26 June 2026

In this Edition...

1. TOGA's Surry Hills Village development takes out Urban Taskforce Development of the Year

2. NSW Budget - a lost opportunity for housing supply

3. You've gotta have Faith

... and much, much more.

4. NSW Coalition's Budget Speech-in-Reply
5. When will the Federal Budget nightmare end?  
6. MMC without land lease changes won't stack up
7. Massive servings of judicial humble pie over boarding house redevelopment
8. DCA to commence on 1 July
9. Quote of the week
10. HDA emphasises feasibility, or does it? 
11. Western Sydney housing delivery crisis
12. IPART releases final report on infrastructure contributions in Marsden Park and in the Marsden Park industrial precinct
13. Council Watch
       Woollahra's "heritage trees" overshadow station plans
14. Biodiversity Offsets Update
15. Members in the news

1. TOGA's Surry Hills Village development takes out Urban Taskforce Development of the Year

Urban Taskforce Australia’s prestigious Development of the Year award for 2026 has been taken out by the Surry Hills Village by TOGA.

The award was given at a gala evening last night at the Sheraton Grand, Hyde Park, in front of a packed house of 500 industry leaders. 

TOGA Group, as the Head Developer, pulled together the best in our sector to deliver an outstanding result.  

The Surry Hills Village project, incorporating Wunderlich Lane and The Eve, was designed by architects SJB.  

The landscape architecture, so striking in this case, was undertaken by Aspect Studio with structural and civil engineering by WSP and Arup. 

Each component has come together to create a village including residential, a hotel, retail and commercial elements, all dealing sympathetically with the significant heritage overlay that has been featured and enhanced by the project. 

Surry Hills Village, including Wunderlich Lane and The Eve, is a landmark mixed-use precinct development that redefines urban regeneration in one of Sydney’s most creative and connected neighbourhoods. 

Delivered across an entire city block, the project combines the adaptive reuse of significant heritage fabric with bold contemporary development, to create a destination of metropolitan significance. 

A defining point of difference is the project’s role in enabling large-scale “meanwhile-use”.  The commercial success and disciplined delivery of Surry Hills Village underpin TOGA’s ability to support sustained meanwhile use across its broader portfolio, delivering tangible social impact alongside strong market outcomes.  

Through design excellence, placemaking and social leadership, the project sets a new benchmark for mixed-use development in Australia.  

The Development Excellence Awards are an evening to celebrate the best of the best in the property sector, and TOGA Group is a worthy winner. 

The prestigious award was presented by the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Kiersten Fishburn to TOGA Group.

Urban Taskforce Australia’s thanks go to the Juging Panel comprised of Chief Judge, Abbie Galvin, NSW Government Architect; Carolyn Cummins, SMH; David Hoy, Urbis; Peter Poulet Architect; Richard Rigby, RLB; and David Tanevski, KWC Capital Partners. 

Recent Urban Taskforce Development Excellence Awards winners include:  the Martin Place Station Integrated development by Macquarie Group in 2025; the Ribbon by Pinelake, Darling Harbour 2024; Eighty Eight by JQZ at St Leonards in 2023; Quay Quarter by AMP Capital at Circular Quay in 2022; Crown Resort at Barangaroo in 2021; and the redevelopment of Parramatta Square by Walker in 2020. 

Thanks go to our sponsors:  

Category Award Winners

Highly Commended

2. NSW Budget - a lost opportunity for housing supply

The significant decline forecast in revenue from stamp duty, land tax, and developer contributions told the real story about where the NSW Government expects housing supply to go. 

Far from making housing supply the centrepiece of the Budget as we had hoped, now we can only hope that the NSW Government is keeping its powder dry for pre-election announcements.

One particularly irksome decision was to pay 120,000 public servants a $1,000 pay bonus - arising from the CPI topping 4% increase. That adds up to a $120 million and this could have been much better spent on reductions or deferrals of property related taxes, resulting in greater housing supply and improved housing affordability. 

Urban Taskforce acknowledges the funding package for roads, transport, schools, and health infrastructure, particularly for western Sydney, but remains concerned that there was no relief from the increases in Sydney Water infrastructure charges for new home development – due to double next week. 

The NSW Budget claims a significant pipeline of housing applications, boosted by a range of planning initiatives which have significantly improved the planning system.  We think that this is fair.  

But the revenue forecasts tell the story – it is expected that revenues from property development will drop, which is bad news for converting the approvals pipeline into completed dwellings.  Turning the pipeline into completed dwellings is all about feasibility and NSW Treasury has a role to play.

