Friday, 20 March 2026

In this Edition...

1. Mali: "Housing supply is key"

2. On the other hand … NSW collects a windfall of stamp duty cash!

3. Why is it taking so long for HDA EOI approvals to convert into SSDA applications?

... and much, much more.

4. Interest rate rise is a housing affordability killer
5. Urban Taskforce calls for mandatory mediation
6. Who needs GST when you can tax your population into submission?
7. Are capital gains tax and negative gearing really the problem? 
8. Local taxes are killing new homes
9. Geese in Burwood are starting to get nervous…
10. Council watch
11. Apprentice boost - a welcome development
12. Government proposes climate change SEPP
13. Planning portal changes
14. Members in the news

1. Mali:  "Housing supply is key"

Mr Malinauskas was referring to the Liberal Party’s commitments to cut stamp duty for young purchasers of any property (new or existing). Urban Taskforce has long lamented the political tendency to hand out cash in an effort to win votes.  Malinauskas has called this out and it’s good to see.

The key to making housing more affordable is increasing supply and removing the planning obstacles, misplaced taxation measures and the NCC’s obsession with building regulations that go way beyond its remit of safe and fit for purpose homes as a basic minimum.

The South Australian Premier has committed to abolishing stamp duty for downsizers, provided they move into a newly built dwelling.  This is the policy of a person who has thought through the issues we face.

• It encourages seniors who are living in large houses to move into more age-appropriate accommodation, making the larger home available for families;
• It stimulates investment in the construction of new dwellings;
• It uses concessions in the taxation system to drive the private sector to solve a social crisis.

“Mali” (as he is widely known in SA) has recognised that better infrastructure, targeted tax relief, and the removal of red tape stimulate housing supply.

2. On the other hand … NSW collects a windfall of stamp duty cash!

NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey sitting on a pile of stamp duty cash outside – what looks like – the Victorian Trades Hall (Chat GPT does some strange things sometimes)

NSW Treasury is reaping a windfall, as stamp duty on home purchases continue to flow into the Consolidated Revenue coffers. 

The ongoing housing supply crisis, which is a major driver of home prices continuing their rise, is, somewhat ironically, pushing first home buyers beyond existing stamp duty concession thresholds, with a 24% fall in eligibility between 2023-24 and 2025-26. 

Fees, taxes and charges are a major contributor to housing prices and NSW applies the greatest burden of all.  Local government and State infrastructure fees are huge in NSW compared to other states. Affordable housing levies used to deliver affordable dwellings to a small cohort of renters are also adding to the cost of the homes as they go to market.

Worst of all, this tax burden is actually preventing houses from being built at all.  When that happens, the State Government gets no revenue to fund infrastructure, there is no funding for affordable housing, and housing supply is undermined, putting upward pressure on prices. There is also no GST revenue from the cost of building materials, no income tax, no payroll tax and no company tax on profits (remember that??).

Easing the taxes to favour housing supply would have a major impact on project feasibility.

According to the NSW Government’s own figures, 83,032 new dwellings have been approved for development since 1 July, 2024.  Yet, only 51,686 dwellings have been approved for construction. 

That’s a conversion rate of just 62.2%. 

With planning pathways opened up through recent positive changes in law and practice, project feasibility stands in the way of delivering the houses that NSW so desperately needs.

3. Why is it taking so long for HDA EOI approvals to convert into SSDA applications?

The announcement of the new Housing Delivery Authority in late 2024 heralded a new approach to planning in NSW. At long last the State Government had recognised the damage done by the former government when they abandoned the field of State Government led assessments of large housing projects.

The use of Expressions of Interest from the private sector overcame concern from industry that light weight desktop analyses of economic feasibility that had characterised DPHI work prior to the HDA meant that well meaning initiatives were simply failing to deliver improvements in housing numbers.

The EOIs came flooding in.

The HDA has been efficient in processing those applications, though the timeframes for making recommendations to the Minister on whether or not EOIs should be green flagged into the State Significant Development Assessment stream is now starting to stretch (a lot).

