An incomplete collection of speeches, major media and other public presentations
by Sydney YIMBY members
Buck-passing and delay at Inner West Council
Justin Simon at Inner West council
Justin Simon addresses Inner West council, pointing out that council has had 2318 days to produce a plan and asking for an extension is embarrassing
The Inner West hasn’t done its homework on time and is asking for an extension. Unfortunately the homework in question was set 2318 days ago and there’s only so many times the dog can eat it before your examiner starts asking why you’re leaving it next to the dog’s food bowl. The council officer’s report doesn’t canvass the full history of this rezoning so I’m going to walk through them.
It’s 2015 and the Baird state government is putting out a comprehensive strategy for tens of thousands of homes for the Sydenham-Bankstown corridor, including Marrickville and Dulwich Hill.
It’s 2016 and the community consultation on this strategy is concluded. Literally 95% of complaints have come from east of the Cooks River where all the rich people live. The strategy is adjusted to compensate, heights are reduced in the inner west and left more or less the same in Lakemba and Bankstown.
It’s 2018 and the Berejiklian state government is abandoning the Sydenham-Bankstown strategy, handing back control of Marrickville and Dulwich Hill precincts to Inner West Council. It’s their job to complete the upzoning so homes are ready when the line opens. The clock starts 30 July 2018.
It’s 2022 and Inner West Council planning staff have letterboxed residents to consult them about proposals to build more homes in Marrickville, Dulwich Hill and North Ashfield. Town halls are held in the respective suburbs complaining that the notes they received in their letterbox consulting them are, in fact, evidence that there is no consultation. Council is holding a special meeting to pull these plans, they won’t go ahead.
It’s 2023 and I’m in a room with 30 people aged over 60 being consulted about the principles which will factor in to a plan to develop a housing strategy which will flow onto some zoning changes somewhere, eventually.
It’s 2024 and the metro link to Sydenham has been completed, with the Bankstown conversion to open next year.
We still have no new homes. We have no masterplans. My friends are weighing up whether they have a second kid now and resign themselves to long-term poverty, wait until they’re 40 when fertility odds are sketchy as hell, or move to the middle of nowhere with no support networks.
The Minns state government is going to allow 6 storeys around the relevant stations as TOD precincts. Finally, some progress!
Inner West Council negotiates an extension. We just need a bit more time to do Place-Based Strategic Planning they say.
It’s December 2024 and Inner West Council has predictably missed the deadline. They want another extension.
If you vote for this motion you’re voting for more buck passing and delay like we have experienced over the last 9 years. Your equivocation is failing renters, you are failing young people who can’t afford to move out of home, you are failing ex councillors who can no longer afford to live in the area and you are pushing the waves of migrants who made the inner west great to Canterbury-Bankstown and beyond so all we’re left with is a stale retirement village where nothing ever changes.
You shouldn’t ask for an extension because it’s just straight up embarrassing.
Hands off my dog-box apartment
Column by Dominic Behrens in the Guardian
By modern standards, I live in a “dog box”. My unit is a 38 sq metre one-bedder on the ground floor of a classic Sydney 1960s red-brick apartment block. Located on the south-west end of the building, it doesn’t get much sunlight and sometimes the planes fly so low overhead they rattle the windows. The kitchen has just enough bench space for one chopping board, and when the dryer’s running, it can get so humid that water drips down the walls.
It’s brilliant….
Full column by Dominic Behrens in the Guardian
Heritage
Michael Clayden at Ku-ring-gai council public forum
Michael Clayden at Ku-ring-gai council public forum
From 46:10 to 49:10 of this youtube video
Edgecliff Station
Tom Schinckel at Woollahra Council
Speech and Q&A by Tom Schinckel to Woollahra Council’s Environment Planning Committee
In support of 203-233 New South Head Rd, Edgecliff 24/85478
4 November, 2024.
Essential Worker Housing
Opening Statement by Emily Lockwood to Parliamentary Inquiry into Essential Worker Housing
Opening Statement by Emily Lockwood to Parliamentary Inquiry into Essential Worker Housing
25 October, 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I’m Emily, a member of Sydney Yimby which is a grassroots pro housing group. I have worked in essential services, we have essential workers in our membership and we recognise that we need more homes to help those who help us.
