment Court (LEC) challenge that rendered the provision of the DCP invalid (Meriton Apartments v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (2000) NSW LEC 20 – Decision 18 February 2000). The decision of Justice Cowdry in this matter (Meriton Apartments v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (2000), NSW LEC 2000) relied partly on an inconsistency between South Sydney Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and DCP, and partly because it represented a ‘fundamental interference with property rights’ at common law (p.383). The NSW LEC decision on Green Square referred to had the effect of potentially invalidating all local government Development Control Plans (DCPs) that provided for the inclusion of affordable housing, including those who were attempting to deal with increasing gentrification through capturing some public benefit from the rezoning and redevelopment of existing sites, and had far reaching effects for other local planning schemes.

[73] Councils may only use these provisions if a SEPP identifies that there is a need for affordable housing within its area, and a Regional Environmental Plan (REP) or a local environmental plan (LEP) has been made in accordance with the relevant requirements for affordable housing provision set out in the SEPP, and if the Council has a developer contributions scheme set out or adopted in such a plan. The consent authority must be satisfied that that the development in respect of which the contribution is required will result in a reduction of affordable housing, will increase the need for affordable housing, or is in accordance with relevant regulations or zoning.

[74] SEPP 70 defines ‘very low-income’ households as those on less than 50% of median household income; ‘low-income’ households’ as those on 50-80% of median household income, and ‘moderate-income’ households as those on 80-120% of median household income for Sydney SD.

[75] For example, Wollongong and North Sydney Councils levied for a contribution to affordable housing to offset the loss of low cost flats, units and Boarding Houses from around 1987 under s94 of the Act on a per bedspace basis as well as using the provisions of the then SEPP 10 - Retention of Low Cost Rental. Wollongong discontinued its policy from around 1992, although North Sydney Council has continued to use s94 to levy for the loss of low cost accommodation until recently. The lack of LEC challenge was likely due to the relatively low levy per bedspace lost compared with the profit from strata subdivision or redevelopment.

[76] Thorpe, D., Miers, S., Stubbs, J., Richardson, R. and Berryman, C. 2004, Enhancing the Role of Local Government in Affordable Housing: Options for Improving Our Planning System, Affordable Housing Network, Shelter NSW.

[77] See for example, Stubbs, J. 2003. Battle for the Right to the City, Faculty of the Constructed Environment, RMIT (PhD thesis).

[78] Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011, inspection of maps.

[79] Using Google Street View.

[80] Using Google Street View.

[81] Using Google Street View.

[82] Linear Regression Analysis for industrial zoned land for Marrickville LGA for the last year, R² = 0.64, Price = $1,087,800 + $870 x area (m²)

[83] 102/1179398 23/9/14 $3,293/m²; 1/53921 1/12/15 $4,764/m²; 1/169441, 1/655185, 43/792615, 4/9/14 $4,975/m².

[84] 20*70 m² (two bedroom apartment minimum size)*1.2 (allowance for corridors etc) = 1,680 m².

	Separate house				Strata
Suburb	N	Q1	Q2	Q3	N	Q1	Q2	Q3
Camperdown	38	$1,207,000	$1,387,500	$1,737,500	18	$665,000	$740,000	$958,125
Dulwich Hill	62	$1,212,500	$1,400,000	$1,668,500	227	$545,000	$640,000	$750,000
Enmore	53	$1,150,000	$1,290,000	$1,435,000	15	$472,500	$640,000	$726,250
Lewisham	43	$1,136,000	$1,402,500	$1,787,500	96	$540,000	$600,000	$735,000
Marrickville	174	$1,050,000	$1,240,000	$1,405,750	212	$562,750	$640,000	$770,000
Newtown	121	$1,040,000	$1,210,000	$1,375,000	40	$447,875	$655,500	$846,250
Petersham	64	$1,132,500	$1,346,000	$1,546,250	68	$546,500	$686,980	$826,250
St Peters	68	$961,500	$1,156,430	$1,417,911	36	$612,500	$742,500	$1,069,000
Stanmore	89	$1,260,000	$1,440,000	$1,675,000	63	$579,750	$720,000	$984,000
Sydenham	15	$850,000	$975,000	$1,147,500	0
Tempe	54	$912,500	$1,030,000	$1,152,250	9	$505,000	$1,090,000	$1,100,000

