4 September 2026

In this Edition...

1. Bathla – shooting a hole in the housing supply pipeline

2. Ryde's IHO on TG Millner the height of hypocrisy

3. Changes proposed to Commonwealth's taxes on discretionary trusts 

... and much, much more.

4. ABS housing approvals data: It's official – things are bad
5. Construction productivity hammered by Government’s CFMEU-indulgence
6. Kanofski Report into Housing Australia says Canberra bureaucracy is putting HAFF funded housing delivery at risk
7. New Region Plan for Sydney is a significant step forwards for NSW
8. Mosman Masterplan a master class in policy sleight-of-hand
9. Is the Housing Delivery Authority losing its momentum?  
10. Queensland releases its own draft State Planning Policy
11. DEA: Central Element’s Anden wins best Low-rise Development
12. Twilight Tour: Habilis Housing Summer Hill
13. Council Watch 
       Woollahra Deputy Mayor becomes the voice of reason
       Sydney goes after lockboxes, leaves e-bikes for the ibises
13. Members in the news

1. Bathla – shooting a hole in the housing supply pipeline

As the Bathla Group collapse continues to ripple through the residential development sector, there have been calls from some for action from the State Government, ranging from addressing potential shortfalls in housing numbers to taking over the company altogether. 

The better result would be to ensure that Bathla does not go into liquidation.

If Bathla is placed into liquidation by the administrators, new developers and builders would be required to come in to complete the construction of those apartments.

The problem is, under the terms of the Residential Apartments Building Act, they would then take on the responsibility for serious defect rectification for the next 10 years on a project that they had nothing to do with. Who would do that?

Every effort must be made to require Bathla and their financiers to complete projects commenced under the Bathla company and related building licences. While those involved will take “a bath”, that is the only hope of completing the works.  Because if Bathla goes into liquidation, it will cost everyone concerned a massive additional sum of money.

Why?

• Because the works will need to be re-tendered
• Because all new work will need to be certified
• Because any new builders will want to be indemnified for the possibility of defects in works undertaken by Bathla and their builders and contractors
• Because all of this will take time – interest payments, holding costs, land tax payments, will all mount
• Because those that have paid deposits will be left for years without housing while the mess is being sorted out.

While the administrator has reached out for financial support, so far it has been rebuffed, with Premier Minns reported to be reluctant to use taxpayer funds to rescue a private developer. 

In the meantime, the administrator must ensure that builders, contractors, and suppliers are paid.  If that means getting additional funding from the financiers, selling off land holdings at a loss, so be it.

As noted above, that would be better for everyone concerned, including the financiers, than Bathla going into liquidation.  

Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest told the Sydney Morning Herald that unfinished homes where buyers had already paid a deposit could “punch a giant hole in the housing supply pipeline”: 

The liquidation of Bathla would exacerbate costs and delays and shatter confidence throughout the rest of the market. 

And there are further issues that might arise from the fallout. 

Labour force implications

The pending collapse is already affecting Bathla’s direct and indirect employees, with the administrator standing down the Group’s 350 staff – many of whom have not been paid for weeks – and contractors working with the promise of payment, but unsure of their status. 

Either the administrator believed that all of the staff were hopeless, or someone has drained the accounts.

The corporate collapse has come at a critical time, as the construction sector is seeing a “mass exodus” of skilled contractors. 

Insolvency data from ASIC has shown that 1,540 NSW construction firms were forced to close in FY26 – 3,244 have gone under in total since the start of the Housing Accords. 

Current market conditions are likely to escalate those numbers further, as subcontractors continue to face cashflow issues arising from delayed payments. 

This loss of contractors is not being overcome with new trainees, and skilled migration is still not being supported sufficiently to make up any shortfalls, putting additional pressure on labour supply. 

Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor need to get across this – we don’t have enough tradies or labourers in the construction sector, so we need a boost to the migrant intake.  Stop pandering to parties motivated by racism and sort this out.

Housing Accord target implications

The ability of NSW to meet its housing targets has been questioned for some time now, with the National Housing Supply and Affordability Councils predicting that NSW is unlikely to deliver the 377,000 homes needed until March, 2032 – and that was before Bathla's troubles were factored in. 

