05 June 2026

In this Edition...

1. Urban Taskforce welcomes reversal of the HDA Review

2. NSW – not pulling its weight on housing supply

3. Quote of the week

... and much, much more.

4. Investors rush to new apartments, in light of negative gearing restrictions
5. Tom Forrest gets named in Hansard ... thrice
6. Time to rethink the NCC
7. How to stop the HDA:  Set up your own design panel
8. Councils get IPART approval to bump up rates
9. Council Watch
10. Productivity Commission housing supply inquiry
11. DPHI updates
12. A birthday fit for a king
13. Members in the news

1. Urban Taskforce welcomes reversal of the HDA review

In our enthusiasm for improving the HDA EOI process, along with our interest in improving the operations of the HDA and the SSDA assessment generally, Urban Taskforce members were delighted to be invited by the Secretary of DPHI to make a formal submission with a view to proposing changes.

Back at the back-end of 2025, the HDA process was already starting to draw some criticism. Urban Taskforce was aware that many members were unhappy about what they saw as the inconsistent application of HDA EOI assessment criteria, a failure to scrutinise applicant capacity to deliver houses within the Accord timeframe, and a concerning culture of secrecy that saw EOIs being discussed with councils without any capacity for applicants to respond to issues raised. 

As it turns out, there may have been a good reason why the criteria were being applied in an ad-hoc manner. The call for submissions to what became known as the HDA Review, came just before the NSW Government’s flagship HDA was plunged into a media controversy, after the planning official in charge of HDA EOI assessments was stood down for using an unauthorised AI tool, developed by her husband, to assess EOI proposals. 

The exercise of preparing our submission was taken seriously by industry and by Urban Taskforce members.  [Click Here to see a copy of the Urban Taskforce Submission from December last year]

Unfortunately, we were largely ignored. 

So … then what happened?

On 13 May, 2026, the HDA Review was published, and it did not take long for the housing development sector to react.  Urban Taskforce phones were running hot with complaints, particularly on the immediate calls from HDA EOI staff asking for amendments to EOIs, many of which had been sitting with DPHI for over 6 months.  The calls from DPHI were polite, but insistent that all EOIs needed to be amended within one week to comply with the revised EOI assessment criteria. 

As the month of May passed, the level of frustration among our members grew.

The HDA, the signature planning reform of the NSW Government, had been cut back in its scope.  The SMH’s Max Maddison ran a feature on May 28^th entitled: “‘Killing off the benefits’: Three key parts of Sydney cut out of housing fast-track”.

The article detailed our three primary areas of concern with the HDA Review: 

1. No EOIs on deemed regionally significant industrial land (according to a draft document)
    
2. All EOIs involving “substantial uplift” (not defined) must include an in-perpetuity affordable housing contribution not less than that required by the Local Environment Plan (LEP)
    
3. The CBDs of the City of Sydney, Parramatta and North Sydney were quarantined so that HDA EOIs could not be lodged.

Of course – we were also disappointed that the majority of our recommendations for improvements to the HDA process were not supported – but the Herald only had so much space in its book. 

The very next day, on May 29, 2026, the Premier was asked about the SMH article at a press conference.  He said: 

What then … ??

Suffice to say that the response was fast.  The Review took from November 2025 until May 2026.  The “clarification and update” came out on 5/6/2026 (one week later). 

The Minister for Planning, to his credit, was robust in his response.  Feasibility was front and centre in his media release of 3 June, 2026. [Click here] 

DPHI was even more contrite. The words "feasible" and "feasibility" were mentioned no less than 9 times in the accompanying DPHI Circular. [Click here] 

Feasibility, it was declared, was the key objective in all consideration of HDA EOIs, even when it comes to affordable housing offers made in EOIs. The Minister’s release was at pains to state that housing supply was the key object of the HDA. 

It remains a mystery to Urban Taskforce as to how the DPHI HDA EOI Review team missed this clear advice. 

Minister Scully also took the opportunity to raise the performance standards for the HDA itself. Private sector Expressions of Interest will now be required to be assessed for going into the SSDA planning assessment pathway within 60 days of submission. This is also a positive step and is very welcome. 