Affordability
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income

	Separate house				Strata
Suburb	N	Q1	Q2	Q3	N	Q1	Q2	Q3
Annandale	139	$1,250,000	$1,425,000	$1,888,500	72	$598,125	$732,500	$941,250
Ashfield	145	$1,388,000	$1,570,000	$1,996,321	340	$596,500	$680,000	$752,000
Balmain	184	$1,410,125	$1,851,000	$2,281,250	80	$694,750	$966,750	$1,364,000
Balmain East	35	$1,694,500	$2,300,000	$3,220,000	12	$769,250	$1,081,750	$1,273,750
Birchgrove	44	$1,445,000	$1,725,000	$2,800,000	19	$822,500	$1,320,000	$1,810,000
Croydon	34	$1,007,500	$1,355,000	$1,576,250	16	$581,250	$597,500	$706,250
Haberfield	117	$1,580,000	$1,983,650	$2,402,560	40	$758,565	$792,290	$844,483
Leichhardt	214	$1,128,500	$1,267,500	$1,558,750	124	$662,425	$900,000	$1,061,250
Lilyfield	98	$1,251,250	$1,417,000	$1,820,000	41	$640,000	$805,000	$981,000
Rozelle	142	$1,250,000	$1,413,750	$1,668,750	113	$820,000	$1,115,000	$1,500,000
Summer Hill	50	$1,143,750	$1,511,000	$2,002,500	80	$631,250	$715,000	$785,000

Affordability
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income

1.⇩	Photomontages from draft addendum to M4 East UDLP showing proposed Parramatta Road ventilation facility and perimeter wall, Haberfield
2.⇩	Draft comments on draft addendum to M4 East UDLP from Council's Strategic Planner

1.⇩	IAG Minutes - 9 March 2017
2.⇩	LRAC Minutes - 14 March 2017

	Separate house				Strata						Boarding house
	1-2BR		3+BR		0-1BR		2BR		3+BR		Room
Post Codes	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median
2042 (Enmore/Newtown)	24	$695	22	$998	50	$438	17	$580	3	$980	2	$208
2044 (St Peters/Sydenham/Tempe)	5	$595	10	$750	5	$525	5	$640	3	$925	0
2048 (Stanmore)	4	$670	12	$975	15	$400	5	$590	3	$700	0
2049 (Lewisham/Petersham)	2	$875	10	$825	32	$400	19	$560	2	$655	2	$215
2050 (Camperdown)	2	$710	3	$950	37	$570	19	$700	2	$1,025	3	$250
2203 (Dulwich Hill)	4	$560	7	$800	23	$365	35	$530	2	$863	0
2204 (Marrickville)	9	$650	11	$755	31	$395	41	$500	5	$830	6	$200
2038 (Annandale)	12	$705	11	$965	15	$430	9	$695	2	$875	0
2131 (Ashfield)	6	$540	8	$825	26	$380	64	$498	11	$700	5	$200
2041 (Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove)	6	$710	10	$975	11	$510	20	$708	5	$950	0
2132 (Croydon)	2	$525	3	$750	5	$350	8	$470	0		0
2045 (Haberfield)	0		4	$1,100	1	$440	1	$500	0		0
2040 (Leichhardt, Lilyfield)	8	$685	20	$895	21	$400	17	$570	4	$725	0
2039 (Rozelle)	3	$870	4	$1,050	6	$510	2	$473	0		0
2130 (Summer Hill)	2	$650	5	$715	5	$420	11	$490	0		4	$230

Affordability
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income

1.⇩	Draft Homelessness Policy
2.⇩	Comments received from public exhibition period
3.⇩	Inner West Courier article 13 December 2016

	Non Fossil Fuel %
Portfolio	31 January 2017	28 February 2017
Ashfield	51%	49%
Leichhardt	60%	59%
Marrickville	59%	57%
Total	57%	55%

1.⇩	IWC Investments Feb 2017
2.⇩	IWC Monthly Interest Feb 2017
3.⇩	IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Feb 2017