Our communities simply do not function without essential workers. I couldn’t get here today without them. We have essential workers to bring us into the world, they are there for us in our day to day lives, they are there in some of our most vulnerable moments and they’re there for a lot of us at the end.
Yet it’s so common to hear of them not being able to live anywhere near where they work if they even have a home. I’m here because I’m sick of so many politicians at all levels kicking the can down the road about housing, blaming each other, not deciding to do good policy because you need to have some point of difference with another party. We want homes. People deserve a place to live and for that to happen you simply need to build a lot more. The best time to do that was a while ago but you can take the next best opportunity now to do so. People have forgotten or not paid attention to the human element of the housing crisis - it is not a looming crisis we are in it now. For people who think there is endless time for more discussion and endless consultations before we do something you are out of touch and you are hurting people.
I was lucky enough recently to spend 2 days at the NSW Nurses and Midwives association conference talking to nurses and midwives about their experiences with housing and it was genuinely devastating to hear what some of these people and their colleagues are going through. I have with me a number of postcards that people wrote on about their experiences and had many more conversations on those days.
Losing colleagues interstate, adult children moving back in and living in lounge rooms, the effects on mental health, people losing or having to change jobs, the long commutes people are forced into on either side of long shifts, the effect on regional areas because people who can no longer afford the city have made moves. The personal and professional impacts of housing on people. People living in cars and tents but when we have conversations about the housing crisis equal weight is given to those who think “oh apartments are ugly”. How could we possibly think any of this is okay?
Our recommendations are that DPHI should immediately review planning controls for all areas within 1.5km of hospitals, universities, shopping centres and other employment hubs.
New construction or upgrades of hospitals, infrastructure or other significant employment hubs should automatically trigger a DPHI-led review of the relevant LEP. These reviews should aim to substantially increase allowable heights and densities to ensure that workers are accommodated in new construction.
To make sure that the definition of essential workers is data driven and reflective of the community.
Inclusionary zoning requirements should not be adopted generally. If such requirements are adopted, they should only be used where there has been a significant increase in allowable density, so as to avoid impacting development feasibility.
Where planning controls are relaxed, the government should directly tax a proportion of the land value uplift and use the funds to purchase or build social or affordable housing.
We also ask that you recognise that essential workers deserve choice as much as anyone else. An increase in housing everywhere is good for everyone, it’s good for essential workers whose lives are already often defined by their job to make decisions about housing that suit them as individuals or as families.
Edgecliff Station
Peter Tulip at Woollahra Planning Panel
Speech by Peter Tulip to Woollahra Local Planning Panel
In support of 203-233 New South Head Rd, Edgecliff 24/85478
17 October, 2024
Audio (beginning at 8:00)
My name is Peter Tulip. I am a member of Sydney YIMBY, a member-based group that advocates for more housing. I am also chief economist at the Centre for Independent Studies, a think tank that supports free markets.
I do not live in Edgecliff. I would like to speak on behalf of others who also live outside the area who need more housing to be built. We need to speak up for them. Otherwise, their need for shelter is going to be obscured by the less important concerns of local residents.
Sydney has a housing crisis, the solution to which is to build more housing.
There is nowhere better to do that than at Edgecliff station. It is a 5 minute commute to the CBD. It is on a major road -- already a lively place -- so the change in the neighbourhood will be less noticeable. The buildings that the proposal replaces are unattractive.
Most important, Woollahra council is one of the most over-priced areas in Australia. In 2022 the average apartment in Woollahra sold for $2½ million, almost twice what it cost to supply.
A huge body of research shows that this over-pricing occurs because local planning bodies, like this panel, say no to new housing.
