30 October 2026

In this Edition...

1. Urban Taskforce members show that ATRC tariffs will devastate residential development 

2.  Shortest odds: Interest Rate rising the only sure bet on Melbourne Cup Day

3. We're seeing a pattern - the people are ignoring the book! 

... and much, much more.

4. House prices are falling – great news? Absolutely NOT!
5. NSW planning leaders make their pitch 
    Planning Minister outlines his record 
    Is the Coalition backing away from new housing supply? No, says Shadow      Minister Chris Rath
6. Coalition throws down the gauntlet: develop Long Bay
7. Land and Environment Court slaps down obstructive councils 
8. Proposed changes to planning rules for industrial lands 
9. State Government considering flexibility on HDA deadlines 
10. Urban Taskforce Policy Conference: exploring feasibility and supply 
11. A new tram plan is not a reason to stall new housing supply
12. Council Watch
      Has City of Sydney found its solution for e-bike parking? 
13. Members in the news

1. Urban Taskforce members show that ATRC tariffs will devastate residential development

Concern in the construction sector about the Australian Trade Remedies Commission’s (ATRC, the former Anti-Dumping Commission) decision to hit aluminium windows and doors from China with a massive tariffs is growing by the day. 

Federal Minister Tim Ayres has not responded to our urgent requests for a meeting so we went straight to the AFR’s Madeleine Bower.

The Australian Financial Review's report (article may be behind a paywall), featured the Urban Taskforce and a range of members including Coronation Property, Aqualand, and Deicorp, and reported that the tariffs are a “savage body blow” to the development sector. 

Despite the ATRC agreeing with some supplier claims that they can meet market demand – and that they need “months but … not years” to rebuild capacity – the overwhelming view of Class 2 and commercial developers is that this is far from the case. 

The ATRC’s tariffs of between 5.3% and 73.3% will hit current and future projects with unsustainable costs and increase the price of new homes by thousands of dollars. 

These taxes have been applied from 15 October, even though the Minister is yet to decide on whether they will remain in place, putting existing supply contracts at risk. 

As noted above, Urban Taskforce has raised industry’s concerns with the Federal Minister for Industry, Senator the Hon. Tim Ayres, urging him to halt the tariffs and review the ATRC’s decision. 

The majority of windows and doors used for apartment blocks and commercial towers come largely from China, while the domestic market predominantly caters for stand-alone houses. 

Developers have sourced reliable suppliers from overseas who can deliver the scale and quality needed for the buildings they are constructing, volume that cannot be matched by local producers. 

While the Minister’s office has said that “When trade is not fair, we stand up for Australian workers and businesses”, this level of support is not being extended to the local construction sector. 

Nor does it recognise the catastrophic impact that these tariffs will have on housing delivery and affordability. 

If suppliers to the standalone housing market (Class 1 buildings) need to be protected, so be it. 

But if that protection affects the supply to Class 2 buildings, which are not supplied by the same companies, the delivery of new homes will be hamstrung. 

And housing affordability will continue to get worse. 

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

2. Shortest odds: Interest Rate rising the only sure bet on Melbourne Cup Day

Point of Law might be the clear favourite in this year’s Melbourne Cup, but the safest bet on Cup Day is the horse called “Interest Rates Rising” (reputed to be the sibling of Ka Ying Rising)!*

The inflation results of this week have all  but sealed the deal with the underlying (trimmed mean) inflation rate going up to 3.6 percent and the headline cash-rate hitting 4.3 percnet. 

According to RBA Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser, the ongoing above-target inflation is a “central banker’s nightmare”, leaving few options for reining it in other than further interest rate rises. 

Rising expenses – in part stimulated by Federal Government over-spending, the confidence shattering Federal Budget, the wars in the Gulf and Ukraine, increasing fuel costs, higher construction costs, and the mid-term elections in the USA, are all causing economic pain and uncertainty. 

House prices in some markets may be easing, but mortgage payments are going up. 

Unemployment is low, but there is more pressure on businesses to pay more. 

Increasing fuel costs are delivering a $350 million windfall to the Federal Government, with no relief in sight. 

Anthony Albanese has been largely absent from the media over the last week so there is a chance his popularity might rise … slightly.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers recognises the problem and knows who to blame … ANYONE BUT HIM. 