The numbers:

The have been over 700 EOIs submitted for consideration by the HDA.

Of those, 321 have been approved by the Minister to progress to assessment under the SSDA DPHI led planning pathway.

If all of these were approved, that would deliver approvals for the construction of over 111,000 new dwellings across NSW – a massive boost to housing in this state.

Once you get the green light, an application for Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) must be sought within 9 months. This is a list of areas where the Secretary believes will need specific focus from the applicant in the EIS accompanying the application, including supporting consultant reports.

One SEARs have been issued, the applicant has 9 months to submit an SSDA application (this can be extended by 3 months).

The has been about 150 sets of SEARs issued but so far, only a small number of applications have actually been submitted to the SSDA team.

The Budget Estimates hearings into the Planning Portfolio have revealed some frustration from the Minister about the slow trickle of DAs actually being submitted. There was even a hint of blame being attributed to the development community for not acting faster on progressing these applications.

Minister Scully late last year was keen to say that HDA SSDA pathway approvals can be pulled if there is no progress to an application within the mandated 9 months: 

This hit a raw nerve with the sensitive folk here at the Urban Taskforce.

There are in fact many reasons why it is taking time to get applications in – and many arise from the ongoing red tape and burden shifting from the SSDA team. We are not sitting on our hands and we are as frustrated as you at the time it is taking to comply with the process that has been implemented.

Firstly: the number of reports required by the Secretary continues to be massive, with many unnecessary reports being required. Although the mandatory number did decrease, feedback from our members is the SSDA team appear to be consulting extensively with Councils who are adding to the number of reports required.

Secondly: for some of these reports (Indigenous and Cultural Impact assessment reports in particular), there is only a very small number of people able to prepare these documents. This, along with shortages in other consultancy fields, is creating a bottle neck. Urban Taskforce has suggested that a summary statement is all that is needed up front, with more detailed reports to be provided later in the assessment process if deemed necessary.

Thirdly: the burden of Design Review panel deliberations is huge. It is commonplace for 3 meetings of the State Design Review Panel to be called to consider an application. SDRP members are commonly used by Councils as a backdoor for inserting non design matters into the considerations of the panel.  Height, density, land use are all matters that are matters for planners – but Councils are using the SDRP to raise issues that are way beyond the panels’ remit.

Further. apart from the very mixed quality of the feedback, you cannot progress to preparing a detail Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) until this Design Review process is complete. Amendments from the SDRP flow on to a number of other expert consultant reports. For example, changes to the height or shape or positioning of buildings results in changes to deep soil plantings, geotechnical impact, wind tunnel impact reports, solar access, landscape design and traffic access and egress (to name a few).

Fourth: The DPHI SSDA team have taken to consulting with Councils then effectively adding to the SEARs through “Requests for Information” (RFIs). This has been particularly apparent in the City of Sydney, but is increasing elsewhere.

Fifth: The DPHI SSDA team has now inserted a new process to the pre-lodgement requirements (not legislated – but now custom and practice).  They require a pre-lodgement Test of Adequacy of the reports to ensure that the reports prepared to back up the EIS adequately deal with the SEARs requirements.  This is adding weeks and sometimes months to the completion of EIS documents and this is holding back the lodgement of applications.

Conclusion

All of these matters noted above are matters that DPHI has within its grasp and they can ease the burden of the process to see more SEARs converted into SSDA applications. The legislative change that installed “proportionality” as a key to planning assessments has not yet flowed through to all those responsible for HDA SEARs and the pre-lodgement assessment process.

Minister Scully is rightly concerned that HDA EOIs are not translating into applications and this will push the vast majority of housing approvals beyond the March 2027 State election. But threatening the revoke the SSDA status of these projects, or complaining that the process of converting SEARs into EOIs is not the solution to the problem.  The answers, Minister, lie much closer to home.

