16 October 2026

In this Edition...

1. NSW takes a stand on fiscal responsibility

2. Strip NIMBY councils of their assessment and planning determination powers (let them manage garbage collection) 

3. A half-baked, late, and over budget Metro - the latest infrastructure delivery failure

... and much, much more.

4. Don't blame me for the thing I boasted about, says Chalmers
5. Affordable housing must be based on GFA not NFA 
6. Anti-Dumping Commission decision will boost construction costs 
7. Infrastructure in Western Sydney is simply not keeping up with demand 
8. Twilight Tour:  22 Redan Lane on display
9. Council Watch
     Council affordable housing policies are killing feasibility
10. Members in the news

1. NSW takes a stand on fiscal responsibility

Tom Forrest likes a good "Lord of the Rings" reference

The NSW Government is really taking it up to its Commonwealth counterparts this week, showing up the Federal Treasurer in the process. 

On Tuesday, while delivering a keynote speech to the Sydney Institute, NSW Treasurer, Daniel Mookhey outlined his vision for the State’s accounts by announcing that a re-elected Minns Government will limit NSW’s debt ceiling to 15 percent of gross state product (GSP) and promising to cut $10 billion from what it already owes.  

The latest NSW budget papers predict net debt to be at 13.5 percent of GSP by 2029-30 down from 14.3 percent in 2025-26.  NSW has the lowest debt of any state in Australia and recently had its credit rating lifted.  The Treasurer says that he is determined to keep it that way.  

The new 15 percent statutory benchmark would be enshrined in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012, sitting alongside the existing legislated requirement that the State maintain its AAA credit rating.  

At a time when the RBA has been calling for a cut to rapidly growing Federal Government spending to help take the heat out of inflation, the NSW Government is showing real leadership on this matter.  

The policy turf has now been tilled and the challenge from Chirs Minns and Daniel Mookhey to the NSW Opposition is clear – will they vote for fiscal responsibility?  Will they subject their policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office for independent analysis and verification?

While the Urban Taskforce would like to see a reduction in the feasibility sapping fees, taxes, and charges that are faced by developers, and shift payment from construction certificate to occupation certificate stage, the NSW Government should be congratulated for showing true fiscal and economic leadership.  

We can only hope that Jim Chalmers learns from Daniel Mookhey’s example. 

These agencies are calling for productivity reform - is Dr Chalmers listening?  

Mookhey saves trusts from stamp duty on trust restructuring

The NSW Government has also stepped in to save the hapless Federal Treasurer from himself by stating boldly and clearly that state levied stamp duty will not be applied to trust restructuring required by the Federal Government Budget.

The 2026 Budget tax changes (the ones that make the cigar chuffing Joe Hockey and Matthias Cormann look like Paddington Bear in comparison), proposed a 30 percent minimum tax on discretionary trusts.  

Urban Taskforce blasted this move, raising significant concerns about the unintended consequences this would have for small to medium sized family-owned business using trusts for legitimate economic activities, including many in the construction sector. 

The Federal Government eventually did listen to some of the concerns we raised and made concessions in its exposure draft legislation to assist legitimate business activities, including the introduction of the alternative excluded election trust (EET)*. 

However, this meant that a trust electing to use the EET pathway may in fact face state transfer duties as a result of a change in status.  Urban Taskforce criticised this exposure to additional taxation, advising that:  

The risk of an additional stamp duty liability arose despite the Federal Treasurer’s assurances in relation to EET:  

The Treasurer’s protestations are earnest, but were not endorsed by his state counterparts, raising the prospect that complying with one level of government would incur taxation from the other. 

However, now that the legislation has been introduced into Parliament this week, the Urban Taskforce is pleased that at least someone has been listening to our concerns.

Step up once again, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey!

In a win for small businesses, Treasurer Mookhey has confirmed that he would ensure that discretionary trusts opting into the Federal Government’s fixed elected trust regime would not incur stamp duty.  

At a time when we face a housing supply and affordability crisis, fuelled in part by rapidly declining project feasibility, the last thing the construction industry needed was another tax measure that could drive smaller and family-owned developers out of the market, ultimately reducing housing supply and driving up housing costs.  

The NSW Government’s announcement is a sensible decision that delivers certainty to small and family-owned construction companies and ensures that they will not be hit with a tax bill after being forced to change how their business is structured.  