The PM and his Treasurer are very much swimming against the tide. The RBA has pointed to government spending being a factor driving inflation.  The Productivity Commission has also called for public spending to be reviewed and for the WA GST boondoggle to be reversed.  Even Premier Chris Minns has called on governments at all levels to rein in spending and be fiscally responsible – and he’s the leader heading for an election!  

But our Federal Treasurer is clearly a fan of George Orwell’s 1984 and he has used Doublethink** to bring back the love. He insists that there is no link between Federal spending largesse and interest rate rises.

It seems that the race is not over. 

*… or not.

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

3. We're seeing a pattern - the people are ignoring the book!

The NSW Government’s much vaunted low and mid-rise “pattern books”  have reportedly failed to deliver the housing supply promised when they were launched. 

Despite the stated intention being that the books would streamline new housing projects, slashing approval times for the use of the pre-approved terrace and apartment block designs, just 66 pattern book homes are in the pipeline. 

According to the Telegraph, only 22 projects have started construction. 

Rather than collaborating closely with builders and modular designers to know what works; rather than throw out the apartment design guidelines and make a genuine effort to produce designs that work no matter the typography or aspect of the site; rather than making sure it was fully cross referenced against the National Construction Code, the pattern books were sold for a dollar and most sit of the shelves of bemused architects. 

The concern, as identified by Urban Taskforce CEO, Tom Forrest, is that they are not fit for purpose for use in a geographically diverse location such as Sydney: 

While the pattern books solve one problem – the cost of delayed approvals – they are not necessarily feasible for people building at a larger scale.  We’re not in the early 19^th Century now.  We don’t need a Lady Macquarie type matriarch to dictate design to builders who have worked with their own successful patterns for years.  

The real problem, according to Urban Taskforce members, is that the pattern book designs don’t provide enough flexibility to maximise the potential of a development lot, making them useful for only a very small proportion of development sites.  The proof is in the pudding:  they were free – and yet they were still ignored.  

Everybody supports the concept – having a design that can be picked up and used as complying development deals with some pretty significant headaches – but if the implementation doesn’t address the needs of an applicant, or the detail of the site, the designs won’t be used. 

The concept of the pattern book is a hangover from the Design and Place SEPP which was ignominiously binned by the former Government soon after Dominic Perrottet took over the Premiership of NSW.  Unfortunately, industry input was perfunctory – modular housing component designers and builders were not central to the process, council planners were not involved, and nor were the planners from DPHI.  It was given to the Government architects.  And here we are.

4. House prices are falling – great news? Absolutely NOT!

The Albanese Government has once again demonstrated its incapacity to grasp basic economics.  In the process the Government has downplayed the warnings from the RBA, the Productivity Commission, and even its own Treasury.  

Worse, they are prone to say things that are just plain … well … silly!  The latest example came from one of the Government’s better performers, Clare O’Neil.  

In a media burst last week, Minister O’Neil hit the airwaves to celebrate the 'success' of the Government’s changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, along with the decline in house prices.  

Every economist knows that it is the interest rate rises that have killed the property market.  Inflation, in part fuelled by government spending, is significantly and persistently above target.  Worse, the Government’s Budget has killed confidence.  To break an election promise so flagrantly and so soon after that promise was made, smashes investor confidence.  After all, what investment will be safe in the future?  

The interest rate levels are temporal; they will come down.  But not before they go up and not before there is some serious work done to reduce or re-prioritise government spending towards growth initiatives rather than handouts, vanity projects, and pork barrelling.  

When interest rates do come down, the price of houses will rocket upward, because the Government has done nothing significant to address the underlying problems that make housing construction so expensive:  

• It has steadfastly ignored industrial relations and the corrupt CFMEU.  Appointing an Administrator has not resulted in a more productive construction sector – quite the opposite.  

• It has done nothing to cut fees, taxes and charges, to offer exemptions or incentives for the construction of housing.  

• It has talked about slashing the NCC – but nothing has happened other than the (welcome) postponing of the 2025 catastrophe.  

• It has sat on the sidelines of the productivity debate – leaving it up to the Productivity Commission.  If Paul Keating had taken that approach we would not have seen the productivity gains of the 1990s.  