The additional funding support for the Pre-sale Finance Guarantee is certainly welcome and will modestly improve property investment confidence at a time when feasibility has been smashed by interest rate rises, the war in Iran, and the debacle that  was the Federal Budget. 

And the removal of the 9% purchaser duty surcharge on foreign property investors for eligible build-to-rent and retirement living mega-developments (which we couldn't find in any media release, but is buried in Table C.4 of Budget Paper 1) is a step in the right direction.   

3. You've gotta have Faith

Ever ready to throw a few punches and hold government to account, Faith Housing Australia has come out with its assessment of the NSW Budget. 

And that assessment is … soft! 

The “national peak body representing faith-based housing providers, homelessness services and faith communities working to unlock housing justice” welcomed the Budget, praising it for building “on the NSW Government's broader housing reform agenda”. 

We’re not sure what Budget they were reading, but perhaps we got it wrong?

With other organisations such as Urban Taskforce Australia highlighting the lack of new support for housing supply, and a general reluctance to remove or reduce property-related taxes, Faith Housing Australia has gone all-in: 

We have a simple message: faith-based housing organisations can’t address the social and affordable housing challenges without new stock.  

4. NSW Coalition's Budget Speech-in-Reply

Commentators have observed that the NSW Government has restrained itself, either to help to contain inflation, or to set itself up with funding for election promises. 

Perhaps this was all part of the Minns strategy.

Yesterday, it was the Coalition’s turn to respond, with Leader Kelly Sloan laying out their strategy and focus for the upcoming campaign and seeking to demonstrate its bona fides for returning to the Treasury benches. 

Ultimately, there wasn’t much there.  In the midst of a housing crisis, the Leader of the Opposition’s speech failed to inspire much confidence that her team has the solutions. They too might be keeping their powder dry for the election blitz.

There were some positives. 

Firstly, payroll tax, which was rightly criticised as a tax on jobs and growth.  While welcome, this is not really a housing supply initiative.

The Coalition promised to increase in the payroll tax threshold to $1.5 million, drop the rate to 4.75% for businesses with a payroll of less than $10 million, and introduce indexation to avoid bracket creep. 

There was also a general commitment to supporting housing affordability, by building more homes and reducing barriers.  This is welcome – but how? As Elon Hanson would say: "please X-plain?"

The speech mentioned the $13,000 HPC tax on new dwellings, the Opposition stopped short of abolishing it for the lifetime of the Housing Accord – a promise the now Shadow Treasurer made when he was Shadow Housing Minister late last year before the leadership changed.  Now, the promise is only to “freeze” the contributions. We are not sure if that is all types of developer contributions, or just the HPC.  Lots of questions.

One very positive announcement was the affirmation from the Coalition to move payment of infrastructure fees and charges in the form of developer contributions from approval to completion, which would be a significant benefit to our sector, but stopping the payment altogether during the National Housing Accord period would go a long way to facilitating new housing supply. Again - clarity on if this refers to all developer contributions, or a sub-set of them, is required.

As for infrastructure, beyond a promise to prioritise the establishment of a New Western Sydney City Deal by 2028 and an undefined "new metro", there was very little on offer. 

It’s hard to show your relevance when you’re in Opposition, but if the Coalition wants to regain government next March, it’s going to need a strong vision and tangible commitments. 

5. When will the Federal Budget nightmare end?

Jim Chalmers will be much relieved now that he’s managed to get the Budget passed through the Senate and into law as fast as he possibly could, to avoid being further undermined by even more (clearly correct but nonetheless humiliating) observations from his Ministerial colleagues. 

The deal has been done with the Greens and the Budget will pass. 

There will be implications for Self-Managed Super Funds (SMSFs), which will be prohibited from borrowing for the purpose of investing in housing.  Urban Taskforce called this to the Greens lazy as it failed to differentiate between investment in existing dwellings and investments in new supply. 

Put simply, the same logic that resulted in an exemption on the changes to CGT and negative gearing for investment in new properties, should also have applied to this change for SMSFs. Bad enough that any sensible government listen to the Greens on housing or tax policy.  Worse that they don’t bother running a critical ruler over what’s been agreed to. 

But the media cycle has already moved on.

The latest unwelcome distraction for the Government is the apparent disagreement between Clare O’Neil and Jim Chalmers.  The former described the “price correction” witnessed in recent weeks with prices and auction clearance rates on a rapid decline as being due, in part, to the changes to taxation on property investment announced in the budget.

Treasurer Chalmers was keen to make clear that the “price correction was due to broader macro-economic conditions that well pre-dated the budget (like three interest rate rises) and the inflationary impact of the war in Iran.

