21 August 2026

In this edition...

1. NHSAC belatedly acknowledges the obvious - Housing Accord targets will be missed
2.  Sydney Plan sets ambitious, but necessary, targets for future growth 
3. Government reviews herald a keener interest in construction productivity

... and much, much more.

4. Federal Coalition attacks on Housing Australia are delaying housing delivery
5. Additional master planned housing at Westmead is a welcome development
6. A stamp duty calculation rort ... or just a misunderstanding?  
7. After more than half a century, is it time to update flight path restrictions? 
8. ACT gets the housing supply memo ... sort of ...
9. DEA: Gazcorp's Sydney Outlet Village takes out Best Retail Development
10. Twilight Tour:  Parkline Place on show
11. Strathfield:  "Don't blame us for our poor results!"
12. Council Watch
     - Gold-plated developer contributions being applied in Broadmeadow
     - Mosman to push ahead with anti-development alternative plans
13. Members in the news

1. NHSAC belatedly acknowledges the obvious - Housing Accord targets will be missed

Nobody should be surprised that the National Housing Accord targets are slipping out of reach and today, even the government’s own hand picked cheer squad for housing supply has conceded this fact.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC) is reportedly forecasting that the National Housing Accord target will now no longer be reached until the end of 2030. 

The reality is it will be a fair bit later than that. In our view, the NHSAC is part of the problem. 

By constantly advising the Government that, until now at least, that governments were on track to meet the National Housing Accord targets, they have allowed governments an excuse for now treating housing supply as the crisis that it is. 

Urban Taskforce tried to call NHSAC at mid-day today but no one was answering their phones.  Since the reports came through on the ABC this morning, they seem to have gone to ground.

Urban Taskforce has relied on the monthly ABS data to measure the success of the Accord and associated reforms.  We have consistently reported significant underperformance on approvals, commencements and completions.

Nationally we need 240,000 new dwellings completed per year to achieve these targets. 

But to date, even the new dwelling approvals are way below this benchmark, let alone new dwelling completions.

In the first two years of the National Housing Accord, across Australia we saw just 393,046 approvals (compared to the pro-rata target of 480,000 completed dwellings). 

If you look at the new dwelling completions data, the story gets much worse. In the 21 months of the Accord period to March, 2026 (the latest data published by the ABS), only  307,635 dwellings were completed (or 73.2% of the pro-rata target to that point). 

While the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council was the last to identify this reality, even its hand-picked board members have now recognised the failure.  Affordable Housing is not produced by governments adding taxes (or levies, or “contribution schemes”) to the cost of housing supply.  It is not resolved by mandating ever increasing layers of environmental obligations and increased local amenity.

What exactly is the NHSAC advising to solve the problem? 

• Where is their advocacy for amendments to the GST, for reversing the changes made on CGT, Negative Gearing, Taxation on non-discretionary trusts and SMSFs?  Where are their calls for immediate relaxation of zoning rules or advocacy for relaxation of state and local infrastructure fees and charges? 
• Where is their condemnation of the confidence killing tax changes made in the Federal Budget? 
• Where are their calls for a much greater and targeted focus on housing related infrastructure? 

In just one interim report, the Federal Productivity Commission has done more to offer practical solutions to the Housing Supply crisis than the entire body of work undertaken by the NHSAC.

While the news in Victoria stands alone as having some prospect of reaching its Housing Accord targets, issues with a chronic lack of housing related infrastructure plague the Victorian Government.

In New South Wales, the results are worse.  Approvals of 102,314 were just 67.3% of the 152,000 pro rata new dwelling completions target for the first two years of the Accord period.  In a high interest rate environment and with disappointing Federal and State budgets, many of these approvals will not translate into new dwelling completions.  So the story here is dismal.

New dwelling completions over the first 21 months of the 60 month Housing Accord period were way off the pace at 77,875 – a disappointing 58.6% of the pro rata completions target.  NSW is today reported to be 3 years behind on its target, according to the NHSAC.

