[North Eveleigh] How should we plan for growth? / NIMBYs / Compulsory Acquisitions / Waterloo South / Elizabeth St

Thu Mar 28 17:39:51 AEDT 2024

Dear REDWatch members, supporters and agencies,

April 4th REDWatch - How should we plan for growth?

Dealing with our inner NIMBY and the housing challenge

Compulsory Land Acquisitions review – Submissions by May 3

Waterloo South Community Plan

Bridge Housing Elizabeth Street Design well underway
Please note – this email contains hyperlinks. This means that if you see a blue underlined word or phrase that you can click on it and go directly to a document or to get more information.
April 4th REDWatch - How should we plan for growth?
The April REDWatch meeting will explore the City of Sydney’s response to the NSW government plans to increase housing within existing city footprints as outlined in the government’s low and mid-rise housing proposal<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/diverse-and-well-located-homes>.
The government wants to force councils to allow more homes to be built around suburban centres, railway stations and tram stops.  Benjamin Pechey, the City of Sydney’s Executive Manager Strategic Planning & Urban Design will present and respond to that plan and discuss how City of Sydney Council plans differently for growth.
The meeting will be held at 6pm on Thursday 4th April 2024 at Counterpoint’s Factory Community Centre, 67 Raglan St Waterloo and will also be available on Zoom via http://tinyurl.com/RedwatchMeetingZoom .
You can find out more about this issue in the SSH’s Where does the housing we need go?<https://southsydneyherald.com.au/where-does-the-housing-we-need-go/> For more detailed information see the government’s low and mid-rise housing proposal<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/diverse-and-well-located-homes> and City of Sydney Council’s submission<https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s80536/Attachment%20A%20-%20City%20of%20Sydney%20Submission%20on%20the%20NSW%20Government%20Changes%20to%20Create%20Low%20and%20Mid-Rise%20Ho.pdf>.
Given the NIMBY accusations being flung in this debate you also want to have a look at the NIMBY discussion below.
You can promote this event by sharing our Facebook event<https://www.facebook.com/events/1083079492927458> or the flyer<http://www.redwatch.org.au/eventnotice/240404redwp/view>
Dealing with our inner NIMBY and the housing challenge
The low and mid-rise housing proposal has helped stoke the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) and YIMBY (Yes in my back yard) debate. At the core of the debate is that it is better to increase density within the existing city footprint rather than to continue to expand the urban area leading to an increase of time it takes for people to travel and the need for new infrastructure as city footprint expands.
As soon as you decide to increase density without expanding the city’s land area then the growth has to go into the existing city footprint and suburbs and the city will change.
People attached to their existing communities are likely to resist that change happening in their area thus making it difficult for the needed growth to find somewhere to happen. The NIMBY label is thrown at anyone who questions a proposal to put increased density or a development in their neighbourhood.
Back in 2013 REDWatch held a workshop on NIMBYs, and with the low and mid-rise debate underway, it is probably a good time to revisit some of that discussion – on the REDWatch website you can see the NIMBY Discussion Points<http://www.redwatch.org.au/govt/nsw/nps13/130704redwn/view> that we used to unpack “NIMBYism, the good, the bad and the ugly”.
At the time we suggested that there were some questions that should be asked about a development to unpack our NIMBY responses. These questions are still relevant today. The questions were:

•         Does the development need to happen somewhere? (Is there a greater good?)

•         Are there local problems from the development? (Is there a local bad?)

•         What are problems – do they stand up to testing? (Are they real or imagined?)

•         Can the real problems be fixed or can they be compensated for?

•         Would you support the development elsewhere?