• The changes to the immigration system were a political fix – not an actual fix for the construction sector.  We need both skilled and unskilled migrants to fill the massive gaps in our construction workforce.  Slashing backpacker numbers leaves us with a significant gap in the unskilled workforce – but that’s what the CFMEU wanted all along!  

When interest rates eventually come down, the prices of homes will rise fast because there is not enough supply.  

The cost of construction continues to grow because the Albanese Government has done nothing but pay lip-service to this issue.

Killing confidence and feasibility is not the way to deliver a long-term improvement in housing affordability.  Denial won’t solve the problem.  Nor will fantasies about the impact of a disastrous budget.  

Increasing productivity, cutting planning controls, cutting costs, reducing taxes and charges – that’s what makes a real difference. That’s economic reality.  

5. NSW planning leaders make their pitch 

Last Tuesday’s Urban Taskforce Policy Conference brought together the Planning Minister and Shadow Planning Minister to mount their cases for new housing supply.

Both talked of the benefits of reform, both outlined what they planned if elected to the Treasury benches next March. 

While the interest of the audience was clear, the observations of our elected officials showed that further reform is still on the agenda. 

Planning Minister outlines his record

Planning Minister Paul Scully spoke first, highlighting the efforts of the Minns Government to simplify a complex planning system in NSW. 

The Government has attempted to deliver this through: 

• modernising the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
• unlocking infill opportunities, particularly in the Eastern Suburbs;
• increasing affordable housing through the infill affordable housing bonus scheme;
• introducing the low- and mid-rise (LMR) housing policy, which is expected to create thousands of new homes;
• releasing the pattern book to make it easier to get homes approved quickly as complying development;
• creating the Housing Delivery Authority to cut through planning blockages, with 509 EOIs already approved, promising 158,000 new homes;
• conducting 70 state-led rezonings, with the potential to create 284,000 new homes;
• introducing the pre-sale finance guarantee, which has helped to unlock more than 1,300 new homes;
• releasing the Sydney and Illawarra-Shoalhaven Plans to create a 30-year pipeline for feasible development;
• improving infrastructure coordination through the urban development program (UDP); and
• creating the Development Coordination Authority to create a single front door for concurrences, reducing referrals from 800 to 40; and
• enhancing the complying development pathway to unlock projects. 

However, while assessment times have reduced, the Minister skipped over the fact that this is not leading to more approvals (or commencements, or completions), just faster rejections (see article 7). 

Further, while there was a lot of discussion about what has been done, there were no new announcements (apart from saying that the building side will be more of a focus in a new term), although the Minister acknowledged that more planning reform is needed and the Government has not finished the task at hand. 

Is the Coalition backing away from new housing supply?  No, says Shadow Minister Chris Rath

Media reports (article may be behind a paywall) were circulating earlier this week that the YIMBY stance of the NSW Opposition may not be quite so hard held. 

However, in his presentation to the Policy Conference, Mr Rath was explicit and clear:  he and leader Kellie Sloan were not for turning. 

In a well-received presentation, he argued that the Opposition is resolutely pro-housing supply, regardless of any backbench nerves. 

The problem, as he identified it, is that there is a distinction between a planning approval and completed housing supply – you can’t live in a planning approval, and a press release is not a place to live. 

That is, announcements of new home numbers are not the same as delivering completed new homes. 

Mr Rath said that housing delivery is currently 40% behind the State Government’s National Housing Accord targets, and it looks like the required housing won’t be delivered until 2031 – two years late. 

At the same time the construction sector is seeing a massive increase in insolvencies (882, a rise of142%).

One of the Coalition’s biggest concerns (one that Urban Taskforce shares) is the increasing lack of feasibility, with many projects simply not stacking up sufficiently to proceed and the tax burden on new housing being unsustainable. 