The Commonwealth stated that it wanted to set ambitious targets for the National Housing Accord, but it has consistently underperformed when it comes to supporting the states and territories to meet them. 

While the performance has improved under Clare O’Neil, the leadership from the Commonwealth as a whole has been lacking. The Federal Government needs to move beyond demand-side political hand-outs – first homebuyer bonuses and deposit supplements.

Rather than smashing confidence with changes to CGT and negative gearing, all their efforts must be on increasing housing supply. Housing policy advisers need to tell the Albanese Government to:

• Focus on supply, supply, supply;
• Invest in housing related infrastructure;
• Reduce fees, taxes and charges on housing supply;
• Provide incentives for investors to invest in housing supply;
• Provide financial reward for states that are improving their planning systems;
• Do something concrete to reduce the burden of the NCC (rather than talking about it);
• Fulsomely support and adopt modern methods of construction; and
• Stop cow towering to the disgraced and corrupt CFMEU (appointing an Administrator is simply not good enough).

The cost of construction, the unnecessary red tape, the blatant and ongoing Nimbyism that seeks to deter new development, all these things need to be addressed. There is no quick or simple fix to the crisis.

The Minns Government has recognised the need for housing development feasibility, incorporating it into the fabric of the new Sydney Plan and making it a key factor in Housing Delivery Authority decisions. 

The Albanese Government needs a similar transformation – if it’s harder to build, if projects are not feasible, if greenfield sites cannot get the housing-enabling infrastructure they need, then there won’t be new housing. 

The message for the NHSAC (if they don’t fold in ignominy) is: be bold, be assertive and focus on supply (after all, it’s in your title).

2. Sydney Plan sets ambitious, but necessary, targets for future growth 

• Since the National Housing Accord began we’ve averaged just under 20,000 new housing completions in the Greater Sydney area (33 LGAs) completions each year;
• In fact, in 2025 the number of completed dwellings actually dropped to only 18,100 in Sydney; and
• Sydney has only ever delivered 40,000 new homes in a single year on two occasions - in 2017 and 2018.  Then the GSC and Rob Stokes applied the hand brakes to approvals.

The DPHI Strategic Planning Team, the Minister, 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. 

The new Sydney Plan predicts that Sydney’s population will grow by 1.3 million additional residents over the next 20 years. The Plan further acknowledges that there is a current shortfall just shy of 100,000 homes in the Sydney market. The Plan seeks to make up that shortfall to accommodate the existing population as well as future demands for housing. 

There is no way that Sydney can grow by that number, every year for 20 years, without a fundamental change to the character of a very large number of Sydney suburbs. 

The key to achieving this task is to maintain strong – preferably bipartisan – political leadership and to have an ongoing strong commitment to the task. 

NSW Liberal Party leader Kelly Sloane’s wavering over LMR raises early concerns about the strength of political leadership in the Opposition, and whether it can hold the line against its own anti-development members. 

The NSW Government’s Sydney Plan supplants its short-sighted 2018 predecessor with a clearly stated focus on housing and jobs. 

Feasibility is a clear and welcome new theme in the Sydney Plan, acknowledging its critical importance to housing supply.  The Plan proposes that all LGAs will be required to develop a 30-year plan for the feasible delivery of housing supply. These are matters which government planners have, for decades, considered to be outside their responsibility.

This is a substantial paradigm shift in strategic planning that recognises that, if projects are not feasible, they will not be built. 

Key new directions for the State Government – delivered in direct response to feedback from Urban Taskforce submissions – include: 

• the establishment of a more flexible “Centres Policy” around CBDs, Major Centres, Activity Centres, and Local Centres, which encourages different types of land use including housing supply and mixed-use development, without specific targets or FSR ratios;
• the replacement of the restrictive “retain and manage” industrial lands policy with a graduated approach (State Significant, Regionally Significant, and Locally Significant industrial land), that allows applications for changes to zoning in Locally Significant areas;
• the abolition of the restrictive and out-dated Metropolitan Rural Areas planning maps; and
• the recognition of the need for infrastructure support. 