The DPHI circular quietly reversed the Review’s ban on EOIs for sites designated regionally significant industrial land, in the draft Sydney Region Plan.  It makes clear that any such application will be met with the need to show how housing development is appropriate for such an application - but at least the ban was reversed. This is also good. 

However, despite the Premier's concerns about the HDA being shrunk in its operations, the carve out of the CBDs of the City of Sydney, North Sydney and Parramatta remain in place.

The City of Sydney and North Sydney Council sit at the base of the housing supply performance table when you compare approvals with the delivery target on a LGA-by-LGA analysis. The decision to quarantine them from the HDA should be reversed. This is where’s the Premier’s call for HDA to be placed on steroids becomes relevant.

Postscript – an apology

In our media release on Wednesday we said they came as an “unwelcome surprise” – and they did!

But it turns out that DPHI staff had mentioned these matters (in our view, obliquely) after listening to the many points we had raised in our letter of submission. This meeting occurred on 19 February 2026.

The consultation meeting was introduced by the Secretary, but the relevant discussion occurred after the Secretary had left the meeting, which was supposed to consultation, designed for us to present our submission.  It appears that those DPHI staff had already made up their minds.  

Nonetheless, we apologise for suggesting that none of these issues had ever been raised.  They had.  Indeed, our forthright rejection of those proposals is recorded in the meeting notes.   

The HDA remains the most significant pro-housing reform to have been implemented in NSW for more than twenty years.  We want it to work and give credit to both the Government and Opposition for supporting it with legislation.

We will continue to work with all involved to improve its operations. 

2. NSW - not pulling its weight on housing supply

While the Premier laments the ongoing flight of young and talented people from NSW, the ABS housing approval statistics are painting a grim picture for the state, showing exactly why the mass exodus is occurring. 

We just aren’t building enough houses. 

The latest ABS housing data shows that approval numbers are down across the State, dropping by 9.5%. at a time when we hoped to see them on the rise. 

On a per 1,000 population basis, the story gets even worse. 

While most of the  rest of the country is approving near or above 8 new dwellings per 1,000 head of population, NSW is at 6.1.    

As a state, we are only doing better than Tasmania and the Northern Territory. 

Being the largest state in the country, we are dragging down the national average by almost a full approval. 

So, while the annualised results for Australia and NSW are not looking too bad, this is creating a false sense of security.  Not only aren’t we approving as many dwellings as we need to, but we’re well behind most of the rest of the country. 

Underlying risks to the sector – interest rate rises, the ongoing Iran war – are yet to come through in the data, but will be seen in coming months. 

Now that the Housing Delivery Authority has committed to faster turnarounds and an emphasis on feasibility (see story 1), we will hopefully see tens of thousands of new dwellings approved in coming months.  But there are no guarantees. 

3. Quote of the week

Councils can put forward whatever alternative master plans they like, but Minister for Planning Paul Scully is not for turning:

Well said! 

(For more, see Council Watch below). 

4. Investors rush to new apartments, in light of negative gearing restrictions

Meriton noted a 20 percent increase in investors visiting its display centres the first weekend following the Budget. 

This showed signs that investor confidence in new apartments has rebounded, with interest being shown in developments from Cypress Palms on the Gold Coast to Castle Grange in Castle Hill. 

“Investment in new apartments continues to offer existing and enhanced tax benefits, with the flexibility to choose between the existing CGT discount and the new inflation-adjusted indexation method,” Mr Triguboff said.

“In a high-inflationary climate, the new proposed method may be more beneficial, alternatively the current 50 per cent CGT discount method will continue to save dollars in a low-inflation, high-property-growth environment.

“The advantage is that investors can choose, at the time of sale, the method that best suits their circumstances and the economic environment,” he said. “Savvy investors have done their maths … this is supported by recent share market sell-offs, which have driven a reallocation of capital from equity portfolios to physical real estate.”

So, while there have been some wide-spread criticisms about how the Federal Government has approached tax policy, there might be a silver lining after all. 