We especially need higher density in inner suburbs. That is where the excess demand for housing is most severe, as the NSW Productivity Commission has recently documented.
But Woollahra council is not doing its fair share. Over the past three years, the number of dwellings in the Woollahra LGA grew by a paltry half a percent a year, one of the lowest growth rates in Sydney.
It is up to this panel to turn those inadequate growth rates around.
I’m not saying that the staff’s concern with “character” is wrong. That’s a value judgment they are entitled to. However, opinion polls tell us that the public cares much more about housing affordability. Its near the top of their concerns while neighbourhood character doesn’t even get mentioned.
If the staff’s recommendation is accepted, the housing affordability crisis will get worse.
Transport Oriented Development
Presentation by Justin Simon at NSW Parliament
Speech by Justin Simon
to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Transport Oriented Development
20 May, 2024
TOD at Croydon
Aks and Sharath speak at Burwood Council.
Aks and Sharath speak at Burwood Council about the Transport-Oriented Development in Croydon.
We live-tweet.
Sharath: “Currently a majority of land around Croydon is only zoned R2, and it’s prohibitively expensive at $2.3m. Allowing density will bring down prices and allow more Sydney siders to live places with good infrastructure”
Croydon public school’s enrollment is down 9% since a couple of years ago. The station is the 32nd busiest station out of 38 on the T2 line, many stations further from the city have more usage. It’s a waste.
Without changes young people like myself will be priced out and we’ll become a city without grandchildren.
Aks: “If not Croydon then where? Croydon has easy access to the big job centres of Sydney, especially the CBD and Parramatta. My family moved here from India in 1999, our first home was a small apartment because it was what we could afford”
“Consultations favour a certain kind of person, who doesn’t have work or responsibilities for young children. Given how multicultural Burwood is it’s pretty confronting to look at the demographics of speakers against the TOD today.”
Ku-ring-gai Council
Michael Clayden spoke at Ku-ring-gai Council Public Forum
Speech by Michael Clayden
To Ku-ring-gai Council Public Forum
13 February 2024
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to stand before you today. My address concerns the council’s current stance on GB.18, specifically regarding the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and the ‘Diverse and Well-located Homes’ State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). I stand before you to oppose the council’s response to these policies.
I am a university student and a 23-year-old who has been living in Ku-ring-Gai with my family since we moved to this area and Australia 17 years ago. With the housing crisis as it is, I struggle to see how I will ever be able to afford a home in the local area I grew up in.
At the heart of dense housing lies the principle of providing choice. This freedom is vital to building a vibrant, inclusive community where everyone can access suitable living options. Moreover, the importance of dense and diverse housing extends to affordability. Increasing the supply of homes in sought-after areas can make housing more accessible to more people.
The federal and state productivity commissions, reserve bank, multiple parliamentary inquiries and a large volume of academic research all agree that new supply, particularly in places like Ku-ring-gai, is critical to lowering rents and prices.
This brings me to an essential point regarding inclusivity in our planning processes. Consider the situation in Kuringgai, where the median house price is $3 million, and the median rent is approximately $915 per week. These figures are staggering, especially considering Ku-ring-gai does not offer amenities like those in the city. This discrepancy raises a crucial question: How can Kuringgai’s planning be considered inclusive when a significant portion of the population is priced out of the housing market?
Furthermore, it is time for the council to look beyond the outdated assumptions that have guided previous planning efforts. The future demands a new approach to planning that lessens our dependency on cars, enhances urban mobility, and promotes development that integrates seamlessly with our desire for a healthier, more accessible lifestyle. Not everyone can afford or even needs a car today, and the assumption that everyone will still require a vehicle to move around is a distorted and misguided approach to planning for the future. This is especially critical considering the Productivity Commission’s recent findings, emphasising the benefits of denser housing near infrastructure.