The Plan’s bold targets will require significant dedication to meet the challenge, with a much higher delivery of approvals, commencements, and completions needed across Greater Sydney each year. 

This is going to require the involvement of local government – willing or otherwise – and consistency from government agencies. 

There is a desperate need for greater investment in housing related infrastructure and the Commonwealth will need to play a productive role here.  The area where the Sydney Plan and State Plan are weakest are in relation to the absence of any detailed nexus between infrastructure delivery and housing growth. Instead, the Plans refer to the Urban Development Programs and the Infrastructure Opportunities lists (neither of which bind Budget Committee decision making).

Nonetheless, the Plans are bold and brave and are, by and large, welcome.

3. Government reviews herald a keener interest in construction productivity

Danielle Wood, David Crisafulli, Chris Minns, Peter Achterstraat, Michelle Bullock and Ben Carroll

At long-last there appears to be a genuine focus amongst government leaders and their economic advisers on productivity reform in the property and construction sector.  

And it’s coming from a range of sources: 

• the Federal Productivity Commission, which has called for a “build mindset” amongst regulators;
• the NSW Productivity and Equality Commission, which proposed a 30-year feasible housing pipeline for councils – now adopted by the NSW Government; and
• the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and misconduct in the construction industry. 

And now, with the resignation of Jacinta Allan, the new Victorian Premier Ben Carroll is joining the fray, with terms of reference released this week for its Royal Commission into the construction sector, the multi-billion dollar “Big Build” infrastructure program, and the role of the CFMEU. 

The main theme of these inquiries and reports is that bureaucracy, regulation and union interference have crippled productivity, rapidly ramping up costs, and destroying feasibility. 

Pressure is growing … and it’s about time. 

There’s a lot of rhetoric from all quarters about the need for new housing, but the barriers that governments themselves set are often the biggest impediments. 

These inquiries have scratched the surface to show that there is a pervasive obstructionist mindset to new housing development, exacerbated by vested interests that have little interest in the common good.

Their recommendations need to get at the heart of the matter – governments must get out of the way and let the development sector deliver the housing that people want in the places where they want to live. 

If the Sydney Plan’s 30-year pipeline of feasible housing is to be achieved, the barriers to new housing development need to be removed. 

Independent inquiries such as those listed above will identify what must be done. 

Federal, state, and local governments need the political fortitude to deliver on it. 

4. Federal Coalition attacks on Housing Australia delaying housing delivery 

The quixotic campaign of Shadow Minister for Housing, Senator Andrew Bragg, to bring down Housing Australia, is, ironically, creating the very delays and inefficiency that he says he opposes.  It’s time for a re-think.

The Liberal Party took its opposition to Housing Australia and the HAFF to the last election. 

They got smashed. 

Michael Sukkar and Peter Dutton lost their seats in Parliament – as did their Greens party partners, Adam Bandt and Max Chandler-Mather (unlikely metaphorical bed-fellows but there you go).

Senator Bragg seems determined to demonstrate that the voters got it wrong.

Senator Bragg has done great work to expose the overblown regulation and costs associated with the keeps throwing bombs with NCC.

But his ongoing obsession with Housing Australia and the HAFF is actually working against housing supply.  If the funds that have been committed to Round 3 of the HAFF were to be placed under threat by the election of a Coalition government, three groups of stakeholders would be left bankrupt or abandoned:

1. The Community Housing providers that have invested time, effort and finances into bidding for the 21,300 social and affordable housing dwellings to be funded through HAFF Round 3;
2. The large number of developers who have partnered up with CHPs to bring together the land parcels, the planning approvals, the financiers and the delivery teams for these projects; and
3. The key workers, low income earners and socially disadvantaged cohorts that benefit from the provision of affordable housing and social housing supply.