5. Tom Forrest gets named in Hansard ... thrice

Note:  Tom had nothing to do with this article!! - Editor.

You know that you’re having an impact when you’re mentioned once in Hansard. 

This week, Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest was mentioned three times in the Legislative Council. 

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (11:17): 

… I will not quote the Property Council, but I will quote Tom Forrest, a good old Labor luminary.  I worked with him on Cherie Burton's campaign in 1999 out in Kogarah, so I know Tom Forrest.  He said:

… the worst is yet to come; we will see a drop off in approval and construction commencements and completion.

He also said:

Going backwards now, at a time when we are expecting acceleration, is concerning. 

Politicians said that we would be expecting increases, and that is not happening.

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (12:24): 

… [The Planning Minister] can also speak to Tom Forrest, from the Urban Taskforce, as well as Master Builders Australia and the Master Builders Association of New South Wales, all of whom have raised concerns that New South Wales was already not on track to meet that housing target and that, potentially, things will get a lot worse before they get better in this State because of these recent Federal Government changes.

And, best of all

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (12.12):

… The last time a Labor Premier and a Labor planning Minister delivered over 50,000 housing completions in New South Wales was when Cathy Freeman won gold in the 2000 Olympics.  It was so long ago when they actually delivered 50,000 housing completions that Tom Forrest was working for Michael Knight as the Minister for the Olympics.  That is how long ago it was when a Labor Premier and a Labor planning Minister actually delivered more than 50,000 housing completions in New South Wales. 

“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about" – Oscar Wilde. 

6. Time to rethink the NCC

CEO Tom Forrest has published a paper which questions the behemoth that is the National Construction Code. 

This document, which dictates the rules that underpin construction, has been allowed to blow out from 220 pages in 1998 to almost 2,000 pages now, not including an ever-growing array of standards and guidelines that underpin it. 

It has gone from managing structural integrity, fire safety, and other areas of essential amenity to being all things to all people – a backdoor way for regulators to force societal change without having to make formal announcements of their intentions. 

After all, if it’s in the regulations, you most likely will never know what you’re having to pay for. 

The Federal Housing Minister has committed to reviewing and reducing the Code, and she’s got her work cut out for her. The Federal Opposition has also jumped on board.

Whether it’s the 100 pages of contents in Volume One, or the explanatory notes that litter both volumes (even to the point of explaining definitions), the Code grows year on year like a regulatory monster, wrapping projects up in red tape and undermining productivity. 

Combined with the smorgasbord of taxes, fees, and charges that governments at all levels like to apply to development, it is making construction more difficult and costly than it was ever meant to be. 

7. How to stop the HDA:  Set up your own design panel

News out of the Inner West is that Council has considered a staff recommendation for a planning proposal to amend the design excellence section of its LEP. 

The purpose of the amendment is to require State Significant Development applications to be referred to Council’s Design Review Panel for consideration before consent is given. 

According to the report to Council: 

“The amendment will improve certainty and transparency in decision-making and addresses the current gap for State Significant Development where Council is not the consent authority.”

The move to include Inner West Council’s Design Review Panel as a required step for SSDAs is a retrograde one, which will add to time and complexity for applications. 

Given that industry applicants are already faced with as many as three Sydney Design Review Panel meetings before they can progress to submitting a DA application, this would simply layer more and more red tape onto the process. 

It would, essentially, blow out the 90-day timeframe currently expected for applications post the approval of an EoI. 

However, the following motion was put to the Council last month and supported unanimously: 

C0526(1) Item 2 Design Excellence LEP Amendment

Motion: (D’Arienzo/Byrne)

That Council defer the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) – Clause 6.9 Design Excellence to amend the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 for a further report to June 2026 to include an explanation of the role of a Design Review Panel for residential development when Council is not the consent authority.  Specifically, when an application is determined either as a State Significant Development or by the Independent Planning Commission. (our bold)

It appears that Councillor D'Arienzo and Mayor Byrne have applied some much needed common sense.