* Under the EET, a trustee must nominate all beneficiaries and fix each beneficiary's percentage entitlement to both income and capital.  The election can generally only be made during the 2028-29 financial year, and beneficiaries’ income and capital percentages must be the same and total 100 percent.  The trustee must distribute according to those nominated percentages each year. 

2. Strip NIMBY councils of their assessment and planning determination powers (let them manage garbage collection)

Councils that have a demonstrated history of opposition to new development are getting more proactive in their opposition, with alternative plans and development controls frequently being wielded to make new housing unfeasible. 

And their key target?  NSW Government planning policy. 

Mosman and Woollahra have taken the lead in this battle with Macquarie Street, proposing unworkable and unrealistic “locally tailored, evidence-based alternatives” to low- and mid-rise (LMR) housing policy or state-led rezonings. 

Worse, these councils have openly stated that their efforts are, according to Woollahra Council, to: 

• “minimise the impact of the recently introduced low and mid-rise housing reforms”;
• continue advocacy “against the LMR reforms, and their impacts on local character, heritage conservation, infrastructure, and surrounding amenity”; and
• “identify sections where improvements can be made to mitigate potential impacts from new development permissible under the LMR reforms”. 

Woollahra proposed a plan in opposition to the NSW Government’s proposals for the Woollahra Station precinct, that would deliver a mere third of the potential homes for the area. 

Mosman has created its own masterplan that proposes significant uplift on sites that will never be developed, while imposing setback and landscaping controls that will make most projects unfeasible. 

And, to date, they have been allowed to proceed. 

The State Government has talked the talk, but stopped short of direct action, leaving these councils emboldened and supported by their NIMBY constituencies. 

It is high time that the NSW Government steps in to show councils that it is serious about delivering more height and density, so that the development community can deliver the increased housing supply NSW so desperately needs. 

It should strip these councils of their development assessment and approvals powers and appoint an administrator to manage these processes in their stead. 

Talking to the Australian Financial Review, CEO Tom Forrest said that incentives are not working: 

The NSW Government cannot continue to be the dog being wagged by the tail.  Councils should not be able to thumb their noses at State policies and housing targets just because a vocal minority says that they should. 

While the carrots work for sensible councils that embrace growth and the infrastructure grants that should accompany it, for some councils, sadly, it’s time to bring out the big stick. 

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

3. A half-baked, late, and over budget Metro - the latest infrastructure delivery failure

The article below is the full text of an edited opinion piece by CEO Tom Forrest, published in the Daily Telegraph.  

The Daily Telegraph, 16 October 2026, Page 13

The Sydney Metro was supposed to be, and in many respects has been, transformative.

• Gone were the timetables – instead just a predictable frequency of service to more than cater for demand at any time of the day
• Gone were the drivers and guards – replaced by completely automated train operations
• Gone were the ticket sales staff and jack-booted para-military rail inspectors – replaced instead with automatic gates compatible with Opal cards or any credit card and monitored centrally by CCTV along with helpful, neatly attired, customer service staff.

The Metros were even planned with scope for expansion. 

While the frequencies started at a service every 6 minutes, this came down to one every 4.  There is capacity to further increase frequency of services to a service every 2 minutes but this will require expenditure on more rolling stock, which will no doubt cause delay and a further blow-out of the budget.

We all marvelled at the wisdom of Rodd Staples’ construction of platforms with the capacity to add an extra carriage at each end of the Metro train, turning the current 6-car sets into 8-car sets.  This alone created an expansion capacity of 33%!  We had not seen such forethought and wisdom since Bradfield planned and built the Sydney Harbour Bridge!

Now we are nearing the completion and opening of the full Metro service running between Tallawong in Sydney’s Northwest through to the CBD and towards the Southwest to Sydenham and onto Bankstown.

But as we get close to opening day, the failures are emerging.

The Metros have been incredibly popular. No doubt.

But you really need to question: did we really need to have Moscow Metro style grandiosity replete with cavernous station boxes and artwork, all at the expense of straightening the platforms in the section of the service between Sydenham and Bankstown? 

This failure means that even with mechanical hydraulic gap-fillers, three platform screen doors will remain permanently closed to keep passengers away from the remaining gap at Dulwich Hill station, and one each at Canterbury, Campsie and Marrickville. 

Remember, this is the same mob of deskbound clip-board carrying transport bureaucrats that completely stuffed the city when they opened the Cross City Tunnel (they closed off streets to force traffic to use a toll-road that no-one wanted to use). They then doubled down on their failure with the Rozelle interchange opening debacle.