Given these considerations, I urge the council to reevaluate its stance on the TOD and the ‘Diverse and Well-located Homes’ SEPPs. Embracing a forward-thinking approach to housing and urban development offers us unprecedented opportunities to create an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient community.
Let us commit to a future that not only meets the immediate needs of our residents but also lays the groundwork for a thriving, equitable community for generations to come.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
State Planning Changes
Phill Balding at Wollongong Council
Phill Balding speaks in favour of State Planning Changes at Wollongong Council
I am Phill and I’ve started Greater Gong and Haven, we have about 20 folks now who will put in submissions supporting more housing in Development and Planning Applications, to counter local opposition. Our shortage is shown by a 1.5% rental vacancy rate, the 2nd worst in the state, the evidence is clear we need to build more homes to ease prices.
I support the states planning changes to push denser housing proximal to town centres and train stations, because more housing eases prices according to the research, and it is unacceptable for housing to be un-affordable in the Illawarra. I reject many of the council’s recommendations to submit objection to the state for these very modest, sensible and appropriate changes to our planning system, we should permit ordinary landowners here participate in a housing supply response. It is disingenuous to smothering our town and train with inappropriate low density zoning to block housing, wasting valuable proximal and expensive land, we must now finally deal with because of the housing crisis.
I reject the premise that planning restrictions are not the constraint on building more homes. We have a shortage of approvals, and with a consistent 70-80% completion rate we probably need to relax our planning rules to double our approvals to hit our targets. Read the reports from the productivity commission, RBA, think tanks like Grattan, Deloitte, Centre for independent studies that all regurgitate well established academic research - planning restrictions cause shortages where people want to live, people are pushed away to outbid others in neighbouring suburbs, pushing up prices for all. So any and all new housing eases prices, even expensive housing, as the new resident vacates their older home for someone less wealthy. Economists call this The Filtering Effect - The Filtering Effect is an important reason to permit more housing where people want to live.
The strong demand for apartments is clear. In the past 2 years we have seen rents rise from $380pw to $480 for 2 bed apartments. They sell for $800k when it costs nearly $500k to construct including GST and fees. It’s about $300k more than the marginal cost to produce them, or an enormous 60% gross profit margin on land they already own. Why aren’t the owners of the big houses next to Towradgi station building 8 apartments? They would make a huge profit. The answer is it is illegal due to planning restrictions. Their neighbours could build too, and so on until no one bothers anymore because the profit margin has shrunk too low. Competition works to reduce prices - this is how our market economies work if we permit it.
Theres no shortage of sky for apartments, just rights to build up. We continue to rudely force hard working Australian households pay unbelievable costs, lets foster a supply response to housing with the states changes. Many people I talk to prefer affordability over town character, those opposing an increase in density are nosy, and I strongly reject their poor values, they have 2100km of NSW coast to pick a dainty low-density town. This is a city. Let’s permit people live how they want to live, there’s nothing wrong with a harmless taller building, put people before character.
It is inappropriate that we surround our high amenity town centres and stations with low density R2 after about 50m, units should be permitted to a walkable distance of 800m of places people actually go, just as the state gov are trying to enforce. You chose to smother well-located places with R2. The planners at this council are out of touch with affordability - they happily accept that a Towradgi house next to the station, preserved in R2 zoning just sold for $1.4m or an unbelievable 18x local median household salary. Why would we preserve this unaffordable low density? Do you expect to be served coffee by millionaire local employees? We should have the TODs policy expanded to all stations.
Corrimal is appropriately on the TOD list, it has grown its population by 12% to 7,000 people since 2001. Yet 0-4 year old children have swung the other way, falling by 9% to 362. 5-9 year olds are 3% less too. Thats about 30 less young families less than 2001 (but it should have grown higher), and this dangerous trend will accelerate toward a demographic dystopia as we have seen 2 bed apartment prices rise 28% lately. 18-24 year olds have also fallen 5% in Corrimal - the high school had a handful of graduates last year, I’m told roughly 30 students. All the growth of the area has been for retirees at the exclusion of others.