4. Interest rate rise is a housing affordability killer

International instability and excessive local spending have contributed to the Reserve Bank of Australia raising the cash rate to 4.1%. 

The 5-4 split vote move – a departure from the central banks in other major western economies, who have held their nerves – is a bitter blow for home buyers. 

Worse still, it will act as a hand brake on housing supply. 

The rise in interest rates is going to increase the cost of land, the cost of borrowings, and ultimately the cost of construction.  This will push up the price of new homes, which will add to inflation – January’s CPI figures showed annual increases for new dwellings of 3.5% and for rents of 3.9%.

This housing sector killing decision will put more pressure on inflation which, ironically, is going to pressure the RBA to consider further rate rises! 

Urban Taskforce’s message to Treasurer Jim Chalmers is clear:  cut government spending across the board and refocus expenditure priorities on housing related infrastructure. 

Scrap the wish-list projects like high-speed rail and increase funding for basic infrastructure like roads and water.  

Productivity growth has all but stopped in Australia with nothing more than an A.I.-led hope and prayer currently on offer to drive the economy forward. 

The solution is to get government-spending under control and to focus on budget initiatives that will enhance housing supply.

Improving productivity will put downward pressure on interest rates.  Reducing government expenditure will put downward pressure on interest rates.  Focusing infrastructure expenditure on housing our growing population will put downward pressure on interest rates. 

So – if the Government wants to be seen to be doing something about interest rates – start with addressing these matters that are directly under their control. 

5. Urban Taskforce calls for mandatory mediation

This would be a new building defect dispute resolution process that includes mandatory mediation as a core component, designed to improve efficiency and reduce escalation to tribunals or courts.  The process would be funded through a user-pays system involving contributions from builders or developers and also from the owners’ corporations. Any fees would be a mere fraction of that wasted on lawyers through court proceedings.

It is a necessary step to stop the ambulance chasing lawyers from needlessly inserting themselves into the defects process.  Rather than working to resolve issues as soon as possible, they actively work to stop developers from fixing defects to “maximise the damage caused” and increase the potential payout from the courts.  

In so doing, they run up costs both for their clients and for the developers and set themselves up for significant paydays. 

To date, the NSW Government has failed to address this change or to properly consider the recommendation – Minister Chanthivong says that it is not the right time. 

We say it is the right time now. This recommendation was made by the Parliamentary Inquiry in November last year. We have a housing supply and affordability crisis. The red tape burden this is placing on builders is forcing them out of the Class 2 (residential apartment buildings) sector. It is making the crisis worse.

We have worked with MPs from all sides of politics to propose amendments to the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 to legislate a “building defect dispute resolution process”. 

We have been pleased to have heard some assurances that it is not a question of whether or not this is a good change to make, but more a question of timing. While this is promising, we do not believe that this is the time to kick to can down the road.

The changes recognise that existing processes lack structured early intervention for occupied buildings post-Project Intervene, leading to costly litigation and it has been a boon for lawyers (and no-one else).

Obviously, if mediation breaks down, the lawyers can then get involved through the courts.  But only then, and the courts will be required to consider the report of the mediator. 

The point of the proposal is to enhance consumer protection, provide regulatory certainty, and deliver timely resolutions and the rectification of defects. 

It’s time for all political parties to come together, as they did during the PAWC Inquiry, and back the PAWC to introduce mandatory mediation. 

6. Who needs GST when you can tax your population into submission?

It’s a new form of mathematics that only makes sense to the Federal Treasury. 

Somehow, despite having 1.5 million more people, and being 3.5 times physically larger, NSW will this year received $1.7 billion less than its smaller sibling state, Victoria. 

Despite representing 31% of the population, the NSW is being given just 25.5% of the $103 billion GST distribution. 

Why?  Well, according to Treasury, because average land values are higher in NSW, we can raise more in land tax.  So, one of the biggest contributors to the lack of housing affordability and housing supply feasibility is being used by the Commonwealth as their justification to deny NSW its fair share of GST revenue. 