That may be true, but Urban Taskforce backs Clare O’Neil’s candid analysis that the Budget played a part – indeed, we described it as the straw that’s broken the camel’s back.

6. MMC without land lease changes won't stack up

A notable inclusion in this week’s NSW Budget was support for modern methods of construction (MMC). 

Last Sunday, a media release by Premier Chris Minns, Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, Planning Minister Paul Scully, Housing Minister Rose Jackson, and Building Minister Anoulack Chanthivong declared support for a “world-class facility to harness cutting-edge prefabrication, modular construction and digital technologies to produce high-quality housing faster”. 

The facility would be created through a two-stage competitive tender process, and the products of the facility would be used to deliver medium-density homes, schools, and hospitals, amongst other things. 

The Property Council and the Committee for Sydney were quick to commend the Government, but there was no mention of the big change needed to make MMC work – the removal of the planning ban on land leasing in the Sydney basin. It's always the detail!!

Rather than being a cheer squad for the Government, it would be better to encourage it to clear that final hurdle and provide a genuine future for the benefits of MMC in the Sydney basin. 

Without the change to land leasing, the economies of scale are simply not there to justify the significant investment in plant and machinery necessary to manufacture offsite building components. 

7. Massive servings of judicial humble pie over boarding house redevelopment

In a clear case of “wishful thinking is not the law”, the proponent of a redevelopment proposal in Paddington’s Selwyn Street has had an appeal upheld in the Land and Environment Court. 

The development application by LFD Homes, to turn a run-down 32-room boarding house into four attached terraces, was rejected by the City of Sydney in 2023. 

No-matter that the boarding house in question was run down.  No-matter that the cheap accommodation it offered was due to the building being in a substandard and unhygienic condition.  No-matter that the landowner did not want to run a boarding house. 

For Council, this was a matter of PRINCIPLE – stating in its refusal that the proposal: 

“…fails to encourage the growth and diversity of the residential population of the City of Sydney by providing for a range of appropriately located housing, including affordable housing.”

So, the application went to the Land and Environment Court. 

Last July, a Commissioner ruled in favour of the Council and refused consent.  Her reasons were less legal and more emotional. 

The development couldn’t proceed, she said, because “there is a dwindling supply of older style, cheaper boarding houses in the inner city”, “older style traditional boarding houses are for low-income earners” who cannot afford newer boarding houses, and the removal of boarding houses will result in “a loss of affordable housing for a cohort of the population who are significantly socio-economically disadvantaged”. 

Her solution?  The developer should upgrade the premises to make them a financially viable boarding house.  

LFD appealed the Commissioner’s decision and the Appeal was heard by the Chief Judge of the Court, the Hon. Brian Preston AC FSRN SC on questions of law. 

The Judgement was clear. Justice Preston demolished the Commissioner's findings, responding to the four grounds raised by the developer with the Court.  He upheld the appeal and set aside the earlier decision and orders, on the following grounds: 

• “the Commissioner’s personal assessment of the financial viability of an upgraded boarding house involved taking into account an irrelevant consideration, asking the wrong question for the purposes of the Housing SEPP, or misconstruing the Housing SEPP and the Guidelines for Retention of the Existing Affordable Rental Housing (October 2009) (Guidelines)” (Ground 1 – unlawful consideration);
• “the Commissioner erred on a question of law by not assessing the financial viability in accordance with the criteria mandated by Part 3 of the Housing SEPP” (Ground 2 – non-application of the Housing SEPP);
• “the Commissioner’s assessment of the financial viability of the use of an upgraded boarding house lacked any evidentiary foundation” (Ground 3 – no evidence); and
• “the Commissioner denied LFD procedural fairness as the Commissioner’s personal assessment of the financial viability of an upgraded boarding house was not a principal contested issue raised by either party or by the Commissioner at the hearing in the court below” (Ground 4 – procedural fairness). 

In his rebuttal of the earlier case, the Chief Judge agreed with the developer that the use of “a hypothetical upgrading of the existing boarding house reveals that the Commissioner erred on a question of law by taking into account an irrelevant consideration” – as the Court can only consider the development that is the subject of the DA, it was not permissible for the Commissioner to do this.

Judge Preston found that the Commissioner’s assessment of financial variability had no evidentiary foundation – was emphasised in an earlier comment by the Chief Judge on the mathematics: 

“Regrettably, however, the Commissioner misapplied the formula in s 48(4) of the Housing SEPP. That formula requires the elements of V (the value of the boarding house) and U (the estimated cost of carrying out upgrade works) in the denominator of the formula to be added, not subtracted. The Commissioner instead subtracted element U from element V, to derive a denominator of $7,000,000. The division of this denominator into the numerator of $247,149 led to the figure of 3.5% that the Commissioner determined to be the rental yield. If the elements V and U were to be added, as required by the formula in s 48(4), the rental yield would become 2.75%.” 