But it gets worse.  The wisdom and enormous expense associated with building underground station boxes to cater for 8 car sets between Sydenham and Tallawong has been touched by the Transport for NSW magic doomsday wand.  There will be no 33% increase in capacity by simply adding 2 carriages to each Metro service, because the former Government decided in 2018 to cut costs and not extend the length of the platforms between Sydenham and Bankstown.

Let me explain.

To cater for an “8-car set” (as they are known in Trainspotter lingo), you need 176m of platform (plus a bit).  That is the specification that all the platforms between Sydenham to Tallawong have been built to.  Problem is, Bankstown station has only a 163m platform length; Wiley Park and Marrickville stations have 163m platforms;  with Belmore and Lakemba 169m.

Now it may be costly to extend them but not compared to the gross extravagance of the active transport that accompanies these stations; the extraordinary lengths to connect with country; the OTT artwork and sculptures; the vast caverns of sandstone and stainless steel. 

All beautiful, but not at the expense of the basic functioning of the entire Metro line! 

Stick to your knitting – build a nice, new, functional Metro line, and forget the rest.

The former Government’s obsession with community consultation (and desire to please everyone except the commuters of southwest Sydney) delivered bells and whistles that would make the most generous Santa Claus blush. It cost Sydney Metro a fortune – but then the money was gone and not enough was left for straight platforms long enough to cater for growth.

The Metro became the vanity project of Transport Ministers, bureaucrats, architects and engineers.

By deciding not to straighten and extend those platforms, the outcome is a half-baked Metro – but worse, the benefits of the longer station length along the rest of the route, that cost a fortune to deliver, are effectively alienated.

The Metro, like so many other rail and roads projects, has gone way over budget.

The timeframe for completion has also blown out. The EIS in 2018 stated it would be open by 2024. 

If these guys had been responsible for delivering the Sydney Olympic Games, they would have been lucky to have completed the work in time for Brisbane! No wonder those responsible for the Roads and Transport for the Olympics established the Olympic Roads and Traffic Authority and gave it veto powers over the Department of Transport.

I say again, Sydneysiders love their Metro.

But we want it to be delivered at its full potential.  No-one wants to go through the major disruption of track closures and replacement buses at some time in the future to retrofit platform straightening and lengthening that should have been delivered already.

Another transport infrastructure delivery failure – but I guess Sydneysiders are used to it.

4. Don't blame me for the thing I boasted about, says Chalmers

"Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan" – traditional proverb. 

A Budget night speech that would underpin Treasurer’s place in history.  He talked up big spending initiatives to support housing, and a commitment to: 

“help rebalance a system where house prices have decoupled from incomes”

His solution?  Hammer demand by introducing changes to CGT and negative gearing.  The same changes he promised he would not introduce prior to the last election.

This proved to be as popular as Paul Keating’s abandonment of the “L.A.W.” tax cuts promised prior to the 1993 election then abandoned later that year.  Keating lost the 1996 election and John Howard served as Prime Minister for the next 11 years.

Well, Dr Chalmers has certainly made his mark.

We were assured, his Budget changes would “create a fairer housing market” and reduce pressure on house prices, making it easier for first homebuyers to enter the market. 

But, rather than slowing growth in housing prices, the policies caused prices to plummet. 

This, in turn, made new housing supply less feasible (while Jim Chalmers ignores productivity reform on building sites) and, as a result, actually worsens the housing affordability crisis (the same crisis that has made Pauline Hanson a relevant threat to both of the major parties).

Since the Budget was released in May, prices across Greater Sydney have fallen by up to 18%, while auction clearance rates have halved. 

So, Treasury modelling that suggested that prices would continue to grow over the next couple of years (albeit by a lesser amount) has been shown up. 

What does the RBA think? For the Reserve Bank of Australia high inflation, stimulated by an over-spending government, has again lifted interest rates to their highest level in 15 years, exacerbating mortgage stress, damaging feasibility, exacerbating the hurt that disaffected voters are feeling and further fueling growth in One Nation support.

Wow – Dr Jim Chalmers – that really is a legacy!!

Late last week, Dr Chalmers was sticking to his guns.  It’s not his fault; housing is a long-term investment; his changes are giving first-home buyers a fairer go … he insisted: 

“The impact of our policies should be judged on the coming years. Not on the last couple of months, where there has been volatility for a whole range of reasons.”

“There are a whole range of factors playing out in the housing market, and that’s why we saw prices start to come off well before the Budget in reaction to interest rate decisions and broader economic conditions”. 