Apparently, according to Federal Treasury, the residents of NSW just aren’t being taxed enough. 

Compare that to Western Australia – the beneficiary of billions in mining royalties – which increased its share of GST from 8.3% to 9.1%.  Nobody is telling it to tax mining companies more. 

And Australia’s most over-funded local council – the ACT – is receiving $891k per square kilometre.  The streets must be paved in gold. 

If GST were allocated according to population size, our share should have been $31.93 billion, rather than the $26.12 billion on offer. 

A $5.81 billion difference.  That’s a lot of housing-enabling infrastructure funding. 

At Urban Taskforce we understand that there’s a balancing act, and that the allocation cannot be based purely on population numbers alone. But, in the middle of a housing supply crisis, where NSW is expected to deliver the lion’s share of the National Housing Accord, this methodology – which saw the ACT receive $4,239 per head, compared to NSW’s $2,990 – has to change. 

We agree with Premier Minns:  this GST system is well past its use-by date. 

The Productivity Commission is reviewing its methodology for determining GST allocations – let’s hope they realise that the current system is far from productive. 

7. Are capital gains tax and negative gearing really the problem?

The big noise out of Canberra is about GST and negative gearing. 

You know the pitch – tax breaks for investors are to blame for housing prices. 

It’s a line favoured by the Greens and others of the latte set, but is there any truth to it, and what impact would the removal of these taxes have on housing? 

The fact is that the driver behind a lack of affordability and the rental crisis is not investors.  If anything, without investors there would be no rental properties at all. 

As the new leader of the Opposition Angus Taylor has stated, if you want to discourage investment in a product, increase the tax on it. That’s why there are taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and luxury goods (to an extent).  So, it makes no sense to increase the tax on new housing supply.

The major parties on the Select Committee Inquiry on the Operation of the Capital Gains Tax Discount agreed.  They recognised that a lack of housing supply is the problem, not investors. 

The Greens were routed at the last election because of their anti-housing policies. They risk move further towards oblivion with proposals like this and Jim Chalmers should take no notice at all.

CGT relief on new housing supply and negative gearing both allow people to offset losses and build equity, and (in so doing) to provide rental property.  Removing these concessions will not create a new affordable housing market, it will simply reduce supply.

It is simply unhelpful virtue-signalling that won’t make a scrap of difference.  (See the Malinauskas quote in article 1). 

8. Local taxes are killing new homes

One of our members has done some useful number crunching on the cost of local taxes on development projects. 

These project calculations look at the same developments before and after a new contribution scheme was introduced by Parramatta Council. 

Same site, same architect, same builder, two different rates. 

Across a dozen projects, our correspondent has calculated that Council has tried to claim an extra $24m in contributions but has instead stopped around 1,400 new dwellings. 

By trying to get blood from a stone, councils are bleeding new homes and further adding to the housing crisis. 

Developers, builders, and buyers should not be seen by councils as a sinking fund for their pet projects – if taxes aren’t reduced, housing will continue to be unaffordable. 

9. Geese in Burwood are starting to get nervous…

This would be on top of sections 7.11 and 7.12 contributions and would see huge windfall gains going into Burwood Council’s coffers, if development projects could afford to go ahead. 

It’s a get-rich-quick scheme for Council that will have adverse implications – a site that increases from 60 to 100 units would see around $71,800 added to each apartment in the project. That is in addition to the State Government’s HPC costs and affordable housing charges. 

Most projects will not be feasible in such circumstances.  For the few that can be delivered, there is a high chance that they will be priced out of the market. 

Burwood made its name as the #1 housing supply capital in NSW, and it made headlines when recognised as Time Out’s coolest neighbourhood in Australia.

In the past, it has secured developer contributions towards infrastructure improvement and amenity, while still ensuring feasibility by adding charges for uplift in height at about 20% of these newly proposed rates.

With this significant overreach, Council could very soon be killing the goose that has delivered them the golden eggs of success.