Finally, on procedural fairness for not allowing the opportunity to respond to the financial viability claim, the response was also clear: 

This issue was not raised as a contention in the Council’s Statement of Facts and Contentions or by LFD in its Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply. The Commissioner did not raise the issue as an issue that the parties needed to address in the proceedings. The issue was not addressed expressly in the parties’ evidence or submissions at the hearing. In short, it was not a principal contested issue in the proceedings. 

Justice Preston found that these errors were material to the Commissioner’s rejection of the DA and set aside her decision and orders with costs, sending them back to her to finalise. 

On 17 June, Commissioner O'Neill handed down her final (revised) decision. 

In the new ruling, she accepted that the financial viability had been overstated and that “compelling private landowners to continue using their land as a boarding house when it is not financially viable would undermine the economic incentives designed to encourage private investment in such accommodation”.   

The developer’s appeal was upheld. 

8. DCA to commence on 1 July

After a long wait, the Development Coordination Authority (DCA) will officially begin work at the start of next month. 

The commencement will see the DCA take responsibility for referral and concurrence activities of the State Government, consolidating the role previously played by other agencies. 

The key decision-maker will be Kiersten Fishburn, Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure (DPHI). 

The DCA has been operating already to help applicants with their enquiries around local DAs and to provide post-consent support so that housing projects can begin construction sooner, but 1 July will see it taking on a more significant, centralised responsibility, including: 

• acting as a single point of contact for enquiries on local development and modification applications requiring input from NSW Government agencies;
• issuing a single, coordinated response to referrals from consent authorities;
• bringing together experts from a broad range of disciplines so issues can be resolved quickly;
• providing specialised expertise and coordinated technical advice on development applications, modification applications and rezonings; and
• helping to resolve post consent issues for large housing projects so construction can start sooner. 

9. Quote of the week

It may be a hotbed of anti-development types, but it seems that at least one Woollahra councillor is starting to get the message. 

In the discussion in support of his motion titled “Reducing Construction Costs Improves Housing Affordability”, Councillor James Ardouin noted: 

Needless to say, correspondence to the Council on this motion was (how shall we put it?) “historically NIMBY” in its framing.  As were responses from some of the other councillors…

Sadly, the motion was soundly beaten.  So maybe it will take Councillor Ardouin a little longer to win over his colleagues. 

10. HDA emphasises feasibility, or does it? 

It seems like the HDA has been busy dealing with a backlog of EOIs. 

Attended by a large number of DPHI staff, the troika worked through 65 EOIs, accepting only 17 and deferring 2 – 46 were thrown in the dustbin. 

On the plus side, the meeting on 15 June started with an “Operational Briefing” in which the HDA addressed the elephant in the room from last month – feasibility. 

The minutes noted: 

“Noted that the HDA acknowledges that there may be circumstances where the existing or proposed planning controls, combined with a strict and overly onerous application of affordable housing requirements, are inconsistent with the feasible development or productive use of a site. In these circumstances, the criteria are intentionally flexible to allow applicants to tailor the percentage, ownership and tenure of any affordable housing contribution to individual projects and ensure affordable housing requirements do not result in projects becoming unfeasible.

It is expected that the percentage of affordable housing provided in perpetuity on a site would be lower than a time-limited affordable housing contribution on the same site due to the differing impacts that this has on development feasibility. 

Cash contributions rather than time-limited or in perpetuity in-kind delivery is also acceptable, with those details to be considered through the assessment of any SSDs.”

While it’s good that there is some acknowledgement of feasibility, the position outlined above by the HDA is still not making life easier. 

How will applicants demonstrate that affordable housing requirements aren’t going to be feasible?  Where does such information fit on the EOI forms? 

We’re going to need more from the HDA – we’ll keep members informed about any responses. 

11. Western Sydney housing delivery crisis

A timely reminder in the AFR this week that just because you can zone something, it doesn’t mean that it will automatically be built. 

The report on Monday highlighted some of the difficulties in turning a planned housing pipeline into actual homes. 

The high cost of construction – labour, materials, taxes, red tape – is making it impossible to build in the west of Sydney, and developers are shifting focus towards the north and east, where returns are more feasible. 

The problem is not just with apartments, which industry has been saying for some time aren’t feasible west of Parramatta, but with greenfield areas as well, where infrastructure is not being provided to make construction work. 