Basically, he implored, “it’s not my fault”. 

Rather than embracing the “fairer housing market” first home buyers have also lost interest – down 22% in September compared to 2025. 

So, investors have been scared off by a sudden backflip on tax promises and first home buyers have been forced out of the market by rising inflation, rising interest rates and a confidence killing budget.

Now, the state governments are starting to feel the pinch, as stamp duty revenues plunge – down 23% in NSW in September compared to the previous year – causing Dr Chalmers’ state counterparts to contemplate fiscal belt tightening. 

Clearly re-focused after some time away from social media, Anthony Albanese brutally overruled Dr Chalmers on the ATO’s refusal to accept credit cards for tax payments and made it clear that he’d responded to industry concerns, unlike his Treasurer. 

As for housing, Dr Chalmers maintains that it’s only a temporary blip. The policies, he insists, are going to work, and we all need to recognise the longer game he is playing. 

The question is, how long will it be till he’s pulled from the park.

5. Affordable housing must be based on GFA not NFA

The applicant argued that affordable housing included the pro-rata calculation of circulation areas within the development that are used by residents of affordable dwellings. Council argued that it only included the internal area of the affordable dwellings.  This is farcical.

The difference between the two positions is significant.  Applying Council’s position to a 5,000 sqm building with a 10% affordable housing contribution would effectively result in a levy of 11.5%. 

In hearing the case, Commissioner Susan O’Neill stated that, while the definition under s.15B(1) of the Housing SEPP was ambiguous, she favoured the Council’s position. 

What is wrong with the DPHI lawyers? Don’t draft ambiguous SEPP clauses!

This creates a potentially unfair situation, where the amount of affordable housing due is based on the whole building floorspace, but that then can only be taken out of the building's NFA. 

It increases the amount of the affordable housing tax (or GFA that must be delivered), adding to construction costs and the sale price for the homebuyer, and is a clear departure from how these contributions tend to be calculated by industry. 

Urban Taskforce urges the NSW Government to clarify and amend this definition in the SEPP to remove the ambiguity and prevent what is effectively a stealth tax on housing. 

Without this clarity, this determination will open a Pandora’s Box and significantly reduce the feasibility of housing projects. 

6. Anti-Dumping Commission decision will boost construction costs

The Australian Trade Remedies Commission (ATRC) (formerly the Anti-Dumping Commission) has made a preliminary finding that Chinese companies have been dumping aluminium windows and doors (in many cases while also receiving government subsidies) in the Australian market. 

The finding – outlined in the Statement of Essential Facts and the Trade Remedies Notice (TRN) No 2026/147 – was accompanied with advice that the Commission intends to apply different rates of duty to different Chinese exporters, as per the table below, payable for imports of the goods that are entered for home consumption on or after 15 October, 2026: 

In doing so, the ATRC has clearly favoured Australian manufacturers over international competition, in what it says is levelling the playing field. 

However, the decision will have much wider ramifications. 

While Urban Taskforce can understand the broader context of the investigation, and the need to ensure that there is a fair playing field, the ATRC is effectively putting a premium on aluminium construction products, increasing prices for builders. 

Paradoxically, it is an anti-competitive move aimed at reducing anti-competitive behaviours.  And the end user suffers as a result of higher prices. 

A more nuanced approach is needed. 

Developers of Class 2 multi story residential apartments and commercial buildings are forced to turn to overseas suppliers because the local market is heavily focused on the Class 1 housing sector.  The issue is that local manufacturers do not have the capacity to supply the commercial sector or multi-unit residential developers, which is a significant portion of construction in the Sydney and Melbourne markets.

High tariffs will disrupt supply chains, create material shortages, and increase costs, significantly undermining housing affordability. 

This will compromise project feasibility, leading to delays or cancellations of developments and exacerbating the ongoing housing supply crisis. 

Placing an additional tariff on these exporters will not reduce the need for developers to turn to overseas suppliers, given the relative lack of local product to meet demand. 

Placing a 73.3% effective tariff on companies that weren’t investigated, more than 20% higher than for the worst of the companies that were found to be dumping, makes no sense at all. 

Perhaps there might be some other solutions to the dumping concerns that don’t involve applying a blunt tariff instrument. 

The Federal Government’s National Housing Accord has set a high target for new housing to improve housing affordability.  The ATRC’s decision will add to construction costs and push house prices in the opposite direction. 

This decision will jeopardise those National Housing Accord targets. 