If the last Federal election is any guide, it could also damage the prospects of Senator Braggs coalition colleagues as the public made it abundantly clear that they will not cop politicians playing political games with housing supply initiatives.

Enough time has passed since the 2025 federal election now to support the work of Housing Australia, particularly given that it has shifted its focus to work in partnership with the private sector development and finance community to deliver more affordable and social housing. 

In a deliberate attempt to frustrate and slow down the progress of Housing Australia, under the cover of the Federal Auditor-General’s critique of the HAFF (see story 11, ULN, 24 July, 2026), the Opposition has taken steps to “increase oversight. “

The extensive quarterly reporting that Senator Bragg is demanding through his Housing Australia Amendment (Transparency and Reporting) Bill 2026 will significantly increase the administrative burden of Housing Australia. 

While we recognise that the implementation of the HAFF programs has not been perfect, we want to see more speed in processing expressions of interest and delivering grant funding and housing – not the opposite.

5. Additional master planned housing at Westmead is a welcome development 

The Minns Government appears to be getting a headstart on the Sydney Plan, with the announcement of yet another welcome state-led rezoning at Westmead. 

Following on from announcements of State-led rezonings at Bays West, Werrington, Woollahra, Burwood North, Olympic Park, Parramatta North, and Cherrybrook, the Government this week released plans on exhibition for an additional 6,000 homes in the Westmead South precinct, taking it up to a total of 13,000 dwellings. 

Located within Cumberland City LGA, and with the Council’s support, the proposal almost doubles the number of homes planned for the area, which is located near the Parramatta CBD and Westmead Hospital, and which will be serviced by a variety of transport options – existing heavy rail, light rail, bus services, and the future Westmead Metro. 

The goal is to balance growth and liveability and will deliver more housing close to existing jobs and services. 

According to Planning Minister Paul Scully, the key features of the proposal will include:  

• a mix of housing types and heights ranging from two to 38 storeys, with the highest buildings closest to the new Westmead Metro Station;
• between three and five per cent affordable homes in perpetuity;
• up to three hectares of additional public open space, including a new public plaza at the Oakes Centre and a park-to-park line between Sydney Smith Park and the Mays Hill Precinct;
• improved pedestrian and active transport networks, with Hawkesbury Road connecting the Oakes Centre, schools and communities;
• securing the site for a future new public primary school and community facilities to meet the needs of a growing population;
• opportunities for new shops, cafes, restaurants, and businesses in residential areas; and
• strengthening heritage protections by retaining all existing heritage items and providing additional heritage recognition for the Tooheys Palm Estate.  

It is great to see Cumberland Council working so positively with the NSW Government on a pro-housing supply agenda. High praise to all those involved.

The proposal is on public exhibition until 5pm, 16 September, 2026. 

6. A stamp duty calculation rort ... or just a misunderstanding?  

Concerning reports are coming out of Phillip Street that the State Government may have been overcharging for stamp duty by under applying annual indexation of the stamp duty thresholds.

The additional – but unearned – revenue appears to have been gained through incorrect indexation of stamp duty thresholds, keeping brackets lower than they should be and maximising the taxation take of the NSW Government. 

As has been reported in the media this could have resulted in an overcharge to homebuyers of as much as $3.5 billion between FY23 and FY26. 

Stamp duty represents a sizeable part of the State Government’s revenue – as shown by reports that the collapse in property prices and the drop in auction clearance rates following Anthony Albanese’s catastrophic and ham-fisted budget delivery, will result in a $200 million hole in NSW Budget forecasts. 

Nonetheless, indexation calculations are complex but we contend that it is incumbent on the Government to do whatever it takes to correct the error, compensate those who have been overcharged and prevent further overcharging, if we are in fact correct and the indexation has been incorrectly applied. 