It is increasingly costing more to build than you can sell the property for. 

On top of that, compliance headaches are making builders think twice about whether they want to stay in residential property. 

According to the article, only a fifth of the number of dwellings needed each year are actually being build in the west at the moment – approvals are coming through, but commencements aren’t happening. 

Andrew Hrsto, from Urban Taskforce member ALAND, told the paper that he is looking towards the city to develop, where sale prices are likely to cover costs. 

As Urban Taskforce Australia has stated previously, a big part of the problem is the massive amount of taxes, fees, and charges, across all three levels of government, placed on new development – constituting around 35-40% of the cost per apartment.  Federal, state, and local governments are all clipping the ticket and taking their cut but will then bemoan the lack of delivery. 

As we keep saying (annoying for some), if projects don’t stack up, they won’t get built.  

12. IPART releases final report on infrastructure contributions in Marsden Park and in the Marsden Park industrial precinct

IPART’s response to Blacktown City Council’s proposed contributions plan for Marsden Park is now available. 

The plan covers around 2,352 hectares and is expected to deliver an additional 11,536 dwellings for an additional population of 33,742 residents.

Commercial development in the precincts is estimated to support 10,000 new jobs. 

IPART has made the determination “that the infrastructure in the plan is required, that costs are reasonable, and that consultation has occurred”.  

13. Council Watch

Woollahra's "heritage trees" overshadow station plans

Not content with changing its DCP to deter low- and mid-rise housing developments, Woollahra Council has thrown shade at the State Government by proposing to give heritage listings … to individual trees. 

At a meeting earlier this week, Councillors resolved (without debate, and with only one vote against) in favour of protecting a significant, mature urban forest. 

Councillors directed the General Manager to undertake a review of the Forest (that conveniently stretches from one side of the Woollahra station site to the other) amongst other things to: 

• identify critical habitats and threatened species; 
• assess whether any specific trees should be heritage listed; and
• “explore any other ways to proactively help protect the Forest”. 

Minister Paul Scully has called the Council out:

Given the Minister’s criticism, will we be seeing some more direct intervention in coming weeks?  Or will NIMBY councils continue to try to flex their muscles? 

14. Biodiversity Offsets Update

The State Government’s consultation on changes to the Biodiversity Offsets Payment Calculator Order 2022 has ended, and the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust is considering recommendations for changes to the Order. 

Updates to the Calculator will be delayed until 1 October, while any approved changes are implemented. 

Until that date, all quotes issued will use 2025-26 prices. 

15. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

"Lendlease has been named the preferred master development partner to transform the former Visy industrial site at South Brisbane into a major riverfront mixed-use precinct spanning 7.1ha along the Brisbane River."  read more … 

The precinct - nicknamed South Bank 2.0 - will deliver more than 4.000 new homes in a high-density mixed use neighbourhood on the riverfront, just 1.3km from the Brisbane CBD.  

The Urban Developer, 25 June, 2026
 

“Lendlease has sold its remaining stake in the country’s biggest retirement village operator, Keyton, in a $525 million deal with Aware Super, bringing to an end a three-year quest to quit its investment."  read more … 

The ongoing restructure of the company has included reducing its stake in Keyton as part of an overhaul of its operations.  

AFR, 25 June, 2026
 

“Fivex Pivots from Office to Homes for 61-Storey Chatswood Skyscraper."  read more … 

The developer is seeking a 490-apartment yield from the Chatwood highrise, in a development that is seven storeys taller than a previous HDA-endorsed SSD application.    

The Urban Developer, 25 June, 2026
 

“Billbergia has won approval to lift an under-construction Rhodes waterfront project to 401 apartments while its separate $3.2-billion masterplan next door moves through planning.”  read more …  

The DPHI approved site on Leeds Street in the west of Rhodes Bay will add 59 apartments to the City of Canada Bay scheme, to increase the total to 401, 68 of which will be affordable housing. 

The Urban Developer, 22 June, 2026
 

“Plans for a $549-million portion of ALAND’s Leppington Town Centre proposal have gone on exhibition.”  read more …

The project will build nine buildings of up to 25 storeys each, delivering 1,206 homes in the Rickard Road Residential Core Precinct, situated about 450m from the Leppington train station. 

The Urban Developer, 19 June, 2026
 

“Ingenia Communities is tracking toward the top of its 2026 financial year earnings guidance as its development pipeline swells to more than 8,000 lots.”  read more …

The developer has had a 10-15 percent growth on FY25 and is forecasting 560-575 home settlements for the current financial year. 

The Urban Developer, 19 June, 2026
 

Follow our new LinkedIn Page