10 July 2026

In this Edition...

1. ABS Quarterly Commencements and Completions data shows a decline in housing supply 

2. HDA approves lots of EOIs but some LGAs seem to be spared

3. ABS approvals data - A fine-grain analysis of LGA performance

... and much, much more.

4. When did the governments give up on market forces to drive housing supply?
5. National Shelter nails it
6. Quote of the week
7. NCC - lots of talk - but so far - little change
8. Skilled construction workers down the list for migration intake
9. Quote of the week 2 
10. Greens borrow from the US and Spanish left - calling for caps on rents
11. DEA: Homes NSW take the social/affordable development class, while Mirvac gets recognised for build-to-rent
12. Council Watch
       City of Sydney plans for Place de la Clover
       Woollahra gets L&EC comeuppance in Rose Bay
13. DPHI Update
14. Members in the news

1. ABS Quarterly Commencements and Completions data shows a decline in housing supply

You might think that you’ve read all of this before. 

But the commencements and completions data from the ABS this week, for the March Quarter of 2026, confirms what in our hearts (and in our professional capacities) we already knew:  the interest rate rises and the ongoing war in the Middle East are starting to bite. 

This is affecting housing supply, reducing project feasibility, depressing commencements and completions, and getting us further away from our National Housing Accord targets. 

The quarterly ABS data shows a sharp downturn in confidence and housing project feasibility.  It covers the period between the start of the year and the end of March, when we saw two interest rate rises (the third came in May) and the start of the war in the Gulf. 

We feared that the impact of the interest rate rises spelt danger for the Accord targets and this week’s result has borne out those concerns. 

Urban Taskforce was hoping to see support for housing delivery from both the State and Federal Governments.  Instead, we got a collapse in confidence from the Federal tax changes and no relief from state-based fees, taxes, and charges in NSW.

The impact of this will come through in the June quarterly data which will be published by the ABS in October. There is worse to come.

We have consistently advised governments that banks and financiers will not fund the commencement of projects if they are not convinced that those projects will sell and make a profit.  Rather than taking their eyes off the housing feasibility ball, this must be the focus of government decision-making in this space. 

That means tax reforms that encourage housing supply  That means funding to assist with the reduction in fees, taxes, and charges that are levied on housing development and add to the cost of new homes. 

The national high point from December for commencements (slightly over 200,000 nationally) is now a distant memory, as the realities of the current economic climate began to bite.

Reports from the development sector have been of spikes in construction costs of between 10 and 15% since the start of the year, along with the more recent collapse in sales and auction clearance rates.  Much of this bad news is yet to flow through to this data. 

Feasibility was already a problem, and Urban Taskforce members have been raising with us their increasing difficulty in getting the numbers to stack up in the face of rising fuel and material costs, logistical challenges, union EBA rates, and the ever-present taxes, fees, and charges being demanded by all levels of government.

Federal, state, and local governments need to make some fundamental strategic decisions – is an increase in housing the ultimate goal?  Is housing affordability important? 

If so, we need to see that imperative reflected in policy and actions with the flexibility to adjust even further to deal with external pressures (what economists call exogenous shocks) beyond our control. 

The ABS statistics on approvals last week showed that dwelling construction approvals are consistently under-achieving.  This week’s statistics show that completions are falling.  We are moving further and further away from being able to deliver the 1.2 million houses that the Federal Government and all the states agreed were needed. 

The NSW Government has done a lot to improve the planning system in this state, through legislative reforms and initiatives such as the Housing Delivery Authority and the Development Coordination Authority, but these will be less effective if it just ends up being too costly to build. 

The NSW Premier, Treasurer, Housing Minister and Planning Minister all need to look at the costs being placed by governments onto housing – fees such as DSP charges, the Housing and Productivity Contribution (HPC), local government infrastructure contributions, and affordable housing levies – and find a better way. 

If the Government is serious about housing supply, it must cut or defer the fees, taxes, and charges that add so much to the cost of new housing and help to improve housing supply and affordability. 

Turning the housing construction market around will take time, effort, and money.  But if we want to see the success of the National Housing Accord, governments will need to make the tough decisions. 