The potential Bathla collapse presents a major risk to the housing supply pipeline in Western Sydney.

The ongoing pressures of high construction costs, a tightening labour market, and restricted access to capital, together with a planning system that often deters or obstructs development, is only going to make it worse. 

With NSW approving to construction certificate stage just two-thirds of what is needed – and actual completions even fewer in number – the 2032 date looks decidedly optimistic. 

How can the Government help? 

It is exceedingly difficult to get feasible housing projects in New South Wales.  This applies to the entire sector.  Fees, taxes and charges are too high.  Red tape in planning and construction remains and in some cases is increasing.

Shining a torch on the unintended effects of the RAB Act and the 10-year liability for serious defects (which does not apply to stand alone homes, nor commercial buildings, and further does not exist at all in any other state) is something that is long overdue. This is something the entire Cabinet should be looking at.

While undeveloped sites may be able to be purchased by competitors, there is massive cost associated with taking on projects that have already been commenced. 

2. Ryde’s IHO on TG Millner the height of hypocrisy

In a last-ditch effort to prevent their redevelopment, Ryde Council has slapped an interim heritage order (IHO) on TG Millner Fields. 

The same Council that controversially demolished its iconic post WWII modernist civic icon - the Ryde Civic Centre, leaving a hole in the ground that is collecting rubbish and breeding mosquitos, has no sense of shame. 

The State Government must perfunctorily reject this a gross misuse of the Heritage Act.  The Heritage Act is not the place to argue matters of local amenity.  That is a matter for the planning system.

This is clear case of opportunistic hypocrisy from Ryde Council. 

Coincidently, the same Ryde Council considered a Heritage Order on the TG Millner site back in 2020 but decided not to proceed because the site lacked sufficient local heritage significance. 

But now that North Ryde RSL, which had been losing money on the TG Millner Fields for many years, sold the site to developers late last year, Council is re-opening its investigation to see if any perceived heritage value can be squeezed out of the site. 

So, while the new owners are now looking to develop much needed housing supply on the site and preserving a significant area for public open green space, this IHO will simply delay development and obstruct new housing supply. 

It will undermine feasibility and put the project at risk, blocking 106 proposed new 3–5-bedroom homes. 

Ryde Council has, so far, approved just under two-thirds (63%) of its pro-rata National Housing Accord target, and now the only developments being approved in the area are those that have been removed from purview of Council and taken over by the SSDA process. 

This cynical misuse of the Heritage Act will push the local Housing Accord target even further away. 

CEO Tom Forrest was interviewed on radio pointing out the hypocrisy: 

Minister Penny Sharpe and the Heritage Council need to step in and stop this blatant attempt to obstruct local housing through the misuse of IHOs. 

3. Changes proposed to Commonwealth’s taxes on discretionary trusts

The Albanese Government has apparently (and belatedly) listened to industry advocacy and made changes to its proposed taxes on discretionary trusts. 

Its new proposal will allow discretionary trusts in existence at 1 July, 2028, to elect into a new regime for tax purposes, rather than being forced to restructure. 

Trusts will be able to make fixed distributions to pre-nominated beneficiaries without the minimum tax on trusts applying and without incurring stamp duty. 

There will also be a new definition of fixed trusts to ensure that bare trusts, managed investment trusts, and other widely held trusts are not captured by the minimum tax. 

Rollover relief will be available for three years from 1 July, 2027, for taxpayers who wish to restructure out of a discretionary trust into other arrangements such as a company or fixed trust. 

The exposure drafts for each of the proposed tax changes are now out for consultation.  Urban Taskforce will be looking closely at the detail and making further representations. 

Submissions for this latest review are due on 18 September, 2026. 

4. ABS housing approvals data:  It’s official – things are bad

This week’s ABS approvals data confirms what we all knew:  it’s official, things are bad in the property development sector.

As we commence the third year of the National Housing Accord, despite some good work from the states on planning reforms, the bigger economic picture has left the delivery of new dwellings a long way behind.

