This revised video shows the problems with traffic in George Street North Strathfield. As you may know, all motor vehicle traffic into North Strathfield and Concord West north of Pomeroy Street (on the western side of the railway) can only enter or leave through the intersection of Pomeroy and George Streets.

We are reissuing this traffic video with slight improvements on the previous version; it now also includes subtitles.

We know that Canada Bay Council intends to make significant improvements to the intersection of Pomeroy and George Streets. This will include a new left turn slip lane from George Street to Pomeroy Street and an improvement to the traffic lights. This project will help reduce some of the problems at the intersection, but – according to the residents I have talked with about this – won’t provide anything close to a complete solution.

The key point is that the NSW government’s major rezoning changes will lead to a large population increase, which will put many more cars onto local roads, driving even greater traffic problems.

The New South Wales Government is expected to fund the intersection upgrade, although at this stage the timing is not clear.

The reality is that we have a housing crisis, made worse by past government “solutions” which included withdrawing from building social housing and leaving almost all new development to private developers.

Around one in three Australian households are renters. Renters are struggling with skyrocketing rents, unfair evictions, and a chronic lack of public, social, and affordable housing. More people are in rental stress, having to pay far more than 30% of their income in rent. Although rent rises in NSW have become more moderated over the past year, they are still rising higher than wage increases because of the lack of available properties. For vulnerable groups such as older private renters or women and children escaping domestic violence, finding long-term affordable accommodation is almost impossible.

For potential home buyers, house prices have increased over eight times faster than incomes since the 1990s in Sydney, particularly. Home ownership for younger people (25-34 years) has fallen dramatically. Saving for a deposit can take years and the size of mortgages will likely to be a burden until retirement without two employed owners.

What is affordable housing?

There is no agreed definition of “affordable housing”. The closest definition was agreed by a 2005 meeting of Australian Housing, Local Government and Planning Ministers which described affordable housing as “housing which is affordable for low and moderate income households across home ownership, private rental as well as public rental tenures … The benchmark for affordability is 25 to 30 per cent of the income of these target groups.”

In contrast, the NSW Department of Planning considers affordable housing to be “rental housing for members of the community who may not be able to afford to rent in the general market”. Nor is affordable housing the same as social housing which provides housing for people who are unable to afford private rental market rents in most areas or who will find it difficult to be accepted into private rental due to a need for medical, age-related or other forms of support. Social housing includes public housing, community housing provided by not-for-profit organisations and State owned and managed Indigenous housing (SOMIH).

Unfortunately, a large proportion of current “affordable housing” programs are delivering housing costing far more than 25 to 30 per cent of the income of these target groups who find them unaffordable by any measure.

In total, over 424,000 Australian households are on social housing waitlists. AHURI research has projected growth in demand for social housing to the year 2037, estimating that over 1.1 million social dwellings will be needed by that point. Households on waitlists have increased significantly, with demand for social housing far exceeding the slow pace of new supply – around 3,000 new homes being built annually.

What are the issues?

• There are many reasons why there are too few homes for our population, representing the outcome of government policies over the past 20 years, the rate of new developments and fluctuating immigration levels. Recent studies reveal that Australia’s housing stock has declined over the past 20 years and that we have less available housing stock than most developed countries. If we were able to build an additional 50,000 houses per year for 10 years, we might have enough to house everyone. Factors that influence housing availability and affordability include:. Steady immigration into Australia provides new workers and energy but also requires building additional housing.
• A tax system that advantages investors over home buyers through negative gearing and a low capital gains tax.
• Approximately 10% of homes are not occupied for significant periods.

• Many potential homes are rented out for short-term housing, eg Air-BNB. Reducing the amount of these would make more homes available as long-term rentals.
• The construction industry is short on qualified workers. The TAFE system is still recovering from being deliberately neglected under both Coalition and Labor governments, before it can train more workers.
• High interest rates and the increasing cost of homes have made it increasingly difficult for lower income workers to get home loan finance.
• Unlike most other countries, Australian housing policies force almost everyone into the private housing market. Other countries have institutional mechanisms for ensuring that homes are available at lower cost for those who need them.