2. HDA approves lots of EOIs, but some LGAs seem to be spared

It’s deck-clearing time at the Housing Delivery Authority, as the triumvirate works assiduously to get through some of the significant backlog of expressions of interest. 

On two consecutive days last month – 22 and 23 of June – the group worked through a total of 251 EOIs, with impressive results, recommending to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces that: 

• 94 EOI applications be declared SSD; and
• 127 applications not proceed,

with one proposal withdrawn and 29 deferred.

All up, those EOIs declared SSDA, if approved, would see an additional 22,410 new dwellings approved. 

However, our analysis of the 1,129 HDA EOIs to date shows that, while EOIs are spread across Greater Sydney, to varying degrees, the treatment of different localities seems to vary significantly.

Take the two key cities of Sydney – Sydney and Parramatta.  There appears to be a bias in HDA decisions for the two LGAs. 

Both councils have a similar number of applications:  74 for Sydney and 76 for Parramatta. But that’s where the similarity ends. 

Parramatta has had 46 of its 76 applications declared as State Significant Developments (SSD), at an approval rate of 60.5%. Contrast this with the City of Sydney where only 27 EOIs have been declared SSD by the HDA and Minister - a 36.5% approval rate. 

Is this low level of approvals a reflection of the NSW Government’s fear of Clover Moore and the City of Sydney’s recently released Housing for All discussion paper – which was most unkind about the role and efficacy of the HDA?

Of the 33 councils within the Greater Sydney Region, the City of Sydney comes in 24^th on EOI HDA approval rates. 

Given that the City of Sydney is still one of the worst performing councils on new dwelling approvals, the housing sector is relying on the HDA to be the release valve which helps to deliver more approvals and dwellings within the City. 

3. ABS approvals data - A fine-grain analysis of LGA performance

This week’s local government approvals statistics from the ABS are showing that too many councils continue to drag their heels when it comes to development approvals.

But the performance of North Sydney Council must be called out.  It should have its planning powers taken from them.  Its performance is a disgrace.

Councils in the east and north of Sydney are particularly failing to deliver the approvals needed to meet the State’s National Housing Accord targets. 

The stand-out candidate for the wooden spoon continues to be Strathfield, which has approved developments covering just 22.2% of its Housing Accord completions target to date.  One thing’s for certain – there will be no completions without DA approvals!

Willoughby (29.8% of its pro-rata completions target) and North Sydney (32.0%) make up the bottom three. 

But our contempt is strongest for North Sydney Council which delivered no approvals in May. Not one.  None, nada, zilch.

North Sydney Council is the only council from Port Stephens to Shoalhaven; from Waverley to Blue Mountains not to approve any dwellings in the month of May. 

It is high time its planning powers were taken away and handed over to the Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC), or anyone else. Leave them to manage rubbish collections.

At the other end of the spectrum, Hawkesbury (152.1%), Canada Bay (141.9%), and Blue Mountains (100.0%) top the table, continuing to push past their targets. 

Blue Mountains, albeit with a low target, has achieved 17 approvals in the month of May.  So, even the Blue Mountains Council has outperformed Strathfield, Willoughby, and North Sydney combined for the month – quite the feat. 

While we are all struggling with making the feasibility of housing development projects stack up, it does not help when Councils are dragging their heels and working against the interests of young people, renters, down-sizers, and new home buyers.

The poor performance of far too many Sydney Councils is making it more and more likely that NSW will miss its Accord targets, exacerbating the housing supply crisis and further eroding housing affordability. 

Elsewhere, the major regions of Greater Newcastle, Central Coast and Illawarra-Shoalhaven continue to perform comparatively well, although Newcastle City Council is giving some of the worst-performing metro councils a run for their money on percentages.  (With that said, it still managed to approve more dwellings than any single council in the bottom 10.) 

Maitland Council approved more homes than the bottom 10 combined. 

Other regions are also delivering strongly, with Port Macquarie (1,065) having approved more dwellings in total than any of the bottom 10 Sydney councils. 

These LGAs are showing what can be achieved if councils facilitate, rather than frustrate, housing supply.  If those who are underperforming don’t pick up the slack soon, we’ll never hit our National Housing Accord targets. 