Tuesday’s approvals data went backwards across Australia, led by a significant decline in the new dwelling approvals rate in NSW.  If it were not for a notable jump in Victoria, today’s numbers would be disastrous.

With project feasibility so tight, there need to be at least 25,000 new dwelling approvals across Australia each month to get close to the Accord target completions rate.

The drop in approvals numbers is no surprise.

There are many factors involved but the approval numbers reflect caution from developers and a fundamental failure of government agencies to recognise the problems and drive reform.

There are record numbers of bankruptcies in the sector.

Housing related inflation is the main driver of CPI growth.  This in turn pushes the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates high – or worse – even increase them.

The Federal Government has simply not done enough to deal with these cost pressures.

The Commonwealth has been too slow with too little. The housing supply and affordability crisis has gotten worse since the National Housing Accord began, not better. That is not where you want to be as we start year 3 of the five-year Housing Accord period.

To show the lip-service paid by the Albanese Government to this issue, it held a productivity summit in Canberra that did not include a property industry representative. 

The Albanese Government has molly-coddled the CFMEU by not de-registering it and instead appointing an Administrator while all the rorts and inefficiencies that are baked into EBAs remain.

The bad news for the Housing Accord is coming thick and fast.

The collapse of Baltha has consolidated the collapse in confidence in the sector which has seen a record number of insolvencies over the last 12 months.

The sector has been hit with a perfect storm. 

• Interest rate rises fuelled by government overspending
• A lack of targeted skilled and unskilled migration to support the property sector resulting in chronic post pandemic labour supply shortages
• No focussed action from the Commonwealth to support market housing supply
• Lots of talk, but no real action to cut back the National Construction Code and wind back costs for consumers.

The Albanese / Chalmers Budget was poorly considered, poorly executed and disastrously sold to the Australian public.  We’d still be talking about the hapless Federal Budget were it not for one ill-considered podcast with Nikki Osborne. Perhaps there was a strategy there?

The NSW data is also very disappointing – showing a drop of 8.1% (seasonally adjusted) - way below the 7,500 approvals per month needed to meet the housing accord target – let alone make up for the deficits of 60,000 in the first two years of the Accord.

The focus on planning process has been very welcome, but the Apartment Design Guidelines are no longer fit for purpose.  They add significantly to the cost of construction and are treated by many councils as mandatory minima rather that the guidelines that they were intended to be.

Sydney Water has just locked in disastrously high development service plan charges for new dwelling builds in Western Sydney.

Worse, the hitherto acclaimed Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) appears to have lost momentum.  The NSW HDA seems to be tone deaf to the industry concerns regarding housing project feasibility. 

The Sydney Plan requires a doubling of the number of completed dwellings in Sydney from 18,000 to 40,000, every year for the next 20 years.

But the HDA EOI approval recommendation rate for projects to be declared State Significant Developments at the last meeting was only 10 out of the 36 Expressions of Interest considered.

Too many of these EOIs are being flicked back to councils.  That is a massive concern.

The performance of the NSW planning system is clearly exposed by its per-capita performance. The incapacity to attract applications, assess them, and produce feasible results is resulting in the shrinking of NSW in its relevance to the Australian economy.

5. Construction productivity hammered by Government’s CFMEU-indulgence

The Federal Government’s “all-words-but-no-action” approach to the CFMEU is continuing to allow pressure to increase on the construction sector. 

That, combined with severe shortages in the construction labour market are driving costs up, sending building companies broke and adding to inflation.

To be clear, the “soft on the CFMEU” approach of the Albanese Government is driving up inflation which in turn is pushing interest rates up.

What do the statistics say? 

The ABS’s June Quarter 2026 GDP growth figures show a very modest rise in GDP (just 0.4% in the quarter and 2.1% for the year). 

Economic growth was subdued as households continued to behave cautiously, counter-balanced by imports (such as EV cars sales). 

Construction continued to experience price rises, due to ongoing competition for limited resources in both labour and materials. 

Compensation of employees increased by 1.5% reflecting continued competition for skilled labour, increased wages, as well as bonuses and redundancies paid in the quarter.  The household saving to income ratio remained stable, up from 6.4% to 6.5%.