Urban Taskforce has written to the NSW Treasurer to request that the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue urgently seek the advice of the Supreme Court on this matter under section 106 of the Taxation Administration Act 1996. 

We are concerned that, at a time when developers are faced with ever increasing taxes, fees and charges, the possibility of overcharging in this space is just another hit to development feasibility and will result in less housing being built.  

7. After more than half a century, is it time to update flight path restrictions?  

Conquest Property Group boss Michael Akkawi has been in the media this week talking about residential building height limits under Sydney Airport flight paths. 

Mr Akkawi says that prime real estate surrounding the airport is being restricted by rules set six decades ago – long before GPS guided aircraft existed – and that this is limiting the ability to deliver new homes in the inner city suburbs of Sydney. 

His argument is that buildings are being held to no more than 30 metres in height despite planes coming in at 500 metres, and that this type of restriction is being inconsistently applied – while housing in Green Square is being approved at 25-30 storeys, a few streets away the cap is set at 14. 

A change would allow more new homes to be delivered without creating any additional risk to planes, their crews, and their passengers.  

It would help to make building projects more feasible, yielding more apartments to overcome the increased additional construction and compliance costs, and allowing projects to deliver more open space on their sites for the benefit of residents. 

Rather than relying upon old height standards that bear little relevance to modern passenger aircraft, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should be ensuring that restrictions are reviewed regularly based on need. 

State planning policy cannot unilaterally change these settings – the Federal regulator has to play an active part. 

The experience of airports around the world that are surrounded by increased density should be examined and a sensible, practical policy position developed that allows both new housing and aviation safety to be addressed. 

Without it, some of these airport-adjacent suburbs will be underserved when it comes to new housing supply. 

8. ACT gets the housing supply memo - sort of ...

While Woollahra and Mosman Councils are putting up the “No vacancy” signs, the ACT Government has announced reforms to deliver 30,000 new homes by 2030. 

Canberra’s plan is to expand the areas where low-rise housing can be built, permitting RZ1 and RZ2 land to take on higher density. 

The move will expand the ability to increase low-rise infill housing in established suburbs, opening the “missing middle” to more new homes. 

The new reform, which commenced on 1 July, follows a decision in June to abolish stamp duty for all first-home buyers. 

The Barr Government’s policy differs from that applied in Sydney or Melbourne – where development is concentrated on transport corridors or town centres – by allowing higher density throughout the Territory. 

To provide further support, lease variation charges (land in the ACT is leasehold, not freehold) have been halved for the time being, helping to accelerate the construction of smaller properties. 

The policy mirrors the NSW LMR policy, allowing more construction in low-density areas to supplement existing housing stock. 

However, the scope still remains fairly limited – while it will encourage more use of low-rise – duplexes, triplexes, terraces, townhouses, and two (RZ1) and three-storey (RZ2) apartment blocks, there are no indications that the ACT Government will allow higher densities. 

Recognising the problem is half the challenge.  But a more ambitious target is needed if the ACT is going to provide the housing it needs. 

9. DEA:  Gazcorp's Sydney Outlet Village takes out Best Retail Development 

The design weaved together heritage brick facades, ornate mouldings, shaded verandas, and richly landscaped spaces into an environment that feels both deeply familiar and quietly nostalgic.  

Delivering the $100 million open-air luxury precinct on time, on budget, and in a live trading environment, the project had no negative impact on existing tenants.  

Innovation is embedded across every domain of this project, from Gazcorp's pioneering in-house construction model and 3D-printed architectural elements to a 1MW solar system achieving carbon-net neutral operations. 

We congratulate Gazcorp on its win. 

Our thanks to our sponsors

10. Twilight Tour:  Parkline Place on show

Last night, Urban Taskforce Australia members descended on Investa's Parkline Place. 

The purpose of the visit was not to lobby the Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure, which has offices in the building, but to get a tour of the winner of the Commercial Development category of this year's Development Excellence Awards.   