Rather than limiting its decision to the Class 1 market, the ATRC’s ruling will add to construction costs for an industry that is already suffering with four interest rate rises, escalating fuel costs due to the Gulf War, increased materials and labour costs, and a confidence-sapping Federal Budget. 

It will hamper, not help, the delivery of affordable homes. 

Urban Taskforce will be seeking an urgent meeting with Minister Ayres to highlight the importance of taking a fresh look at these recommendations.

7. Infrastructure in Western Sydney is simply not keeping up with demand

A plethora of strategic plans for Greater Sydney released over the past decade focused on building enough homes in Western Sydney to accommodate a growing and changing population. 

But, like everything else with the Greater Sydney Commission (later re-badged the GCC), things have not gone to plan.

In fact, there is rising concern in the western Sydney community (and now in the media) that the reality has drifted far from the GCC’s grand pronouncements.  Infrastructure in Sydney’s growth centres is simply not keeping up with demand. 

In 2001, the population of Western Sydney was 1.6 million or 42 percent of the total population of Greater Sydney.  20 years later that had increased to 2.3 million.  Now, the latest plans are for 50% of the population – around 3.1 million – to be based in the west. 

This is a faster rate of growth than in the eastern half of the city. 

The latest Sydney Plan has set an ambitious goal of delivering 800,000 new homes over the next 20 years, or 40,000 new homes per annum, more than double what is currently being delivered. 

But if infrastructure delivery isn’t keeping up with the current paltry levels of new housing supply, how will it cope if that rate is turbo charged?  You can’t drink water or flush the toilet using a new Metro!

Western Sydney councils have been raising their concerns for some time.  Just this week the Hills Shire Council called on the NSW Government to fund critical infrastructure upgrades – roads, rail, schools, and other community infrastructure – to meet its rapidly growing population, warning of a ‘quality of life catastrophe’ if nothing is done.  

Other media reports suggest that basic enabling infrastructure such as water and sewage connections are not being coordinated with new housing, particularly in South-Western Sydney, which is delaying completions and contributing to housing stress.  This is despite the NSW Government setting up an Urban Development Program a few years ago to ensure that infrastructure delivery aligned with housing approvals. 

Councils in the region highlight that only half the zoned properties are serviced and that the delivery of critical infrastructure, such as the extension of the Western Sydney metro to Macarthur, is urgently needed in order to unlock up to 120,000 homes.  

The opening of the $1.2 billion wastewater plant at Kemps Creek is a much-needed start, but it won't support new homes until connecting infrastructure is provided. 

Despite the promises of the former Greater Cities Commission to generate jobs in Western Sydney, the reality is taht most jobs are still being created in Sydney’s east.  The Sydney Plan addresses this – “more homes in the east, more jobs in the west” – but it won’t achieve it until there is significant additional investment in infrastructure. 

With the NSW Government committed to fiscal responsibility (see article 1) and focussing on returning the State Budget back to surplus, rather than committing to expensive city shaping infrastructure projects, Federal Government intervention is essential.  

The Commonwealth has the National Housing Accord targets and controls migration policy, but it also has tax revenues and cash reserves – motive and opportunity… 

It is time the Federal Government stepped up and funded the infrastructure needed to support the growing populations of Western Sydney.  

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

8. Twilight Tour:  22 Redan Lane on display

Continuing our successful Twilight Tour series, last night Urban Taskforce Australia members visited Prosker’s housing project at 22 Redan Lane. 

A gap in housing supply in Mosman, along with the demand for ‘larger than normal’ apartments for wealthy downsizers prompted Prosker to purchase the site, which was once an eight-bedroom house with a tennis court.  

In getting approval, the developer went through two DAs and challenges in the Land and Environment Court before finally getting approved with an increased FSR.  

Each of the seven apartments looks out onto Balmoral, with sweeping views of Sydney Harbour, boasting two living spaces.  

The apartments vary in size from 205 to 270 sqm, while the layout is designed to ensure that all apartments receive north-facing sunlight.  All apartments have luxury details and amenity, including marble kitchen benchtops.  

The complex includes a swimming pool, and a virtual golf range for residents, as well as two six-car garages.  

The project was developed by Prosker, with architectural design by Conrad Johnston of Studio Johnston, while the interiors were styled by Melbourne-based Mim Design and executed by Elkie Slater of Studio Johnston. 

Urban Taskforce’s thanks go to Tim Foote and his team at Prosker for showing us around this impressive new residential development. 

9. Council Watch

Council affordable housing policies are killing feasibility

Local policies requiring in-perpetuity affordable housing are making the housing supply crisis worse. 