Urban Taskforce recognises the need to deliver local infrastructure, and understands the temptation posed by development projects.  But the significant housing results Burwood has achieved to date could be at risk if this blatant cash-grab is allowed to proceed. 

10. Council watch

North Sydney doubles down – the more things change, the more they stay the same*

North Sydney Council has struck a blow for the climate with new provisions to discourage gas connections and gas appliances in new residential developments. 

Despite a submission from Urban Taskforce urging it not to throw even more hurdles in the way of residential development and calling for any action on electrification to be state-based policy, Council resolved “to adopt the proposed amendment to the NSDCP 2025 as exhibited”. 

Not only that, but the resolution goes on to say that Council will “explore future amendments to the DCP to expand the application of this policy to alterations and additions to residential development, and non-residential development”. 

Mosman tries turning off LMR

When will the brains trust of NIMBY Central (Mosman Council) ever stop seeking to frustrate the dreams and aspirations of young people who wish to buy a home within that privileged lower north shore community? 

In its latest plan to keep out the masses (or anyone), Mosman Council has resolved to write to the Planning Minister to seek the “immediate ‘turning off’” of LMR housing policy in the LGA. 

Adopting a “trust us, we’re from Mosman Council” stance, the Council argued that, because it has commenced work on the Mosman Masterplan Project, the LMR should no longer apply. 

It reasons that a failure to do so will “only result in multiple high-rise developments in inappropriate locations”. 

Sometimes enthusiasm for the virtue of one’s position overcomes any temptation to acknowledge basic facts.  In this case, Mosman Council refers to “high-rise” in an obvious scare campaign designed to get the iced vovos quivering over cups of tea in the private tennis club. 

LMR is, by definition, low- and mid-rise development.  That is, from two to six storeys – or a maximum of 8 if the affordable housing bonus is applied. 

The whole of the centre of Paris is between 6 and 8 storeys. 

This is not high-rise. 

Council’s plan is clearly an attempt to kick higher density down the road, delaying development for as long as possible. We are confident that NSW Planning Minister Scully will recognise this as the stalling tactic it is, but the Council Watch team remains ever vigilant.

Secret meetings, staff stood down – what’s happening at Ryde? 

News has come into the Urban Taskforce bunker (via articles in the Telegraph and the SMH) that the CEO, Deputy CEO, and head of governance at Ryde City Council have been placed on leave. 

A four-hour, last minute, closed-door Council meeting was held on Monday night to discuss “personnel matters concerning particular individuals”, although there is no indication as to what was being discussed, nor are there any allegations of wrongdoing. 

During the leave of absence, Director of Business Services John Angilley, formerly of the City of Parramatta, will be acting CEO. 

As can be imagined, there are no official comments at this stage from the Council beyond confirming the period of absence. 

An investigation is apparently underway, and we watch with interest for the findings. 

11. Apprentice boost - a welcome development

The world's biggest smoko?  

The Albanese Government has observed the six-month mark of the Housing Construction Apprenticeship (HCA) stream of its Key Apprenticeship Program (KAP) announcing 2,759 housing construction apprenticeships commencing in New South Wales. 

The leading disciplines are carpenters and joiners (1,122 commencements), plumbers (536 commencements), and electrical trades workers (458 commencements). 

While an obvious sop to the construction sector unions, this move has received support from our industry as well. This is a welcome injection of future tradies into the construction sector, which will help to increase the employment pool and to reduce building costs. 

We congratulate the Federal Government on its progress to date and look forward to seeing waves of new construction apprentices pouring in over coming years. 

For more information about this program, visit www.apprenticeships.gov.au.

12. Government proposes climate change SEPP

We also supported suggestions that cost-benefit analysis could be required to ensure that the expense of dealing with climate change and natural hazards is not unsustainable. We urge the use of practical, common-sense approaches to climate change and natural hazards management that don’t block development based on conservative assumptions. 