Situated above Sydney Metro's Gadigal Station, the 48,881 sqm, 39-storey Premium-grade office development shows how commercial buildings and transport infrastructure can be integrated to mutual benefit.  

The tour looked at some of the remaining office accommodation - only 470 sqm of the available space is still to be let - and heard about the thinking behind the level 4 reception, the retail partnerships, and the design modifications made to let more light into the entry of the Metro Station.  

Architects Foster + Partners, who have an office in the complex, allowed members to see the harbour views from their tenancy (despite one of their employees being on a video conference), and attendees heard about the tapering ceilings, the Russian-sourced parquetry flooring, and how the intent eventually is for the Metro entrance to open up and be integrated with the street.  

The building is owned by Oxford Properties Group and Mitsubishi Estate Asia and managed by Investa. Urban Taskforce's thanks go to Mark Tait (Group Executive and Head of Development, Investa); Danielle Bryan (General Manager Parkline Place, Investa); Muir Livingstone (Partner and Architect, Foster + Partners); and Alan Beaver (Development Director, Investa) for sharing their time and insights.  

11. Strathfield:  "Don't blame us for our poor results!"

Urban Taskforce has received a letter in response to a submission we made on the Draft Strathfield Resilience Strategy.  

We pointed out that Strathfield is performing worse than any other Greater Sydney council against its National Housing Accord targets, at only 22% on a pro rata basis.   

Strathfield General Manager Michael Mamo was having none of it.  He contested Urban Taskforce's criticism, saying:  

"Council supports additional, well-planned housing. However, responsibility for its delivery must be accurately attributed across developers, landowners, financiers, the construction sector and all levels of government."  

What Mr Mamo does not mention is that developers are avoiding Strathfield, because the zoning, heights and FSRs are not conducive to feasible development projects. 

Placing all of your housing delivery hopes on the Homebush TOD, which Council had nothing to do with, suggests that everywhere else is off limits. Recognising that a high proportion of applications don't make it to development doesn't address Council's role in making projects unfeasible.  

Stating that large proposals are proceeding through SSD and HDA pathways ignores the fact that applicants wouldn't have to take those options if the Council supported development.  

Pointing to an 85-day average assessment time, without indicating how many of those applications were approved, and resulted in new dwelling construction commencements, does not prove that Strathfield LGA is a good place to build. 

But that's our perspective.  Our submission and Mr Mamo's response are linked in the images below. 

You decide:  are we being unfair? 

12. Council Watch

Gold-plated developer contributions being applied in Broadmeadow

It would appear that the State Government’s current focus on housing feasibility has not filtered down to the good burghers of the City of Newcastle. 

The City’s plan for its Broadmeadow precinct – close to Newcastle CBD – has set a rather ambitious target for local infrastructure. 

The $815 million public works program aims to deliver: 

• three multipurpose community facilities ($58.6 million);
• playing fields and multipurpose courts ($15.7 million);
• a youth recreation facility ($5.5 million);
• a “community” stadium ($30.3 million) (whatever that means);
• a regional aquatic centre ($203.9 million);
• active transport changes ($103.4 million);
• playgrounds and park upgrades ($54.3 million);
• flood mitigation works ($201.1 million); and
• land acquisition for local infrastructure ($100.1 million). 

That’s a spend of approximately $3.02 million per hectare … or more than $470k per current resident.

If that’s not enough, Council already requires developers in that precinct to contribute a 4% affordable housing levy on the total GFA for any residential project. 

Quite the costly exercise. 

It is difficult to see how slapping each unit with an additional $70-80,000 charge is going to make housing in Newcastle more affordable.  Or just how the City considers such a high level of developer contribution fits in with the State Government’s requirement for “feasible housing supply”. 

Hitting development with high rates of contributions for both local infrastructure and affordable housing may look good on paper or in press releases, but it won’t lead to new housing. 

Which means that the infrastructure pipeline is looking more like it will be an infrastructure pipe dream. 