What are the government’s plans?

Responding to the housing crisis, the NSW government has created strategies that bypass and override the role of councils in setting environmental and planning standards by creating statutory authorities such as the Housing Development Authority. Canada Bay local government area (and the Strathfield LGA to a lesser extent) has been targeted for extensive housing development. Recent government planning includes:

• Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS) (from 2016) – 27,000 additional homes proposed.
• Transport Oriented Development (TOD) (2024) – 18,000 additional homes proposed in Accelerated Precincts.
• Low and Mid-Rise housing (LMR).
• State Significant Development (2025), with 9 SSD projects in Canada Bay LGA as of January 2026. (For those with long memories, this is the old “Part 3A” system for ministerial approval of large projects.)

These government plans ignore their own research which has found traffic congestion and flooding risks already severely limit any new housing developments.

The NSW government is desperately hoping that, with so much rezoning, developers will flood the market with new housing. However, developers already have plenty of rezoned properties that they can develop. In order to ensure premium profits, developers will continue to avoid flooding the market.

It’s now clear that the private sector won’t build the scale of housing we need. That’s why federal and state government must step up and directly develop the required housing themselves.

BUT – building more houses without a comprehensive plan that includes more childcare centres, schools, public transport options and hospital services is leaving the most difficult stuff to others!

The Greens plan

The Greens are committed to making housing affordable, safe and secure for everyone. The Greens will invest in 10,000 new public and social homes each year in NSW for the next 10 years.

We’ll ensure renters have stronger rights and are protected – making renting a genuine, secure, and affordable option for lifelong renters who have been locked out of private home ownership.

See more

Rezoning update January 2026

What kind of development do we need?

[Housing without infrastructure will always be inadequate]

by Charles Jago

Thanks to all of our great members and volunteers for a huge effort on this campaign, especially in the last few days. This has probably been our best campaign ever in several ways, as shown by our best council results ever.

Here are some details on the final results on the election, declared on 1 October 2024.

Councillor vote

These figures show that the Liberals won four councillor seats, Labor three and the Greens one.

The Greens have increased our total councillor vote to 16.4% with a swing to the Greens of about 6.6%, a 67% increase on the Greens 2021 councillor vote, which we are very happy about.

Mayoral vote

Congratulations to Michael Megna, who was elected Mayor. A key factor was the lower number than normal of Greens voters who gave their second preference to Labor.

I’m happy to say that the election was conducted in a civil manner, with a good atmosphere.

The good news for the Greens is that we have increased our mayoral vote to 15.58% with a swing of nearly 7.7%. That’s an increase of over 95%. Exciting!

The swing figures for all parties are skewed by the fact that – unlike previous occasions for many years – no independent is running for mayor.

So thanks again to everybody who has put in a huge effort. Special thanks to Pauline Tyrrell for her massive organisational work on so many things all the way through the campaign.

Come to our “Meet the candidates” campaign launch on Sunday, 16 June 2024 at the Concord Community Centre, Gipps Street, Concord, starting at 4.30pm for 5pm.

Speakers at the event will be Sue Higginson MLC (Greens NSW Planning spokesperson), Charles Jago and Dr Tailoi Ling.

Please register for the event.

Also see details of our announced candidates.

Canada Bay Greens is running a team of local residents for the upcoming local Council elections to be held on Saturday, 14 September 2024.
Our candidates are current councillor and candidate for mayor Charles Jago with Dr Tailoi Ling (pictured above), as well as Neil Smith, Pauline Tyrrell and Tony Adams (more detail on candidates below).

Key campaign issues

• NSW Government plans for increased density
• A new public high school for Canada Bay
• Increasing train services on the T9 Northern line
• Increasing social and affordable housing
• Playing fields for the planned Rhodes Public School.

Canada Bay Greens team

Charles Jago, a councillor since 2017, is a long-term local. His key concerns include planning, transport, education, libraries and sustainability. His professional experience includes the energy, information technology, adult education and community development sectors.