•         Do the problems go away for people if the development is elsewhere or does moving it create same or more problems?
One concern with the current low and mid-rise proposal is that it proposes to create blanket controls without local communities and Councils being able to discuss such questions and work out where growth is best to go within their local government area (LGA) and communities.
In the City of Sydney LGA this is not just for growth in housing, but also for growth in employment, entertainment, community facilities and other infrastructure to accommodate the growth in housing and employment. The City of Sydney has argued that the NSW government setting growth targets and then letting Council and communities work out where best to put that growth is a better approach than setting non-refusal standards for housing zoning.
There is a view in parts of state government, backed by the YIMBY push, that getting rid of existing planning controls will speed up that process and bring down the cost of housing across the board. Auckland in New Zealand has been used as a case study to support this view, but academic work by Cameron Murray and Tim Helm in their paper The Auckland myth: There is no evidence that upzoning increased housing construction<https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/the-auckland-myth-there-is-no-evidence> has questioned the earlier work.
Academics also point out that developers have an interest in keeping property prices and their margins high rather than flooding the market with housing that brings down property prices and dividends to their shareholders, so having land to redevelop is not the only factor keeping prices high.
Social housing advocates argue that focusing on providing more social and affordable rental housing not only addresses the housing needs for those who the market fails, but it also takes the pressure off the lower end of the housing market making it more affordable for others.
Underneath this issue is a wider debate about the level of immigration putting pressure on housing and the longer term need to have enough taxpayers in a low birth rate country to pay for an aging population. With immigration, dealing with the post-Covid return of students and a catch-up from stalled migration, it is easy for those opposed to change in their suburbs to target immigration. After all, if Australia’s population does not grow, there is no need to plan for that growth, but without growth Australia then faces the long term problems of how to support an aging population.
You can get an idea of some of the issues in the NIMBY/YIMBY debate from the 2023 video of Sydney University Henry Halloran Research Trust’s Contested Housing: the great YIMBY vs NIMBY debate<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEfIupA6AMw>.
Compulsory Land Acquisitions review – Submissions by May 3
One of the immediate impacts of a major infrastructure project, like Westconnex, has been around the compulsory acquisition of people’s homes and how much is paid for the property. Questions arise as to whether there is the ability to buy again in the same area and if there is any compensation in that process for the impact on those people impacted to deliver the argued wider public good.
The NSW Government has begun public consultation on their review into improving compulsory land acquisition processes for communities impacted by state infrastructure or other public projects which was a key election commitment.
Community consultations are occurring between 22 March and 3 May 2024. There is a discussion paper (PDF, 1.9 MB)<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/a-review-of-land-acquisition-in-nsw-discussion-paper.pdf> which presents options to improve the Act and government acquisition processes. More information on the review and how to make submissions are at www.planning.nsw.gov.au/land-acquisition-review<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/land-acquisition-review>.
Waterloo South Community Plan
The Waterloo South Draft Community Plan, mentioned in our last email update, has been delayed and is now expected in April. REDWatch has pencilled in our May 2nd meeting for Homes NSW Portfolio (formerly Land and Housing Corporation) to present and receive feedback on their plan. The plan will bring together the separate elements of what was previously referred to as the People and Place Framework. The elements to be combined in the plan include Connecting with country; Place making; Relocations and Human Services. Two of the four studies connected to People and Place have been released by Homes NSW and you can see them here:

•         People and Place Report: Waterloo Connecting with Country Framework prepared by Murawin<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/lahc22-23/240222lahcm/view>

•         People and Place Report: Waterloo Place Framework prepared by Hatch Roberts Day<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/lahc22-23/240222lahchrd/view>
Homes NSW has also released the People and Place Outcomes Report from October 2023 NCIE Workshop<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/lahc22-23/240222lahc/view> that gives some indication of the direction being taken in the other two reports.
REDWatch will let people know when the Draft Community plan is released for comment.
Bridge Housing Elizabeth Street Design well underway
REDWatch were recently invited to a local stakeholder and service provider briefing regarding Bridge Housing’s design for the redevelopment of Redfern Place at 600 Elizabeth St, Redfern, a partnership project between Bridge Housing and Homes NSW.  The project will deliver around 340 homes, including a mix of social, affordable, disability support, key worker and market housing (with a proportion of the homes allocated specifically for Aboriginal households).
Bridge have recently submitted an application to Housing Australia to fund more social and affordable housing on the site, if successful this will allow Bridge to replace market housing with more social and affordable housing. The project will also include a new community facility for the PCYC and a new head office for Bridge Housing.
Bridge are progressing the lodgement of a development application to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure and depending upon approval are targeting a construction start in mid-late 2025.
Bridge Housing is keen to continue ongoing dialogue about the project with people in the community. If you want to keep up to date with project information, contact the project team on 1800 244 863 or email engagement at urbis.com.au<mailto:engagement at urbis.com.au>

Regards,

Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Co-Spokesperson
Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490  Mob: 0418 457 392
email: spokesperson at redwatch.org.au<mailto:spokesperson at redwatch.org.au>
web: www.redwatch.org.au<http://www.redwatch.org.au/>
FB: www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/<http://www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/northeveleigh/attachments/20240328/9a61d254/attachment-0001.html>