Mosman to push ahead with anti-development alternative plans

With Woollahra Council getting lines of ink last week on its proposal to slash Woollahra Station housing numbers by two thirds, Mosman Council has said “Hold my latte!”. 

An Extraordinary Council Meeting has been set for next Wednesday, 26 August, at 7pm.  Taking a leaf out of the “all publicity is good publicity” school of philosophy, Mosman is ramping up its efforts to gut the LMR reforms. 

Perhaps inspired by the Opposition’s tailor-made policy, Mosman is not resting on its hands but is barrelling towards its alternative plan … and a potential standoff with the NSW Government. 

In addition, Council will be considering a planning proposal for its proposed Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme. 

So, not content with slashing housing and zoning buildings for density that will never be rebuilt, Council is seeking to slap a levy on new housing to ensure that there is affordable housing within the LGA. 

Not that uncommon.  However, it is the approach that Council is taking which raises eyebrows: 

• the baseline for Mosman LGA has a rate of 2%;
• but, “if using Chapter 6, Part 4 Housing SEPP Low- and Mid-Rise Housing Policy”, the rate is 3%;
• key sites will have a rate of up to 10%; and
• for proponent-led rezoning planning proposals, the rate is 15% for additional GFA. 

Levies are not charged on affordable housing, but only if it is provided in perpetuity – i.e. if you’ve used the Infill Affordable Housing Bonus scheme, Council will be double-dipping. 

Compounded with the recent changes to the DCP that require walk-throughs on new sites, protected views for other residents, and a significant responsibility for public domain works funding, these changes will deliberately make it harder for developers. 

The unwritten message here is that only development projects that Council wants will have an easy run.  Otherwise, it will be as unappealing as possible to build. 

So, Council can make it look like it’s doing something, keep local NIMBY residents happy, and frustrate developers.  It’s a triple-win! 

13. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“In line with this newfound status, the building has not only been added to the NSW Government’s State Heritage Register, but also won several awards, including the AIA NSW, Heritage Award, 2026; the Urban Taskforce Development Excellence Awards – Heritage Development Award, 2026; the Council on Vertical Urbanism, Repositioning Award, 2026; and the Urban Developer Awards for Industry Excellence, Excellence in Sustainability.”  read more …

An article about the adaptive reuse of 33 Alfred Street by Dexus and Mirvac. 

Architecture & Design, 19 August, 2026
 

“The plans by TGM Developer Pty Ltd, a consortium involving property developer Winston Langley and the Abadeen Group, represent a significant departure from an earlier proposal for 132 seniors housing dwellings on the site.  Instead, the revised plan would deliver 106 private homes ranging from three to five bedrooms.”  read more …

The redevelopment of the TG Milner rugby field has been a long time coming and the proponents have faced a plethora of Ryde Council led NIMBY objections.  The Liberal Party needs to develop a consistent message on housing supply – are they for it or not?  Clearly in Ryde, they will do everything they can to prevent development even on a site which has been going backwards for decades. 

SMH, 18 August, 2026
 

“Developer Abadeen is planning the project of 100 homes for the site at 494-516 Military Road, Mosman. Three of the homes would be affordable.”  read more …

Two blocks are planned for the shop top project with 85 apartments and 15 apartments in each.  Three homes will be affordable in the $63 million project, which will also create a gym, barbecue area, and carparking for 140 residents. 

The Urban Developer, 17 August, 2026
 

“Aland Unveils $2bn Masterplan for Leppington ‘Cow Paddock’”  read more …

1,500 homes are being planned in eight residential towers, along with 30,000 sqm of commercial space across three podiums.  It will create a 156-room four-star hotel and conference centre, 400 build-to-rent and 800 market homes, 15% of all homes as affordable dwellings, and 48% of the 3ha site as parks, landscaping, civic spaces, and critical infrastructure. 

The Urban Developer, 14 August, 2026

Follow our new LinkedIn Page