Byron Council has tightened its definition of ‘affordable housing’ in a bid to make access to housing more equitable on major projects like the former Mullumbimby Hospital site and 57 Station Street.
But whether any developer or Community Housing Provider (CHP) will actually sign up for a project under the new terms remains to be seen.
At the 21 May Council meeting, councillors voted to clarify what affordable housing should mean on council-owned land, formally adopting a definition that housing should cost no more than 30 per cent of a household’s gross income or 80 per cent of market rent, whichever is lower.
The decision also seeks to ensure affordable housing remains affordable ‘in perpetuity’, rather than reverting to market rates after a fixed period (currently after 15 years).
Greens councillor Elia Hauge, who brought forward the motion, said the change was needed to ensure housing described as affordable was genuinely within reach of local people in one of the country’s most expensive rental markets.
‘In our market, 80 per cent of market rent is not affordable,’ Cr Hauge told councillors.
‘Affordable would be $1,200 a week if we’re applying 80 per cent of market rent. I don’t think that’s affordable.’
Cr Hauge said the motion aimed to remove confusion in Council planning documents and provide certainty for future affordable housing projects, including the proposed developments at the former Mullumbimby Hospital site and 57 Station Street.
The motion was strengthened following public access comments from Mullumbimby Residents Association (MRA) spokesperson Peter Brennan, who urged Council to ensure affordable housing on public land remained affordable permanently.
In perpetuity
‘If we allow affordable housing on that site to lapse to market in 15 years, we will have given away a community asset without a lasting return,’ Mr Brennan said.
Council staff broadly supported the intent of the motion, saying it would enable further work to clarify affordability definitions, how housing could be retained in perpetuity, and how the new definition would operate with CHPs.
Planning staff told Councillors that while Council’s existing affordable housing documents referenced both the income-based definition and discounted market rent, there was a need for greater clarity around how the two standards should be applied.
But not all councillors were convinced.
Independent councillor Michael Lyon unsuccessfully attempted to amend the motion, arguing affordable housing should be based solely on a household paying no more than 30 per cent of gross income.
‘We’re talking about workers,’ Cr Lyon said, arguing Council should focus on helping essential workers rather than attempting to solve broader social housing challenges.
Deputy Mayor Jack Dods (Independent) said he supported the principle of genuinely affordable housing, but feared Council risked making future projects financially unviable by imposing a standard that CHPs or partners such as Landcom may struggle to make work.
Cr Dods said affordable housing projects still had to stack up financially, particularly given construction costs and the need for long-term maintenance.
‘We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here,’ Cr Dods said.
‘If there’s funding available and money on the table for someone to build a project that is maximum 30 per cent household gross income, great – that should be the gold standard. But I’m under no illusions that there are probably instances where maybe a portion of a development may need to be 80 per cent of market rate because we’re talking about building multi-million-dollar projects that need to be managed and maintained and funded in perpetuity.’
Cr Dods warned Council risked ‘putting the cart before the horse’ and said he would rather see affordable housing delivered than create a standard so ambitious that projects failed to proceed.
Cr Hauge’s motion was ultimately passed after Cr Lyon’s amendment failed to win support.
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. 