The policies that the Opposition plans to take to the election are aimed to improving feasibility and encouraging more new housing supply, namely to: 

• pause the application of Housing and Productivity Contributions (HPC) to
  30 June 2029;
• defer HPC and local contributions from CC to OC from July 2029 (this policy received a warm response from the audience);
• reduce payroll tax for small and medium-size businesses, setting an indexed threshold of $1.5 million;
• reduce the rate of payroll tax from 5.45 to 4.75% for businesses up to
  $10 million;
• identify underutilised land and providing necessary infrastructure;
• pursue three major development opportunities at Long Bay (12,000 new homes); Camillia/Rosehill (10,000 new homes); and Erskineville/St Peters/Newtown/Mcdonaldtown (10,000 new homes); and
• incentivise councils to perform well through the use of a $2 billion community benefit fund to pay for local infrastructure (only granted to "good" councils). 

Mr Rath agreed with Minister Scully that councils need to be supported to deliver more housing and said that they agreed on 90% of the issues. 

He emphasised that there’s no silver bullet.  But planning capacity, infrastructure, and feasibility need to align if we are going to move from what might be built to what has been built. 

6. Coalition throws down the gauntlet: develop Long Bay

In a move supported by the property development sector, the Coalition has boldly reiterated its plans to close Long Bay Gaol and redevelop it. 

Planning spokesman Chris Rath told attendees at Urban Taskforce’s Annual Policy Conference (story 5) that, if elected in March, the Coalition would close the prison within the first 100 days and transform the site into 12,000 new homes. 

Unlike other renewal projects, the Opposition is committing to a mix of housing types to provide more cost-effective homes in the south-eastern suburbs of Sydney. 

The policy has been criticised by the NSW Government for a lack of existing transport to the site, reflecting a mindset of opposition rather than that of a can-do government. 

Long Bay and the ensure south east peninsular to the east of Anzac Parade, has been an ideal site for urban renewal for some time.  Long Bay Gaol, nicknamed the Seabreeze Hotel by some inmates, is close to beaches and in a part of Sydney that offers a lot of opportunity for both jobs, social housing renewal, and affordable and market housing supply. 

The Coalition sees the proposed redevelopment not only as a point of difference with the Minns Government, but also as a clear sign that it is committed to its “resolutely pro-housing” stance. 

The plan is part of the Opposition’s broader redevelopment plans, announcing 22,000 homes across Long Bay, Camillia/Rosehill, and Erskineville/St Peters/Newtown/Mcdonaldtown.  The latter plan feels a bit like a quid-pro-quo for the Minns Government’s plans for Kellie Sloane’s seat of Woollahra – but we say – all supply is good supply in the context of the current crisis.

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

7. Land and Environment Court slaps down obstructive councils

Planning Minister Paul Scully (see story 5) has been highlighting the success of the NSW Government’s league table, which has resulted in a reduction in development application processing times. 

But processing times and approvals are not the same thing and, as Urban Taskforce has pointed out many times, the league table is hiding poor housing supply performance under the fig leaves of “speed and efficiency”. 

Take, for example, Strathfield, which has an average assessment timeframe of 61 days, well below the 85-day expected target.  Yet, Council has approved just 21.8% of the dwellings needed up to the end of August, 2026, as its share of the National Housing Accord. 

New data out of the Land and Environment Court shows that some councils prefer to refuse applications and face legal action than to be seen to be siding with the development sector. 

The worst 10 councils were the respondent collectively to 365 cases in the calendar year. 

That’s an average of one per day for every day of the year, including weekends and holidays. 

But surely so many cases would be going to court because they merited rejection by council officers?  Not so much. 

In just 4.1% of cases – 15 cases in total for the top 10 – the Court sided with the council.  350 cases (an average of 35 cases each) were resolved in favour of the applicant. 

Across 56 councils the results weren’t much better – just 37 cases out of 743 (5.0%) favoured the consent authority. 

The clear leader, accounting for 8% of cases, was Woollahra Council.  59 cases went to court in 2025, 58 supported the applicant.  That is a rather alarming success rate of just 1.7%. 

So, while Council’s legal sector ratepayers might appreciate the support it is giving to those who have been accepted at the Bar, other residents might be a bit less happy seeing their rates squandered on high-priced legal representation for such a small return. 

From the perspective of councils, there may be little downside – they can show their communities that they stand up to developers even if they don’t win. 

But these cases take time and money, both for the applicant and the council, and delay what appears to be an inevitable approval. 

At a time when many councils have been failing to approve sufficient numbers of new dwellings to meet their Accord targets, the option of pushing things off to the Court through refusals (deemed or otherwise) needs to be curtailed. 