However, while dwelling construction rose (0.4%), supported by the ongoing pipeline of work and new project commencements, ownership transfer costs fell
(-0.2%), reflecting the slowing residential property market coinciding with rising interest rates and changes to taxation policies. 

GDP growth has been declining since December 2025, when it was 2.6%, and it is a long way from the 6.1% experienced in the year to September 2022, though stronger than most analysts were predicting, and slightly higher than forecast in the Federal Budget papers. 

But Australia's labour productivity, defined as real GDP per hour worked was 0.2 % lower than a year ago, continues to decline. 

The impact of militant unionism

The construction sector is a key part of that productivity decline.

But how can an industry that is seeing constant innovation, that has the support of government, and that is in high demand be less productive?  The rest of the world is marvelling over the speed of construction under Modern Methods of construction and off-site prefabrication.

The answer is the stranglehold that the CFMEU, the ETU, and others have on larger construction sites which, in a constrained labour market, sets the benchmark for the rest of the sector.

While there may not be significant representation on residential development sites of these unions, their effects are felt more broadly than the sites on which they have delegates. 

Militant unionism and the CFMEU’s EBA are adding considerably to labour costs and making construction unfeasible. 

It is a problem recognised by CFMEU administrator himself, Michael Crosby, who told the Senate Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, that the union had been “terrible for productivity”: 

He said that the union has stopped doing this since the Administration commenced, but the damage had already been done.  None of these agreements were cancelled.

It is noteworthy that the Administrator is not out there calling for conditions that have been obtained through such tactics to be wound back. 

State governments – Queensland, Victoria – are investigating illegal practices by their local CFMEU branches, but the Federal Government has jurisdiction – the CFMEU’s EBA is a Federal award, lodged with Fair Work Australia. 

But apart from some meekly mouthed platitudes around having “zero tolerance” for unlawful behaviour and the appointment of administrators, the Prime Minister has not shown any commitment to dealing with, or even understanding, the problem. 

The Productivity Commission is doing a good job at investigating the need for planning and building code reforms, but it does not have a mandate to look at workplace productivity.  It must be given this mandate.

The Federal Government needs to step in, as CEO Tom Forrest told the Senate Committee: 

The BLF pales in comparison to the modern CFMEU’s embrace of bikie gangs and criminal elements, and its thuggish intimidation tactics. 

Without action, workplace productivity continues to suffer, labour availability decreases, construction costs go up, and housing supply and affordability decline. 

6. Kanofski Report into Housing Australia says Canberra bureaucracy is putting HAFF funded housing delivery at risk

A new report prepared by the admired senior public servant, Ken Kanofski (of KordaMentha), warned that without an urgent acceleration of the approvals process for HAFF funding applications, there is a significant risk that the housing will not be delivered before the end of the National Housing Accord period in June 2029, and, as a result, breach Housing Australia’s (HA) contractual terms. 

This report also identifies an urgent need to “revisit the board’s skills mix … to better align with the evolution of Housing Australia”.

That is polite public service speak for “sack the board”!

HA has a problem and Ken Kanofski has pulled no punches. With reference to HAFF Funding Round 3 (or FR03) he states:

“The time taken from project application to contract close must be reduced to preserve the HAFF project delivery period available before 30 June 2029. Housing Australia expects more than 100 FR03 projects to require approval by early 2027, which increases the risk of a material processing and governance peak and backlog.” p.15

“Stakeholders indicated that delays arise from repeated application information requests and clarifications, sequential review processes, limited delegations, and capability of some CHPs during contract negotiations and valuation processes. For example, valuation discussions can add three to four weeks to the timeframe and may trigger further approval requirements. Board approval of individual transactions adds a minimum 14 days to relevant senior-debt transactions.” p.15

“Housing Australia should urgently streamline FR03 assessment and contracting by removing duplicative or immaterial process requirements … To support streamlined timeframes, approval delegations should be reconsidered to support the Board focus on managing the broader portfolio” p.15

To highlight the level of bureaucratic oversight delaying decision making, Kanofski smashed the current processes set by the Board of Housing Australia, saying:

“Under current practice, over 100 FR03 projects are expected to require Board Investment Committee and Board approval over the next six months, more than four times the 2025 transaction volume, in half the timeframe.