CEO Tom Forrest was quoted in a Daily Telegraph article criticising North Sydney Council on its performance. Click below to read the article. (May be behind a paywall)

4. When did Governments give up on market forces to drive housing supply? 

It appears that Federal, state, and local governments have not read their copies of Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. 

A lack of housing supply is having a significant impact on the affordability and availability of places to live for homebuyers and renters. 

Australia’s housing affordability crisis can be linked to Governments’ reluctance to acknowledge well intentioned policy conflicts with the economic reality in which we find ourselves, resulting in the very opposite of what was hoped for.  Taxes, fees, and charges; planning regulations; zoning restrictions; and construction standards, significantly increase costs and the development of new homes becomes unfeasible. 

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) being applied to new builds is one example of a barrier to new housing supply as it is in competition with existing dwellings (where no GST is paid).

Exempting new housing supply from the GST would stimulate development and have a direct and beneficial impact on affordability. 

By contrast, affordable housing taxes (sometimes called levies or more euphemistically, “contributions”) also push up the cost of market housing for the vast majority.  They lower feasibility and this, in turn, results in lower supply.  That pushes up prices because of the shortage – the opposite of what was hoped for!

5. National Shelter nails it

Urban Taskforce has been railing about it for years, but it seems that even those in the social housing arena are getting the message. 

In a recent media release, National Shelter, the non-government peak organisation that “aims to improve housing access, affordability, appropriateness, safety and security for people on low incomes” commented on the latest rental report stress from Domain covering June. 

The report showed an increase in rents year-on-year in Sydney of 7.6% for houses and 6.8% for apartments. 

In responding to the findings, CEO Jackson Hills said: 

New housing supply is necessary for reducing rents…  Couldn’t have said it better ourselves. 

6. Quote of the week

With all of the posturing last week by Mosman Council around its alternative to the State Government’s Low- and Mid-rise housing policy, observers were left wondering:  how would the Minister respond?  

The answer?  Directly, and in a forthright manner. 

7. NCC - lots of talk - but so far - little change

For all the enthusiastic talk about needing to fix the National Construction Code (NCC), we are yet to see much change. 

Earlier this year, Federal and State Ministers Clare O’Neil and Anoulack Chanthivong agreed that more work was needed to streamline the NCC, to be more useable, and to ensure that it did not hold back housing supply. Urban Taskforce welcomed their commitment. 

The 2025 version of the Code was put on hold for 12 months in NSW.  Again – this was very welcome.

Federally, a high-level review of the NCC is being carried out, but the interim report has not seen the wholesale change which was expected.

One example of NCC policy created in an uncritical echo-chamber by over-zealous regulators that Urban Taskforce highlighted has still not been addressed.  This involves changes made in 2024 to AS 1668.2 concerning ventilation requirements that were to come in with the 2025 NCC (now postponed in NSW till 1 May, 2027). 

Concerns were raised by many of our members through Neuron, who highlighted that these changes would lead to the centralising of bathroom and/or kitchen exhaust systems, which would add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of construction. 

Neuron has advised that design work it has carried out in accordance with NCC 2025 is adding weight to these concerns and highlighting practical issues with the application of AS 1668.2 (2024). 

A pause in the NCC is helpful, but the hard work needs to happen behind the scenes to reduce compliance burdens and costs and to make it easier to build, if the housing supply crisis is ever to be addressed. 

Urban Taskforce’s submission to the Senate Committee on Productivity in Australia highlighted many areas where the NCC could be simplified and reduced in size, and our hope is that this can lead to practical and tangible change to what is an overly prescriptive and burdensome compliance regime. 

High-level changes are a great start, but (as the construction sector knows) the real work begins when you get your hands dirty. 

8. Skilled construction workers down the list for migration intake

At a time of housing crisis, it seems strange that the people needed to build the housing – construction workers – are placed in the third of four tiers of skilled immigration priority. 

A report from the Daily Telegraph says that carpenters, construction managers, tilers, electricians, plumbers, cabinet makers, and surveyors are in the same category as animal trainers, actors, dancers, musicians, journalists, and economists. 

The country is not falling into economic stagnation because we need more soapie stars. We need housing. 

Given the significant need for housing supply, construction workers should be placed in the top tier for migration intake, so that we can supplement the shortfall in labour currently plaguing the industry. 

