Congratulations to Council staff and Mayor Michael Lyon on convincing the NSW Labor government that Byron Shire is a unique place, and as such, it will now have a tailored holiday letting policy.
While clearly this will not ease any housing stress overnight, it could be considered partly addressing the issue, as Planning Minister, Paul Scully, points out. His media release also points out his government’s demand that Council deliver its ‘commitment to increase housing supply… to deliver over 4,500 houses by 2041’.
So over the next 18 years, 250 houses will be built per year.
Anyway, while politicians pat themselves on their backs, what the public are not privy to are the closed door deals, made on your behalf.
It seems very coincidental that in the same week of the 60-day cap announcement, councillors will presumably vote to publicly exhibit an extensive development blueprint at this Thursday’s meeting.
It aims to create more housing than previously planned.
Did the mayor make a secret agreement with the planning department/and or minister to increase Byron’s housing capacity in exchange for a 60-day cap?
Get ready for a public relations campaign where we are told this level of growth is inevitable.
Part of Council’s public relations campaign appears misleading.
In a press release last week entitled ‘Housing Byron Shire’s future population – how and where’, the mayor again conflated the need to appease the NSW Labor government’s demands to increase development with the chronic homelessness problem.
He said, ‘We have the highest rate of rough sleepers in NSW; we have a community still reeling from the floods; we have people who cannot find affordable long-term housing and we have businesses who can’t find staff because workers can’t afford to live here’.
Will increased dwellings address that? On the face of it, perhaps somewhat, yet it’s unclear who essential workers on stagnant, low incomes, will get a home.
It’s a complex issue that has much more to do with social housing.
Building more houses, which are generally used as investments to generate wealth, does not provide a home to those without one.
Social housing is generally funded by state governments, but hasn’t been in decades, especially in NSW.
As pointed out by local MP Tamara Smith, last week’s NSW budget did not include much in the way of social housing.
And any mention of ‘affordable housing’ should be considered with scepticism, because the metrics that facilitate it are not fit for purpose.
That includes Council’s Affordable Housing Contribution Policy, which is aimed at securing roughly 20 per cent of a greenfield site, which would be retained by Council to be presumably passed onto a affordable housing provider to develop and manage.
The Affordable Housing Contribution Policy is tied to the SEPP 70, which defines ‘affordable’ on median household income for the Sydney Statistical Division, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Currently that’s $2,077. A ‘very low income household’ is defined in the SEPP as less than 50 per cent of that.
So – will all this development lead to more social equity, or will it further enable those with investment properties to expand their portfolios at the expense of those who cannot get into the market?
Hans Lovejoy, editor
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
