The NSW Labor government have announced new DA withdrawal guidelines for councils in an attempt to ‘boost housing supply’.
In a media release last week, the office of Planning Minister, Paul Scully, said, ‘Under the guidelines, councils will be required to accelerate DA assessment timeframes, and not request unnecessary information or unnecessarily ask applicants to withdraw DA proposals’.
‘The guidelines also require councils to direct adequate resources to their planning and assessment teams to fast-track DA assessments.
‘National Housing Accord data indicates the state has a projected housing construction shortfall of 376,000 homes over five years’.
The Echo asked Scully’s office if these new guidelines will come with additional funding to councils to meet this requirement.
No additional funds
His office replied, ‘The guidelines are not supported with additional funding, however we are supporting council with programs such as the Strong Start Cadetship which provides grant funding to support apprentice planners. Councils involved are Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley, Lismore and Tweed’.
The Echo also asked, ‘What measures are in place to assure that fast-tracking developments won’t lead to substandard building (that can put lives at risk), and the removal of high value and rare ecological land (given NSW has poor records in land clearing)’.
They replied, ‘All development is subject to determination by the relevant consent authority’.
‘Fast-tracked assessments reach the point of decision more quickly but remain subject to the same rigorous and comprehensive measures of quality and environmental protection’.
Meanwhile, the peak body representing NSW councils rejected the allegations that councils are responsible for the withdrawal of development applications.
President of Local Government NSW, Darriea Turley, said in a media release, ‘To play the blame game with councils in the firing line is simplistic and disingenuous’.
‘In fact, the NSW government’s own official housing supply report points to shortages of construction material and labour, rising interest rates, and falling housing prices as the drivers of the decline in residential building approvals’.
Time to put up the house full sign and build elsewhere in the state trying to bully councils into fastracking da s just so some developer and the government can hot housing targets is completely stupid with climate change and all the floods fire and drought chopping down more trees and putting more fill in flood prone areas is a recipe for disaster time to abolish state governments and have regional councils their place and stamp duty to fund roads infrastructure and council programs. Plus getting rid of negative gearing so there will be plenty of empty houses that are air bnb back on the market places like Dubbo parkes etc need to have more housing not the north coast
This idea of telling people to go elsewhere is very unhelpful and selfish. People looking to downsize have to go elsewhere or stay in their homes (leaving 4-bedroom houses with 1-2 people). People raised in the region with their whole families here, go elsewhere unless you are lucky enough to have some high inheritance or are a single child inheriting the family home. People moving to the region for the lifestyle and natural beauty, go elsewhere because you didn’t move here before you were born or soon enough. Who are you/the nimbys to decide that enough is enough and you get to stay and they do not? This whole idea of the region hitting this point in time and deciding, unless you already own a home here you have no right to be here is so selfish and unhelpful to the discussion of actually improving housing supply/prices. You make some valid and necessary points that should be pursued by the different levels of government (I am all for the north coast having more autonomy in some form given NSW really seems to stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong for most of the powerful decision makers allocating funding), but your main point of telling people to go elsewhere is ridiculous. Irrespective of the floods and fires, the region has plenty it can do to accommodate more people without expanding into undeveloped land prone to natural disasters or rebuilding on flood affected land.
Generally people withdraw a DA for one of two reasons; 1) Because prior to bringing a Report, council staff have advised that it wont get consent as it breaches Planning rules, or 2) That the council staff have identified the changes needed to comply with planning rules and the applicant does not want to go to either the expense, or doesnt want what could be lawfully built. Withdrawing deficient DA’s at an early stage before council staff have to go through bringing a formal report that rejects the DA, saves time and gets better results for both the applicant and council. Forcing council staff to make formal reports of rejection, or reports identifying the needed amendments on dodgy DA’s ( that may not be taken up by applicants) doesn’t save anyones time
To help the housing crisis, it would be good for council to extend existing DA approvals. As many businesses and families have been effected by , interest rates, rising prices of building / inflation, lack of availability of builders and lack of supply of materials, slow economy effecting local businesses along with extended road closures making access difficult due to landslide etc. I cannot see a downside to extending the time frame that existing DAs remain valid, given the extremely difficult environment to build and the shortage of housing. Surely making allowances for such pressing matters, helps the council as they do not loose existing potential housing due to extenuating circumstances currently in play.
There seems to be a push recently for local councils to grant intrusive ‘in-fill’ into older residential areas.
Often these D/As are granted automatically.
No local input is required under current planning protocols.
So the first thing locals know what’s happening is a brief statement (if they are lucky) in a council newsletter that approval has been automatically given to another crafty post-flood developer.
This has lead to the crazy situation where ‘in fill’ housing has been approved with no parking provision at all.
It has also allowed ‘2R residential’ to be approved for gigantic and inappropriate/intrusive commercial shed developments, towering over surrounding older homes.