Nonetheless, we will be watching closely. 

8. Councils get IPART approval to bump up rates

Not content with slugging developers with levies for affordable housing, local infrastructure, and public art, some councils have gone cap in hand to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to ask for special council rate variations (upwards of course)!

Nine councils – Ballina, Blacktown, Central Coast, Glen Innes-Severn, Hawkesbury, Ku-ring-gai, Muswellbrook, North Sydney, and Uralla were approved to “increase their general income by more than the rate peg”, while Glen Innes-Severn and North Sydney were also granted minimum rate increases. 

North Sydney in particular has been hanging out for additional revenue.  It has now been approved for a 52.7% increase on rates for its residents. No doubt the massive cost blowout for the North Sydney Olympic Swimming Pool has contributed to this hike.  

Ku-ring-gai has had its own blowout – works at Norman Griffiths Oval in West Pymble have increased sixfold from $3.3 million to $20.2 million. 

While we support broadening the base for revenue to fund essential infrastructure works, it seems that council public works project management incompetance may be a factor in these rate rises.

9. Council Watch

Stop press:  Woollahra and Mosman mayors don’t like LMR!

It appears that the mayors of Woollahra and Mosman don't like the State Government’s low and mid-rise housing reforms. 

The two mayors – Sarah Dixson and Anne Marie Kimber – were quoted respectively as saying that the reforms were “a farce” and a “one-size-fits-all approach … [that raises] legitimate community concerns around infrastructure capacity, local character, heritage, and environmental impacts”. 

The mayors professed their opposition in this article, which Urban Taskforce’s intrepid researchers found in the Wentworth Courier/realestate.com.au. 

As representatives of two of the most exclusive residential enclaves in Australia, Mses Dixon and Kimber give a less-than-glowing assessment of LMR. 

They assert that the policy doesn’t reflect “local conditions”. 

To date, Woollahra has passed three projects and Mosman two, which is not that surprising given the hurdles being thrown up by both.  But it’s not as though there are bulldozers on every street corner (for the sake of housing supply and affordability, we can only hope)!

LMR strategies are being put into place to stop the delivery of more cost-effective housing – Woollahra has already introduced  an anti-LMR DCP, while Mosman’s version is out for consultation. 

Mayor Kimber has also spearheaded an “alternative” Mosman masterplan to counter the State Government’s LMR zoning and to restrict development only to certain areas.  Her plan has received over 2,000 submissions (including one from Urban Taskforce Australia), as Council seeks to preserve the views and property values of its biggest supporters. 

Our spirits were buoyed by Planning Minister Paul Scully's rebuke. He said that there’s no turning back. 

Congratulations to the Wentworth Courier for allowing the facts of LMR to come through. 

While they ran the blithe and self-serving sloganeering of the NIMBY brigade, it was good to see some balance with the inclusion of Minister Scully retort, demonstrating that LMR policy CAN work in Woollahra and Mosman. 

10. Productivity Commission housing supply inquiry

• Availability and use of land for housing (e.g., land release, land use controls)
• Processes and frameworks to deliver new and utilise existing housing infrastructure (e.g., growth infrastructure planning, developer contributions model)

An interim report will be finished by the end of July, with the final report due by March, 2027. 

A discussion paper has now been released, and submissions are due by 15 June. 

11. DPHI updates

Keeping the industry up-to-date on works-in-kind changes, DPHI advises that it has updated the Housing and Productivity Contribution (HPC) Works-in-Kind Guideline to make it faster and easier to submit developer delivery proposals. 

The Guideline outlines how developers can submit proposals to deliver eligible state and regional infrastructure through works-in-kind, instead of making monetary contributions, through: 

Streamlined proposals:

For works-in-kind projects after development consent and ‘accelerated’ proposals before development consent, that are identified on Infrastructure Opportunities Plans (IOP). 

Can be submitted during two fixed periods only: 

o      1 June 2026 to 31 August 2026

o      1 November 2026 to 31 January 2027. 

Participation is optional and developers can instead pay the HPC. 