Approval activity is expected to peak between October 2026 and January 2027 at more than 20 projects per month. With four to five Board meetings scheduled during this period, approximately 20 projects will likely require approval at each meeting, placing a substantial burden on both the Board and its Investment Committee.

Concurrently, approval delays reduce the time available for project delivery and increase the risk to achieving the HAFFF and NHAF 30 June 2029 target, particularly for projects awaiting approval.” p.18

Then Kanofski proffers some basic governance advice to this hapless Board:

“Board approval should be reserved for exceptional transactions, with the Board otherwise relying on assurance, exception and performance reporting for oversight.” p.18

But it gets worse.

The pending Bathla collapse has sent the frighteners through the private finance sector, and many are looking for any opportunity to revise the financial terms associated with funding to CHPs.

Keep in mind, Housing Australia required that the initial expressions of interest, which were submitted from 30 January 2026, had to have Development Application Approval, and effectively lock in the cost of construction, the sale price to the CHP, and the financing terms (as at 30 June 2026). 

HA advised that contracts would be negotiated in August and September.  This date was then pushed out to October 2026.  Ken Kanofski has revealed that even with massive change to the governance process at HA, contracts are unlikely to be finalised until sometime between the end of October 2026 and the end of January 2027.

That bureaucratic delay means that the delivery of those homes before the end of the Accord period (30 June 2029) is unlikely. The risk is that this could be a trigger for financiers to withdraw and the entire program would be threatened.

Bank Boards do not assess or approve individual loan applications, Investment Committees do. It’s time the HA Board took note of Kanofski’s blunt critique:

“Given the increasing focus on Housing Australia’s HAFFF and NHAF programs, the Board’s agenda has tended to focus on approving individual transactions rather than adopting a whole-of-program view. This limits oversight of program-wide risks, confidence in achieving delivery targets, and the need for contingency measures or risk remediation.

“Board approval should be reserved for exceptional transactions, with the Board otherwise relying on assurance, exception and performance reporting for oversight.”

7. New Region Plan for Sydney is a significant step forwards for NSW

CEO Tom Forrest has made another contribution to Sourceable, this time on the Sydney Plan: 

The Minns Government has nailed its colours to the mast and the characters of Sydney and its suburbs are going to change as a result. 

The new State and Sydney Region Plans set a bold new headline target for housing growth.  For Greater Sydney, the Sydney Plans establishes a 20-year target of 800,000 new dwellings.  That’s 40,000 new dwellings each and every year for the next 20 years. 

Let’s put that in context: 

• Since the National Housing Accord began the 33 LGAs which make up Greater Sydney have (together) averaged just under 20,000 new housing completions each year; 
• In fact, in 2025 the number of completed dwellings actually dropped to only 18,100 in the Sydney Region as covered by the Sydney Plan; and 
• Sydney has only ever delivered 40,000 new homes in a single year on two occasions - in 2017 and 2018.  Then the Greater Sydney Commission and the Berejiklian government applied the hand brakes to approvals. 

The Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure’s strategic planning team, the Minister Paul Scully, and the NSW Cabinet are to be commended for the first really serious analysis of population growth projections and the existing undersupply of housing in Sydney.

8. Mosman Masterplan a master class in policy sleight-of-hand

The echo-chamber group-think minds of Mosman’s councillors were on full display last week when they unanimously endorsed the hybrid Masterplan at an Extraordinary Council Meeting and resolved to send it to DPHI for approval. 

The decision means that now the draft Masterplan Planning Proposal and the Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme Planning Proposal will go to the Department for Gateway Determination, after which they will be put out for another round of public exhibition. 

The draft Infrastructure Contributions Plan and the Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy will also be put out for consultation. 

In its resolution, Council agreed to: 

• write to the Premier, Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads to seek the prioritisation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel; and 
• request that any dwellings already progressing through SSD be counted towards Mosman’s overall housing target “so as to avoid duplication and an unreasonable concentration of additional housing growth within Mosman”.