The alternative is sprawl to 10 suburbs south adding traffic, isolating people from their own communities and families. Your own housing strategy acknowledges there will be a change in character for more density, yet it remains totally illegal in most of the Illawarra, all we see is duplex applications outside the CBD. The council notes the targeted North Wollongong station doesn’t have shops - so why have you chosen 2 large alcohol warehouses there instead of shops and apartments? Just as bad is Bellambi’s well-located Bunnings. The west side of North Gong is full of expensive detached houses, it is the perfect location for permitting apartment buildings there - preserving this is terrible policy. Put affordability before character.
I reject the premise that we are constrained by poor public transport options, it is our low population density that constrains our transport. I catch busses and trains around here from a nearby 4 storey apartment building and am car free, the train frequency will never improve for low density housing. TfNSW respond to demand, they have a huge $8.6b budget for capital works. So over the next 20 years as we accept 50k people we proportionally expect about $4b for us. And yet quadrupling our train services from Thirroul to Dapto would only cost maybe $200m for 6 or so trains if we add the population.
I ask kindly of the councilors here to not accept these recommendations and let the state get on with the job of permitting more much needed housing.
Councillors - you won’t lose your job by permitting medium density apartment buildings around town centres, just ignore the handful of angry emails from nosy people that don’t care about affordability. However, you will lose your job by infuriating young people that want to afford to live near work, train, and in their own communities.
Extra Supply Lowers Rents
Dominic Behrens writes in the Guardian
There’s a large body of research showing that building apartments in high-amenity locations is key to easing the housing crisis….
Op-ed by Dominic Behrens in the Guardian
23 January, 2024
Podcast: Erin Riley and Andrew Bragg
Erin Riley talks to Senator Andrew Bragg
Erin Riley talks about Sydney YIMBY with Senator Andrew Bragg on his podcast The Yarn
15 January 2024
Episode webpage, with audio and notes
345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield
Peter Tulip spoke at Ku-ring-gai Council public forum
Speech by Peter Tulip to Ku-ring-gai Council public forum
In support of the development at 345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield
6 June, 2024
This was written up in the Sydney Morning Herald
I’d like to support the proposed development at 345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield and to oppose the recommendation that the height and floor space ratio be reduced. I speak as a resident of Ku-ring-gai for the past 13 years and also as an economist who has published lots of research papers on housing affordability.
The Council papers say that “there is insufficient justification for the proposed bulk and scale”.
In my view, the justification of the scale of this proposal should be obvious to anyone who reads the newspapers. Sydney has a housing affordability crisis for which the solution is increased density. The expert consensus is clear. Buildings like this are essential to make housing more affordable.
The Council papers note that the proposal is taller than any other buildings in Ku-ring-gai. That’s a good thing. Ku-ring-gai has a 5-year target of 7,600 dwellings. Tall buildings at train stations are the best way to meet this target. The alternative is bulldozing more old buildings with big gardens, which the community doesn’t want.
I think it is frankly absurd to complain that the proposal is “excessive in comparison to the heights currently permitted in the Lindfield Local Centre”. Of course it is taller. It has to be. There is no way of meeting the housing target without increasing density.
This location is one of the best places to do that. It is an easy walk to the station and across the road from a supermarket, so traffic will be minimized. It adjoins a six-lane highway and train line, so has minimal effect on neighbours or on local character.
I ask the opponents of this proposal: If we don’t put extra dwellings here, where do we put them?
I acknowledge that I am in a minority. Most Ku-ring-gai residents seem to prefer uncompromising opposition to any new housing. That may feel good. But it will lead to worse outcomes. A big increase in density is coming and we need to offer constructive suggestions about the best place to put it.
YIMBY vs NIMBY debate
Melissa Neighbour, at Sydney Uni
Melissa Neighbour participated in this debate, organised by the Henry Halloran Trust
20 September, 2023