13. Planning portal changes

The Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure is aiming to simplify access to information by merging the Planning and Planning Portal websites, a project that commenced last December. 

The new homepage is the entry point to planning in NSW, becoming the most visited NSW Government page in just a single month. 

It has also improved the search function on the site, which has made it easier to find information, and other improvements will soon be rolled out. 

Users can get support with their proposals by accessing the available support materials or, if additional assistance is needed, submitting an enquiry online or contacting the support team on 1300 305 695 or the BASIX team on 1300 650 908. 

Training

Scheduled training courses are now available through to the end of 2026, to help users of the portal and to support ongoing planning systems reforms, including: 

• How to create and submit a council planning proposal
• How to perform a preliminary review and assessment of a planning proposal
• How to process a review of determination application
• How to review a section 4.55(1) modification application

Upcoming planned changes to the NSW Planning Portal

The Department advises that the latest enhancements to the NSW Planning Portal include:

• Field label “Residential Development – LAHC” renamed to “General residential development” on “Activity details” and “Consultation” screens. 
• User experience enhancements on “Consultation” screen including heading and text alignment, tick boxes replacing “Yes” and “No” options, and spacing consistency. 
• Additional mandatory question “Has Aboriginal Housing Office Design Guidelines NSW, published by the Aboriginal Housing Office in January 2020 been considered?” on the “Consultation and notification” screen when applicant indicates “Residential development” infrastructure type. 
• Introduction of “Not found? Please select the checkbox to enter details manually” check box on “Application details” screen within development application and complying development certificate services when an applicant indicates they are applying on behalf of a business or company and the ABN, ACN or trading name cannot be found.  This field will also be editable using the “Edit application details” option in the “Actions” menu. 
• The “Documents” tab within the Section 68 of the Local Government Act, Roads Act (S125, S138, S144) and Section 10.7 Planning Certificate services redesigned to improve the filter and sort functionality. 
• Increased character limit for the “Please provide your comments” field on the “Provide additional information” screen in the Section 68 of the Local Government Act service to 2000 words.  This enables applicants to provide clearer and more detailed information to the assessing officer. 
• Introduction of “Request additional info” option in the “Actions” menu within the Section 68 of the Local Government Act service prior to the lodgement of the application.  This allows council users to request additional information prior to initiating an assessment and provides consistency across digital applications. 

14. Members in the news

“Goodman Group nears $1.5bn sale of Moorabbin Airport to Barings-led group" … read more ...                                

The Australian, 13 March

“The first stage of the town centre for Stockland’s masterplanned community Aura on the Sunshine Coast has begun." … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 13 March

“The scheme filed by Urban Property Group through its project entity UPG Castle Corner Pty Ltd proposes a 40-storey high-rise for a site at 16–20 Old Castle Hill Road, Castle Hill within The Hills Shire." … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 13 March

“Developer Holdmark Property Group has filed plans to add three levels and 37 apartments to the residential tower at 155-157 Church Street at Ryde, near Meadowbank and about 13km north-west of the Sydney CBD."  … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 16 March

“Sydney developer Landmark Group is pressing ahead with almost $400 million of work across Macquarie Park, Dee Why and Caringbah as it chases bigger outcomes on two of the same sites.” … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 18 March

“Legacy Property is teaming with fellow residential heavyweight Billbergia for a two-tower skyscraper project on the “best site” in Sydney’s Macquarie Park." … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 18 March

Holdmark’s Parramatta Skyscraper Scheme Goes Public" … read more ...                                

Urban Developer, 19 March

“Award-winning Australian developer Billbergia and Legacy Property have unveiled 88 Waterloo Road, with the potential to be the largest premium development in Macquarie Park.”  … read more ...                                

Daily Telegraph, 19 March

Roxy-Pacific’s Arg33yle, which was reported on in Urban Developer in June 2025, has just been launched, with EOIs closing on 23 April.  Click here to see more about what is bound to become a landmark building in the centre of Parramatta. 

Follow our new LinkedIn Page