To read the full release, click here
To view the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing Area list click here
1 February 2025
Mid-rise housing reform misses the mark
Urban Taskforce Australia CEO, Tom Forrest, said the release of 171 sites forming the Minns Government’s mid-rise housing reforms is a missed opportunity in efforts to drive housing supply near town centres and transport nodes.
The policy has the right intent, but since its initial exhibition fifteen months ago, the ambition has been wound back. Despite this, the housing yield predicted to be achieved over 5 years through this policy has not changed from that predicted when the draft was released.
Given the changes, the state of the market, the difficulties with feasibility, the time it takes to consolidate land parcels and progress development applications through Councils, the predictions that the policy will deliver 112,000 homes over the next 5 years are heroic.
The early assessment from the property sector is that under this policy, which will come into effect at the end of this month, much of the so called “missing middle” is still missing.
The policy steps back from the initially exhibited documents in a range of respects:
- The allowable density of development has been reduced from a Floor Space ratio
of 3:1 to only 2.2:1 in the medium density areas. In the low-rise areas, the densities
have also been reduced from 2:1 to only 1.5:1. In most cases, it will not be possible
to build dwellings at the permissible height within these FSR controls, once setbacks
from the street, adjoining properties and the rear of the property are taken into
account.
• The policy will now only apply to sites zoned residential R1, R2, R3 and R4 (now
excluding employment and non-residential zoned sites). This is a big and very
disappointing change, which effectively pushes housing further away from transport
nodes – the opposite of the TOD policy.
• The number of designated “town centres and rail station sites” that the policy will
apply to is considerably smaller at 171 than that anticipated when the draft was
published (there are 306 heavy rail stations on the electrified rail network alone), let
alone high intensity bus corridors, light rail stops, Metro stops and other town centres.
• The final version of the policy has changed from the draft that was exhibited to
now not allow the new low and medium density housing controls to apply to sites
that contain any listed heritage item. This is a massive walk-back from the
government’s strong statements on the misuse of heritage by many Councils (in the
North Shore and Eastern suburbs sites in particular)**.
• There is no longer any reference to supermarkets with a full range of stock as
designating a “town centre” for the purpose of the application of the 400m and
800m boundary radii.
The treatment of many key strategic sites that should have been included in the Government’s more ambitious Accelerated Precinct reforms is also disappointing. Key sites, including Bondi Junction, Chatswood and Edgecliff Stations, are ripe for considerable extra height and density.
Similarly, sites like the Five Dock town centre, soon to get a world class Metro station are included. This reflects a lack of vision for a site which should be being transformed by the multi-billion dollar investment into this game-changing infrastructure project.
Sites like Chatswood, Edgecliff, Five Dock, Bondi Junction, St Leonards, Burwood, Broadway, Milsons Point and Bankstown should not be compared with Annandale, Mayfield Town Centre or the Jewellstown Plaza in Lake Macquarie.
On the positive side, the policy has responded to Urban Taskforce concerns in relation to the height controls for mid-rise to make them work with modern building codes. That, at least, is sensible. It has also mandated that apartments are permissible in all R3 and R4 medium and high density residential zoned areas within these designated boundaries.
There is no new affordable housing component which is another nod to Urban Taskforce concerns regarding the impact of affordable housing contributions, particularly when applied in-perpetuity, on the feasibility of housing supply. The 30% bonus Infill Affordable Housing SEPP rule does apply and where this is taken up the affordable housing rules will apply.
The Premier and Planning Minister were on the money with the Housing Development Authority and its removal of high yield, high value projects from the stranglehold of councils. Unfortunately, the same philosophy has not been applied to these reforms.
end
The comments and analysis above can be attributed to Tom Forrest, CEO, Urban Taskforce