In other words, Council wants to deliver only the number of dwellings required by the National Housing Accord, and not a single additional home…

Once the new Masterplan – Mosman’s attempt to subvert/circumvent the State Government’s LMR reforms – has gone through Gateway Determination, it is expected that Council will move quickly to exhibition stage. 

So, what are some of the things that developers can expect from the new plan and supporting documents? 

• minimum frontages of 30 metres; 
• skewed dwelling size proportions, with 70% of housing to be designated as 1-2 bedrooms; 
• large areas that were formerly designated as LMR removed because of a desire to limit development around heritage conservation areas; 
• scenic protection zones, to preserve views, including through sites that previously had none; 
• reduced development on steep topography or in isolated pockets, because “reasons”… 
• s.7.12 local infrastructure contributions for any sites with a FSR higher than 1.5:1 of 3% - the same rate as proposed for greenfield sites that have no existing infrastructure; and 
• in perpetuity affordable housing levies of between 2 and 10%, but with 15% on any uplift arising from a proponent-led planning proposal in addition to any other statutory fees and charges.  

It should be noted that Council has requested an exemption from the Housing SEPP Infill Affordable Housing Bonus Scheme and that many sites that currently have development rights will lose them under the proposal. 

Further, a quick review of the proposed map shows many sites that: 

• are proposed for rezoning, but could never be feasibly consolidated, due to the costs of purchasing from existing owners; 
• have uses that would preclude redevelopment (nursing homes, etc.); 
• are not large enough to support the proposed height increase; 
• could cause significant disruption to neighbours, meaning that opposition to any proposal would result in it not being approved (for example, potentially overshadowing the heritage listed Boronia House or Sacred Heart School); and conversely
• underzoning sites that would easily be feasible for higher density.  

This is a cynical effort to stop new housing development by increasing costs and restricting what is possible. 

It reinforces the NIMBYism of local residents by ruling areas off-limits because of views or heritage, while proposing a plan that looks proactive, but is essentially undeliverable. 

Sleight-of-hand through strategic planning. 

9. Is the Housing Delivery Authority losing its momentum?  

The latest meeting of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) was held on 18 August, 2026.  Of the 36 EOI applications reviewed, the Authority recommended to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces that: 

• 10 EOI applications be declared SSD; 
• 25 EOI applications not be called in as SSD; and 
• 1 EOI application be deferred. 

Details of the Minister’s decisions can be seen through this link: Ministerial Order SSDA Declarations  A further nine previously approved EOIs were also revoked. 

In the end, this can only be described as a disappointing result.  Simon Draper’s last hurrah as the Chair of the HDA has ended with a whimper, rather than a bang. 

At a time when we need more housing supply, not less, the HDA has only found within itself a willingness to support just over a quarter of the small number of applications it dealt with. 

Even more concerning is the HDA’s pushing back of rejected applications to local councils for consideration, or references to the TOD controls that forced the need for the HDA’s establishment in the first place.  As usual, the planning system is reverting to type and frustrating efforts to deliver feasible housing approvals and supply.

Despite good intentions, the Authority seems to have become tone deaf to ongoing industry concerns about housing project feasibility.  Perhaps that is commensurate with the number of planning officials that seem now to dominate these proceedings.

After giving us all much hope in June, only 51 EOIs were considered in July, with just 17 being declared SSD (33%). 

This approval rate dropped even further in August, showing a decided downward trend in the proportion of EOIs getting through the system. 

With NSW so far behind on its National Housing Accord targets, completing only around 60 percent of the required new dwellings in the first two years of the Accord, now is not the time to take the foot off the accelerator.

As we enter the start of the third year of the Accord period, the HDA needs to turn around its performance by finding its mojo again. 

10. Queensland releases its own draft State Planning Policy

In the wake of the Sydney Plan, and in an ongoing demonstration that the Crisafulli Government takes housing seriously, the Queensland State Planning Policy has been reviewed. 

The aim is that the Policy remains fit for purpose, delivering a clear, useable, and efficient planning framework that supports housing delivery, infrastructure investment, and economic growth. 