Fast assessments that result in rejection and legal action are a perversion of the goals the NSW Government has set for councils. 

DPHI should be watching the Land and Environment Court case listings closely and holding to account any council that puts political expediency over merit-based assessment. 

Paul Scully (Planning), Ron Hoenig (Local Government), and Michael Daley (Attorney-General) are responsible for the relevant government  and for councils.

The apparent growth in the misuse of the court system in a blatant attempt to frustrate housing supply by driving up legal costs needs to be addressed.

Refuse-first-and-be-slapped-down-by-the-courts later, is very far from model litigant behaviour. 

At a time when councils are crying poor, this is an egregious waste of ratepayer funds, and those responsible should be held to account. 

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

8. Proposed changes to planning rules for industrial lands

The NSW Government has flagged changes to industrial land policy, to give effect to the announcements made at the time of the release of the State and Sydney Plans, making planning more flexible and streamlining approvals.

These will make it easier for businesses to establish and operate industrial activities, such as distribution or warehousing. 

The public consultation purports to implement the actions outlined in the Industrial Lands Action Plan. 

At the same time, changes are proposed to industrial land planning controls, which will take effect before the end of 2026. 

Industrial land classifications have also been released for regional NSW, the Central Coast and the Lower Hunter, as part of the community consultation, identifying state significant, regionally significant, and locally significant lands. 

Submissions on these documents close at 5pm on Thursday, 26 November 2026.

9. State Government considering flexibility on HDA deadlines

Some positive news out of Phillip Street that the NSW Government is considering introducing flexibility around the commencement of construction for state significant developments (SSD). 

In a clear sign of recognition that the property sector is struggling to get anything off the ground right now, a story in the Australian Financial Review (article may be behind a paywall) reported that Planning Minister Paul Scully is willing to look at SSD projects on a “case-by-case basis” to determine whether to grant an extension for the commencement of construction. 

Currently, projects deemed to be SSD by the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) have 9 months to commence construction after being issued a Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) notice, with the possibility of a 3-month extension. 

The Minister’s announcement means that projects that are likely to be feasible and that will deliver significant numbers of new homes will not see their consents withdrawn simply because of an arbitrary deadline set in a different development feasibility context. 

With that said, there are conditions.  Speaking to the AFR, Mr Scully specified that: 

Couldn’t he have just said that the current high interest rate environment does not favour early construction commencements, so we are loosening our grip on those obligations to commence?

Anyway … the NSW Government has not yet released a media statement on the proposed change in position, but the Minister’s comments are a positive sign that he recognises there are challenges facing the development sector and is willing to offer a degree of flexibility. 

Urban Taskforce welcomes the announcement and looks forward to seeing more of the details about how it will be delivered. 

Please note: articles may be behind a paywall

10. Urban Taskforce Policy Conference: exploring feasibility and supply

The Urban Taskforce Annual Policy Conference wrapped up this week, with clear messages for members and guests about the state of the development sector, the challenges ahead, and the potential impacts of government policy on opportunity and feasibility. 

Delegates warmly received presentations from politicians, financiers, risk managers, and developers, and consultants about “Feasibility and Supply:  What projects are working where, and why?”. 

Following are some of the photos of the event.  We hope to see you at the conference next year. 

Urban Taskforce would like to thank our speakers: Adam Boyton, Costa Nicodemou, Megan Gorrey, Cathy Houston, Drew Bowie, Jacqueline Vozzo GAICD, Kim Samuel, Jarrod Morgan; our sponsors MA Financial Group and the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully, and Shadow Minister for Housing and Planning Chris Rath. 

11. A new tram plan is not a reason to stall new housing supply

Interest groups are once again calling for a new light rail connection along the Parramatta Road.   

The latest proposal – flagged by Burwood Mayor John Faker, Paul Nicolaou from Business Sydney, and the operator of the existing light rail system – is being flagged as necessary to facilitate as many as 100,000 new homes. 

But the supporters are claiming a cause and effect that doesn’t exist. 

The argument goes that “as soon as you put tracks in the ground” housing development will occur.  Funnily enough, there is already significant investment by the development community all along Parramatta Road and in the suburbs proximate to it. 