Minister Tony Burke introduced the new tiers late last year and placed construction down the list even as he was talking about the need for more workers in the sector.  With the Olympic infrastructure build sucking labour out of NSW, construction workers, at all skill levels, need to be prioritised.  We are astonished that Tony Burke is not aware of this.

From the Prime Minister down, the Federal Government has acknowledged that there is a housing shortage.  It’s time to open the doors to the workers who can help to deliver it. 

9. Quote of the week 2 

Dr Sarah Hunter from the Reserve Bank of Australia, in her role as Chief Economist, made it clear this week that the central bank does not control productivity. That's the role of governments:-

10. Greens borrow from the US and Spanish left - calling for caps on rents

Be careful what you wish for. 

Greens spokesperson on finance, housing, and homelessness, Senator Barbara Pocock, is continuing her campaign against investors through her Inquiry into Intergenerational Inequity.

Her latest hearing has led to a manifesto mounting the case for rent capping: 

Along with usual claims such as “social housing has fallen from 5.7% of dwellings in the 1990s to 3.6% today” – which doesn’t mean that there is less social housing – Senator Pocock’s summary of evidence is heavy on emotion and light on statistics. 

What’s worse, her plan for rent capping and direct Federal Government investment in housing delivery (don’t the states already do that?), shows a general unwillingness to learn from the past. 

While caps, or freezes, are popular at the moment – NY Mayor Zohran Mamdani has implemented a freeze until 2027 – there are fears that this is going to stop tenant mobility, reduce maintenance expenditure and building quality, increase market rents for those not capped, and make investment properties unfeasible. 

A literature review by the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) in the United States, looking at studies from 1972-2017 found that there were seven negative effects arising from rent control schemes: 

1. Rent control and rent stabilisation policies do a poor job at targeting benefits, helping higher-income tenants as much as lower-income families;
2. Residents of rent-controlled units move less often than do residents of uncontrolled housing units;
3. Rent-controlled buildings can suffer from deterioration or lack of investment;
4. Rent control and rent stabilisation laws can reduce the available supply of rental housing;
5. Rent control policies don’t always hold rents of controlled units at lower levels;
6. Rent control policies generally lead to substantially higher market rents; and
7. There are significant fiscal costs associated with implementing a rent control program. 

In March of this year, Spain introduced rent control policies, as part of a general cost-of-living support program, which included a contract extension at current prices for rents soon to expire (effectively a rent freeze) and a 2% annual cap on increases through to 2027. 

The same week that this policy was introduced, a report by the Instituto Juan de Mariana on rent control in Spain found that it had adverse impacts.  For example, the supply of rental housing fell by 23% in Catalonia since 2024.  It also reported that, when introduced into areas designated as “stressed” housing markets, rental housing availability fell by 44% in the city of A Coruña and by 51% in the Navarra region.  The report also found reductions in the average unit space and poorer conditions in rental properties. 

In Argentina, President Javier Milei scrapped a rent control law that had been introduced in 2020 (reducing rental listings by 53%) just 10 days after taking office.  Supplies rose by 180% in the following 18 months. 

The moral of the story?  It may seem like the moral decision to cap rents, and the sob stories will always make great media fodder.  But, as National Shelter has advised (story 5), the way to reduce rents is to increase housing supply

11. DEA: Homes NSW take the social/affordable development class, while Mirvac gets recognised for build-to-rent

Two worthy winners were recognised in the Development Excellence Awards in the affordable housing and rental markets. 

Johnson Pilton Walker’s quality design, landscaping and green roofs improve sustainability, streetscape integration and neighbourhood amenity for local community.

The project was supported with expert design advice from The King’s Trust Australia, whose trainees worked on the development, and partnered by Kane Constructions and Bridge Housing. 

Together, these new homes provide safe, comfortable and contemporary housing while reinforcing the character, accessibility and liveability of Glebe. 

The King’s Trust celebrated the win on its website, reporting that His Majesty King Charles III visited the site in October 2024, met with three King’s Trust Australia trainees, and praised the design. 

Trust Chair, the Hon Julie Bishop, said:  

“We are thrilled that soon these apartments and townhouses will be filled with families and individuals, giving them a safe and eco-friendly place to live.” 