While still relatively high level, the new Policy introduces several changes, while retaining many existing State Planning Policy outcomes, including: 

• six new strategic aspirations to guide planning outcomes and help to balance competing state interests – including building more housing and delivering responsive infrastructure; 
• a revised structure designed to make the State Planning Policy easier to navigate, understand and apply; 
• a new Environment, Heritage and Efficient Growth state interest to support coordinated growth while protecting the environment, heritage and natural and rural landscapes; 
• updated and streamlined state interests, including new policies and revised interests; 
• a revised approach to natural hazards and resilience, including a greater focus on risk-based planning for natural events; and 
• the proposed removal of assessment benchmarks from the State Planning Policy to relocate them within the Planning Regulation 2017, along with other development assessment benchmarks.  

The Policy has both strategic aspirations and guiding principles. 

For the former, the Government is aiming to: 

1. Build more housing and strong communities
2. Promote efficient land use patterns
3. Drive connected and productive regions
4. Deliver responsive infrastructure
5. Support existing economic drivers
6. Attract emerging industries 

The guiding principles are to be: 

• outcome focused – clearly focus on the delivery of outcomes; 
• integrated – reinforce the role of local planning schemes as the integrated, comprehensive, statement of land use policy and development intentions for a local area; 
• efficient – support the efficient determination of appropriate development; 
• positive – enable positive responses to change, challenges, and opportunities; and 
• accountable – promote confidence in the planning system through plans and decisions

Submissions on the draft are due by 11.59 pm on Monday, 26 October, 2026. 

11. DEA: Central Element’s Anden wins best Low-rise Development

Anden by Central Element has been crowned the best Low-rise Development at the Development Excellence Awards.

There are two defining characteristics of this development: 

• the retention of an existing Art Deco building to preserve streetscape character; and 
• the prioritisation of a north facing communal landscape at the centre of the site.  

This allows shared open space to become the primary organising element, delivering excellent solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook to almost all apartments, with a connection to landscape through a mix of private gardens, terraces, and integrated planting. 

The building adopts an ’L’ shaped plan, with the dwellings arranged around the central landscaped garden, including tiered lawns, planted zones and shared amenities, like a gym, sauna and yoga space, to support resident well-being. 

The building has a reduced reliance on mechanical systems through the use of ventilation and is supported by active systems including photovoltaic panels for on-site energy generation and rainwater collection for irrigation.

Our thanks to our sponsors

12. Twilight Tour: Behind the Scenes of Habilis Housing

Last night, Urban Taskforce Australia members were given an exclusive, behind the scenes look at Arissa and Habilis’ Habilis Housing at Summer Hill.

Guests were able to tour the former industrial site – once a mattress factory – and now a Highly Commended project in the Affordable Housing category of the Development Excellence Awards. 

Habilis Housing, located in Sydney’s Inner West is a purpose-built, supported housing developments, delivering 20 25-45 sqm self-contained units, each equipped with a private bathroom and a balcony, to provide people living with a chronic mental illness with housing.

There is also a clinic, supported by on-site staff, visiting psychiatrists and mental health nurse practitioners.

The tour looked at the dwellings provided by this facility, which is a mix of studio apartments and one-bedroom apartments, as well as the amenities and outdoor social areas.

It is projected to achieve a 36% development margin and 18% IRR, underpinned by innovative NDIS Special Disability Accommodation funding structures.

In the year prior to Habilis’ operation, the first sixteen residents spent a collective 2,500 days in hospital, 850 days in prison and 60% were homeless. Together, they generated approximately $4.3 million in institutional care costs. It is estimated that for every $1 spent on Habilis care, $4.42 of costs to the community is saved, and at full occupancy Habilis is expected to generate $4.5 million in government savings per year.

The building is owned and operated by Habilis, a registered charity dedicated to providing long-term, low-cost housing to people living with chronic mental illness, primarily schizophrenia.  It was developed by Arissa group and designed by Collins & Turner. 