Thanks to WestConnex, the famed congestion of this thoroughfare has been slashed by up to 70% and a slew of new transport infrastructure projects are being rolled out, including: 

• widening of significant roads in the region;
• dedicated new bus lanes and T3 transit lanes;
• Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2; and
• Sydney Metro West. 

Not only does Burwood Council already have a train station, but the Metro West and the City and Southwest Metro will provide additional access for the LGA. 

When these projects are fully online, there will be ample transport servicing of the Burwood LGA and of the suburbs around Parramatta Road. 

Even in areas like Burwood, it is getting harder and harder to deliver affordable new homes.  Infrastructure levies, community facility demands, punitive affordable housing “contributions”, and a general willingness to hit projects with conditions under the guise of “protecting the community” is slowing project delivery. 

Burwood’s approval rate is good, but if there is a case for a new light rail project, don’t let it get in the way of housing supply.  There are plenty of transport options available already.

This release sounds like it was drafted by the light rail operators.  The people of CBD Sydney or Parramatta will tell you that life near a light rail construction site is no fun at all.  And once light rail is built, it is SLOW.  Buses are green, can steer around accidents, and don’t require years of disruption. 

This is one project that should go in the same dustbin as the PM's fast rail to Newcastle vanity project.

But the precinct, to quote Mayor Faker, still has “untapped potential”

Consent authorities like Burwood Council already have the transport solutions necessary to support the housing needed and to revitalise Parramatta Road.  They don’t need new trams, or dedicated “pedestrian killer” e-bike lanes for hoons to do it. 

It’s time to get out of the way, stop making excuses, and let industry build the homes we need. 

Please note: articles may behind a paywall

***  The Urban Taskforce newsletter editorial team is not medically trained, so we were confused about how adding a heartbeat to a spine will deliver more housing.

12. Council Watch

Has City of Sydney found its solution for e-bike parking? 

The Plaza has been shunted off to SSD.  One of Clover’s colleagues has broken ranks and said that the Mayor’s vanity project should be scrapped.  A flagship 24-hour commuter bike storage hub is closing due to significant under-use.  And e-bikes are ubiquitously lining the streets of the City of Sydney.  (articles may be behind a paywall)

In this avalanche of policy headaches, the Urban Taskforce Transport Logistics team wonders – is there a possible solution? 

We have raised concerns before about the risks posed by the Piazza della Clover – that it will become a dumping ground for e-bikes and a gathering area for ibises. 

And, with only four people per day using the bike storage hub, there’s a 400-bike facility just waiting for repurposing. 

So, perhaps Council can fix up the urban blight besetting our streets by requiring e-bike companies to store their vehicles in the storage hub? 

It uses a wasted space, removes the eyesores, and represents a win-win. 

And, if Council treated it like it does car share spots, it could charge bike companies for the privilege. 

Seems like the ideal solution. 

13. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“Harry Triguboff wins state-significant approval for 505 homes at Little Bay site"  read more...

The HDA has approved a Meriton EOI to redevelop its 11 ha. site in Little Bay Cove for a series of low-rise buildings, including 3% affordable housing.  

The Australian, 28 October 2026
 

“Holdmark has won approval for its 17-building village at Caddens in Sydney’s West albeit with minor amendments.”  read more … 

The 482-unit estate, with 79 affordable housing dwellings, is 10 minutes from Penrith town centre, next to Western Sydney University’s Kingswood campus.  

The Urban Developer, 26 October 2026
 

“ASX-listed Dexus and Boral’s joint-venture for an almost $14.9 billion industrial precinct on Melbourne’s west fringe is one of two projects to progress via a bespoke state planning pathway.”  read more …

The project, 10km west of the Melbourne CBD, will create 31,000 jobs, and 2.5 million sqm of net lettable area.  

The Urban Developer, 23 October 2026
 

“Ingham Property Group chief executive Matthew Ramaley, whose company is overseeing the construction of a 22-hectare ALDI distribution centre and Amazon’s $1 billion robotics distribution centre, said another injection of federal and state money was needed to keep up private investment momentum.”  read more …

Local development is being delayed around the Aerotropolis by a lack of road, sewerage, and stormwater infrastructure.  

AFR, 22 October, 2026

Follow our new LinkedIn Page