In the Build-to-Rent Development category, Mirvac was recognised for its LIV Albert project in Melbourne’s Brunswick. 

The vibrant new build-to-rent neighbourhood champions diverse renter lifestyles and the distinctive Brunswick identity.  

Through sustainable and innovative solutions, Mirvac navigated significant challenges to transform a disjointed parcel into harmonious urban design, delivering 498 park-side homes and engaging communal spaces.  

Our thanks to our sponsors

12. Council Watch

City of Sydney plans for Place de la Clover

What do you do as a Sydney based LGA when you have a spare $150 million burning in your pocket?  Affordable housing?  Park refurbishment?  Pothole repair?  Not if you’re the City of Sydney. 

The councillors there have a grand vision – a new civic square in the heart of the city, right in front of the Town Hall. 

The proposal – which critics have referred to as the “paved patio” would see seven buildings demolished to create the additional space. 

Council justifies these demolitions by saying that: 

“the buildings on the site are now more than 50 years old.  The rising cost of maintaining or upgrading them to comply with current standards has become increasingly prohibitive.  With high vacancy rates in older office and retail buildings, retaining and upgrading these buildings is no longer financially sustainable.  Creating this generous public space is a great long-term investment for the community.”

Try putting those statements into your next redevelopment proposal and see how far it gets you with the City’s planning assessment team!

The proposal would see the demolition of the George Street Woolworths store – one of the busiest in the country – along with the 96-year-old Hotel Coronation, and a variety of other businesses. 

An upside, according to the Lord Mayor, is that the square could “serve as a hub for future city protests” (perhaps she might enjoy the occasional uprising or riot??).

Priorities.

As long as they all have a place to dump their e-bikes – fast becoming the blight of the city.

The project has united politicians, businesses, unions, and the public … against it. 

Perhaps Lord Mayor Moore is starting to lose her golden touch?

Premier Chris Minns and Planning Minister Paul Scully have both said that they don’t consider the proposal to be a priority; Business Sydney’s Paul Nicolaou said that what might have been “nice to have” in the 80s doesn’t work now; and the Secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Bernie Smith, successfully got support for a motion at the ALP’s conference to oppose it. 

The Council has allocated $150 million to a project that Council officers said in 2023 would cost over $200 million.  That’s a lot of ratepayer money. 

Simply creating a new square (that has trams running through it) will not revitalise the CBD. 

We suggest Council consider creating mixed use developments which include housing. With the sale of the buildings Council has already acquired, perhaps they could fund affordable housing and reduce the burden of developer fees and charges, thus making housing more affordable or everyone?

Woollahra gets L&EC comeuppance in Rose Bay

Woollahra Council’s ongoing battle against all things LMR appears to have had another setback, with the Land and Environment Court starting to support developers over Rose Bay development proposals. 

So far, a couple of cases have been heard, but more are likely to be in the pipeline, with as many as 21 apartment projects currently proposed in the suburb. 

In both cases – MD Living, whose project had been deemed refused, and Ian Street Developments (represented by Urban Taskforce member Mills Oakley), which wanted to vary its application – the Court agreed to higher buildings that would otherwise have been approved by Council. 

By going slow on determinations/variations, or rejecting applications out of hand, Woollahra is obstructing developments in low- and mid-rise (LMR) zoned areas. 

Council openly admits that it has “consistently advocated against the [LMR] reforms and raised significant concerns regarding their impacts”, so obstructions of this ilk should perhaps be expected. 

Rose Bay locals, echoing Council’s public position, declare that “they are not NIMBYs but have serious concerns about the cumulative impact” of the proposed developments. We beg to differ.

Developers working within the LMR framework should not be obstructed by anti-development types, whatever excuse the activists use to justify their positions. 

These concerns are eerily similar to the arguments in submissions supporting the Council’s anti-LMR development control plan, which was passed earlier this year, in which it appears that one of the respondents said the quiet bit out loud: 

“If developers are forced to include 1 and 2 bedders perhaps they'll think twice and leave Rose Bay alone, or at least propose smaller developments more in keeping with the flavour of our suburb.”