Urban Taskforce’s thanks go to: Joe Scarf, Director of Arissa Group, Dr Olev Nielssen, Founder of Habilis and the entire Habilis team for sharing their project. 

13. Council Watch

Woollahra Deputy Mayor becomes the voice of reason

As his colleagues jump onto the latest reason not to allow housing around the reinvigorated Woollahra Station – traffic concerns – there has been a defection from the “Woollahra NIMBY” camp. 

Deputy Mayor of Woollahra, Sean Carmichael, has now “begrudgingly” agreed that Woollahra’s proposed alternative to the State Government’s plans is not going to cut it. 

No doubt endangering his invitation to an array of Eastern Suburbs cocktail parties, Councillor Carmichael’s recommendation to look at what’s being proposed for Bondi Junction as a guide will no doubt give the well-heeled NIMBYs from Watsons Bay to Waverley cause for their monocles drop from their eyes into the G&Ts. Goodness me!

This Damascene transformation is based on policy – the Deputy Mayor has looked at the general proposal for uplift in density across Sydney and recognised that Woollahra should be looking for parley, not protest. 

It is a welcome and timely return to common sense from Councillor Carmichael. 

Sydney goes after lockboxes, leaves e-bikes for the ibises

The City of Sydney is locking out lockboxes. 

In a new announcement, the Council has declared that any lockboxes attached to public assets will be removed from 1 April, 2027. 

The move has been justified as ensuring that “City of Sydney assets must remain safe, accessible and available for its intended purpose.”

Council reasons that lockboxes can create trip hazards, obstruct pedestrian access, interfere with maintenance, damage trees and assets, create clutter, and create security risks. 

This zeal to reduce clutter by cracking down on lockboxes has not been applied to the litany of e-bikes across the City, which are overtaking ibises as the most invasive element of the CBD. 

These bike share services block pathways and pose a risk to pedestrians.  Their users ignore road rules and ride helmetless and erratically in various areas – bike lanes, footpaths, even on George Street, veering around the light rail. 

But if Council is going to dress this up as a public safety and amenity issue, it should be consistent. 

Focus on the biggest eyesores – get rid of the e-bikes and return the city to its pedestrians. 

14. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“Construction has begun on Archer & Albert at 57 Archer Street in Chatswood with Coronation Property set to officially launch the development by Woods Bagot on September 12 while completion is expected in the second half of 2028.”  read more …

The 32-storey, 150-apartment project will create a new dining precinct, with three high-end restaurants being planned. 

The Daily Telegraph, 4 September, 2026
 

“Ben Cottle-backed Eureka Group has agreed terms to buy six lifestyle and mixed-use communities from $1.5 billion land lease player, Ingenia Communities, for $123.8 million.”  read more … 

The deal comes after Ingenia’s announcement that it would purchase listed developer Peet Limited. 

AFR, 3 September, 2026
 

“Developer Coronation has already broken ground on the site at the corner of Danks St and Young St after receiving early works approval earlier this year.”  read more …

The $496 million build-to-rent project in Waterloo will create 9 buildings and amenities such as a podcast room and a pickleball court.  A $52.5 million levy has been paid in lieu of affordable housing dwellings. 

The Daily Telegraph, 2 September, 2026
 

“Abadeen has begun construction on Kilburn Mansion, an $87-million luxury residential project on the corner of Simpson and George streets at East Melbourne.”  read more …

The Victorian Estate will be restored and reimagined, creating eight homes within the existing buildings, with a penthouse set above them. 

The Urban Developer, 31 August, 2026
 

“Central Element has broken ground on its $150-million seven-home project that will boast direct access to the Bondi to Coogee walk.”  read more … 

The five apartments and two townhouses with ocean views are tipped to go for between $20 million and $30 million. 

The Urban Developer, 28 August, 2026
 

“The clearest break from convention is at Sydney’s Lower North Shore, where Hyecorp has turned a former ex-services club site into what managing director Stephen Abolakian calls a vertical village.”  read more …

Projects like the Heart of Willoughby are challenging the traditional single-storey or low-rise units by creating vertical villages. 

The Urban Developer, 28 August, 2026

Follow our new LinkedIn Page