Two new forms have been provided to help you better prepare submissions. DPHI strongly recommends using these forms to ensure all required information is provided as incomplete submissions will not be assessed.

Detailed (innovative) proposals:  

For projects not identified on an IOP or linked to major rezonings. These proposals require additional information. 

Can be submitted at any time during the year, along with required documentation, but take longer to assess.  

To add a new project as works-in-kind on the IOPs, endorsement is needed from the Urban Development Program (UDP) Oversight Committee. 

If the UDP Oversight Committee supports your proposal, additional information (such as detailed cost estimates) may be sought to complete a comparative assessment. 

For more information about the HPC Work-in Kind Guideline and the process for submitting proposals, visit NSW Planning.

12. A birthday fit for a king

The King's Official Birthday is the day on which the monarch’s birthday is officially celebrated.  

[Eagle-eyed observers will note that King Charles is being celebrated on the same day as Queen Elizabeth (the second Monday of June).  This is not because they shared a birthday…]

The sovereign’s birthday has been officially marked since the time of King George II in 1748.  (George II was born on 30 October/9 November, depending on which calendar you followed (Great Britain changed calendars in 1752, leaving a 10-day discrepancy). 

Nonetheless, for 150 years – up until the time of George V – the date changed with each new monarch to coincide with their actual birthday (although we continued to celebrate Queen Victoria’s for a while after she passed away as Empire Day, so effectively got to have TWO public sovereign birthday holidays!). 

George V was born on 3 June, so the holiday was standardised when he died to allow celebrations to be held during June, at the start of the English summer. 

In Australia, the sovereign’s birthday has been celebrated since 1788, when Governor Arthur Phillip declared a holiday to mark the birthday of the monach of Great Britain.  

Urban Taskforce wishes you all a safe and happy long weekend.

13. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“Lendlease and Homes Victoria have taken the next step in the revamp of the 1960s public housing development Elgin Towers.”  read more …

The project will create two 15 and 20-storey apartments and 248 apartments on the Nicholson and Elgin Street site to replace the existing 196 ageing public housing apartments. 

Urban Developer, 3 June

“Coronation has won approval to turn a former Taubmans paint factory in Sydney’s inner west into a 464-apartment build-to-rent precinct, more than doubling its original housing yield.”  read more … 

The Land and Environment Court gave the green light to 205 apartments, while planning officials have approved a build-to-rent scheme under the HDA, for a $420 million development. 

Urban Developer, 2 June

“Backed by industry super funds Aware Super and REST, global investment manager Barings has taken over Goodman Group’s Moorabbin Airport in Melbourne in a $1.5 billion deal, and is adamant aviation will remain a key part of its vast suburban landholding facility in Melbourne’s south-east.”  read more …

The purchase brings a 294ha landholding into Barings’ portfolio – the second busiest airport in the country based on aircraft movements.  Barings put together a consortium, including super funds Aware Super and Rest Super, to purchase the site. 

AFR, 1 June

“Stockland is forging ahead with its data centre strategy, launching plans which would replace nearly half of its existing west Melbourne distribution site.”  read more …

The company’s plan for the Francis Street site is based on it being one of the few locations in Melbourne with the zoning and grid capacity to support data centre operations.  It will lessen industrial activity on the site, adding to sites already underway in Melbourne and Sydney. 

Urban Developer, 29 May

“Billionaire horse racing titan John Camilleri’s Celestino Developments has been given the green light for a landmark twin-tower project spanning a sprawling 4000sqm beachfront site along the Gold Coast dunal strip.”  read more …

The two 48 and 55-storey “sculptural” towers are the first beachfront development since 2020, with a connecting skybridge and a variety of VIP amenities and dining options. 

Urban Developer, 29 May 

“Developed by Lendlease in partnership with Daiwa House Australia, the West Tower at Melbourne Quarter is now open.”  read more …

The 45-storey tower, opposite Southern Cross Station, is Australia’s largest build-to-rent tower and provides a mix of furnished and unfurnished studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments. 

Sourceable, 4 May

Follow our new LinkedIn Page