The Land and Environment Court is clearly applying the State Government’s policies in a way that ensures that low- and mid-rise housing can be delivered. 

But councils like Woollahra shouldn’t be opposing these projects in the first place, and the planning minister is clearly getting frustrated. 

Last year Paul Scully observed that: 

Now he’s given powers to the Land and Environment Court to review applications from proponents if they have been rejected by councils, and has made clear the NSW Government’s displeasure: 

Woollahra Council needs to be reigned in, so that other, similarly inclined councils don’t get emboldened. 

13. DPHI Update

The NSW Government is consulting on two issues at the moment: 

• An Explanation of Intended Effect for Standard and Model Conditions; and
• A discussion paper on Improving Development Assessment. 

These are part of DPHI’s efforts to improve the quality of development applications, streamline assessment, and standardise conditions of consent. 

Submissions on these documents may be made up until 5.00pm, 30 July 2026, and the papers can be accessed using the links below. 

As part of the consultation, a webinar will be held to discuss the proposed reforms. 

The webinar will be at 10.30 am on Monday, 13 July. 

14. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“Woolworths’ development arm Fabcot, has lodged a development application to build a customer fulfilment centre and warehouse on a vacant 5.9 ha lot at 144 Wicks Rd in Macquarie Park.”  read more …

The $189.3 million, 33,050 sqm project in Macquarie Park is receiving backlash from the community because it will create a 24-hour distribution hub next door to a childcare centre.

Daily Telegraph, 9 July

“A $2.9 billion development plan for the site by Stockland and John Boyd Properties would transform the land into one of Sydney’s largest logistics and technology precincts, featuring warehouses, commercial facilities, hospitality uses and a four-storey, 25,400-square-metre data centre.”  read more …

While plans to turn the 70-hectare former Kogarah Golf Club into a major data centre complex is facing community opposition, modelling shows that the precinct could contribute up to 2,890 jobs and add $630 million per annum to the NSW economy.  

SMH, 8 July

“Melrose Park’s $5-billion factory-to-housing renewal has advanced again as Holdmark Property Group’s Melrose Wharf approvals clear more than $1.14 billion of apartments on Sydney’s Parramatta River.”  read more …

“The former industrial precinct between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park is being remade by several developers, Sekisui House in the north, Deicorp at the town centre, Payce at the gateway and Holdmark on the southern riverfront.”

Holdmark’s two SSD determinations are expected to deliver 2,404 apartments across six buildings in the former industrial precinct, with 378 affordable apartments, basement parking, and 1,121 sqm of retail space.

The Urban Developer, 7 July

“A 209-room hotel will claim the bottom eight levels of the towers and have a secondary exit into a central green space fronting onto the corners of Castlereagh, Pitt and Liverpool Streets.  The project is being developed by Billbergia Group and Metrics CreditPartners.”  read more …

The $3.5 billion project in the middle of Sydney’s CBD – bounded by Castlereagh, Pitt, and Liverpool Streets – will include one of the tallest residential towers in Greater Sydney.  Two 82-storey towers will contain 607 luxury residences above an 8-level podium containing a 209-room hotel, and Australia’s highest rooftop pool.  

Daily Telegraph, 6 July

“This month, the 27-storey tower reopened as a Unilodge student accommodation block with 1182 beds, after a $500 million redevelopment by Dexus and Marquette Properties.”  read more …

The project to redevelop the former government office building Mineral House to create a 1,182 bed student accommodation was facilitated with the delivery of 850 modular bathrooms manufactured in NSW.  

AFR, 6 July

“Ingham Property sells Western Sydney Airport land to Amazon for 200,000 sqm warehouse play.”  read more …

17.2ha of land, out of Ingham’s 182 hectare estate, was sold to Amazon to create one of the largest distribution centres in the country.  The developer is turning the rest of the site into a major logistics hub.  

The Australian, 5 July

“Urban Property Group general manager Nick Gaudry said Urban was the first in Australia to commit to the insurance, with its The Parq project at Bexley, and was committed to LDI for its pipeline of 5000 build-to-sell apartments.”  read more …

State governments are making changes to increase the availability of building defects insurance.    

The Urban Developer, 3 July

Follow our new LinkedIn Page