Across Greater Sydney, NIMBY councils are using the social policy of delivering “affordable” housing for “key workers” as a reason to increase costs for new projects to discourage new housing development. 

These policies require in-perpetuity gifting of affordable dwellings, or significant financial contributions based on consultant-determined “market” rates, that add millions to the cost of new apartments.  They come on top of any NSW Government affordable housing obligation.

With affordable housing “contributions” of between 2% and 20% applied to the cost of construction, depending on whether it applies to a whole building or to building uplift, this quickly pushes new housing projects into unfeasibility. 

These are backed up with very high per square metre rates applied to the site for financial contributions, which are calculated on a net floor area (NFA) basis, but applied on a gross floor area (GFA) basis.  

A proposed amendment to Ku-ring-gai Council’s Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme provides an insight into the costs of these policies. 

In a worked example for St Ives, it estimates that the levy for an 11,000 sqm property (with 10,120 sqm of residential GFA and an affordable housing rate of 10%) would be $16,192,000. 

Taking common areas into account, a development of that size would have approximately 98 dwellings.  If the developer were to pay the levy, and not dedicate apartments, this would work out to be around $165,224 per apartment. 

That is not including other taxes, fees, and charges, such as a local infrastructure contribution or the Housing and Productivity Contribution. 

The high price comes from an “equivalent contribution rate” of $16,000 per square metre that is applied to the property. 

$165,224 additional cost to an apartment is likely to price it out of the market, making the project unfeasible.  Which means that no new housing is delivered – market or otherwise. 

Ku-ring-gai Council is a frequent offender when it comes to residential development-killing policy changes, but it is not alone. 

The City of Sydney has a 3% affordable housing contribution rate but in its most recent amended policy proposed to slap a 20% rate on any new uplift arising from rezonings. 

Councils implementing these policies argue that they are “economically feasible”.  The argument goes that, if a developer is going to get uplift, that is a windfall gain, and therefore the council should take slice of that to help the less fortunate. 

Of course, the truth is always more complicated. 

That additional space needs to be built and is usually needed to make the development stack up financially.  Taking away some of that additional floor area means that margins are again cut and costs escalate. 

Councils never feel that escalation, because they claim any monetary contribution upfront, before a sod is turned, while claims of “economic feasibility” are usually based on reports prepared by consultants who don’t develop anything. 

And the people who suffer?  Homebuyers.  They face rising housing prices either because the levy is being placed on their new dwelling, or because the development project doesn’t proceed. 

All to subsidise other people that a council has deemed “worthy” of support. 

The only true way to make housing more affordable is to build more housing.  Councils extracting affordable housing “contributions” are making housing more expensive for the many to provide cheaper homes for a select few. 

All the while throwing up other charges and barriers to deter new housing projects. 

The NSW Government has allowed the affordable housing juggernaut to roll on.  It needs to act now to stop it in its tracks. 

Or else very little new housing will actually be delivered. 

10. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“The initial stage of the Urban Property Group scheme would include 39-storey and 45-storey towers above a four-storey podium, yielding 612 apartments.”  read more …

The $780-million, 1,222-dwelling project in Concord West would include a 2 percent in perpetuity affordable housing contribution.  

The Urban Developer, 15 October 2026
 

“The near-billion-dollar sale of Perth-founded builder Multiplex to an even bigger Japanese group will not change the Aussie firm’s culture, its director in the West says.”  read more …

WA Managing Director Chris Palandri says that being purchased by a building company is a more natural fit for the 64-year-old WA company and that Obayashi has no plans to change anything about its operations.  

The Urban Developer, 14 October, 2026
 

“Deicorp’s 22-storey Randwick Club redevelopment is advancing through the state assessment process, despite council plans to limit the site to 11 storeys.”  read more …

The $110-million SSD proposal, which aims to deliver 182 apartments with 15 percent affordable housing, is challenging the cap placed on the site by Randwick Council in its masterplan.  

The Urban Developer, 13 October, 2026
 

“The two-level penthouse at 43 Walker Street in Billbergia’s Peake Tower, smashed the previous apartment record set in December 2025 by 41 percent in the neighbouring Oasis Tower.” read more … 

The four-bedroom, 220 sqm penthouse with a rooftop garden terrace, 270-degree views, and a private cinema, has set an apartment record in Rhodes.  

Realcommercial.com.au/Daily Telegraph, 11 October, 2026

Follow our new LinkedIn Page