Dr Tailoi Ling, a Canada Bay resident for over 50 years, is an ophthalmology scientist and member of Council’s environment advisory committee for 8 years, Her passions include Tai Chi, choir, and Zumba; her concerns include more infrastructure to support housing and urban food production.

Neil Smith, a 32 year Canada Bay resident, is an engineer working locally in the rail industry. He is a long-term environmentalist and a keen cyclist.

Pauline Tyrrell, during her 12 years as a Greens Councillor on Canada Bay Council, championed residents’ rights and lobbied for environmental and climate action programs, as well as a new primary school for Concord West. She is now active in in Canada Bay Bushcare and Choir.

Tony Adams works in finance and is completing a Masters in Environmental Science.

More on the top issue

Canada Bay Greens support liveable residential development that increases trees, open space, preserves heritage buildings and plans for infrastructure that will be needed. We support well-planned new medium density housing in Canada Bay LGA – “building up, not out” – because the alternative is cutting down forests including koala habitat on the outskirts of Sydney and converting farmland into urban sprawl.

However, the NSW Government plans for increased density are a huge local issue. Their plans for greater density in areas around train stations and shopping centres have concerned residents who are likely to be affected by large scale property developments.

But simply giving the developers what they want won’t deliver the results that the government is promising. Good planning for the future means anticipating more schools, bigger hospitals, better transport links, more community facilities and setting aside green recreational space. And the Greens recognise that more affordable housing is needed to reduce housing stress, particularly for young people, disadvantaged people and recent migrants.

Please sign our petition calling for improvements to the government’s plans.

How you can help

Volunteer: Send us an email at volunteer@canadabaygreens.org mentioning your interests and skills.

Donate to our council campaign.

Also see details of our election launch on 16th June.

New density programs by the NSW government 2023 & 2024

By Councillor Charles Jago

Contents

• New density programs by the government
• The Greens position – we support good development
• Problems with the new changes
• Concerns on these changes across NSW
• Endnote on heritage

The NSW Dept of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) has issued two major changes to planning rules in recent months. These include:

• The Homebush Precinct – Transit Oriented Development Program (TOD)
• The North Strathfield Precinct – Transit Oriented Development Program (TOD)
• Low and mid-rise housing

Note: the Homebush Precinct buildings height map above reflects a recent additional height increase by the government in the week that the zoning was finalised. Click either of these maps to see it full size.

Transit Oriented Development Program (TOD)

Initiated in mid-December 2023, the Transit Oriented Development Program aims to put greater density around stations. There are eight “Tier 1” or “accelerated precincts” around metropolitan Sydney, including the Homebush Precinct nominally around Homebush Station. There are 37 “Tier 2” TOD precincts around other stations around a wider area, including the North Strathfield Precinct.

Homebush Precinct TOD

On 27 November 2024, the government finalised the “Homebush Precinct” in parts of Homebush, North Strathfield, Strathfield and Concord West. This area is actually the same as part 2 of the PRCUTS program. See the rezoning proposal finalisation report, the urban design report, the precinct transport statement and the Explanation of Intended Effect documents. See more of the final documents.

The DPHI plan has major problems – see the council response to it, which reveals the full extent of its problems.

One more annoying development: in the last week before it was finalised, the government raised the heights in some areas of the precinct. The maximum height for the Bakehouse Quarter and for the part of McDonald College that has been rezoned has now increased to 150m (45 storeys). The total number of apartments in the Canada Bay part of the Homebush Precinct was increased from 16,100 to 18,300.

North Strathfield Precinct TOD

Given the unexpected scale of the Homebush Precinct when the plans were released in July 2024, it then seemed that the North Strathfield Precinct would not proceed. However in late October 2024, the Government announced that it would proceed on the eastern side of North Strathfield station, ie between Queen Street and Concord Road. It was gazetted (ie legally finalised) on 27 November 2024 – the same day as the Homebush Precinct. However, contrary to the government’s own rules, it was never put on public exhibition – the only available detail was a map of the precinct boundaries released the day before it was finalised.

Issues with Homebush Precinct TOD

Large scale

The government’s plans will add around 18,300 apartments bringing approximately another 29,500 people into the North Strathfield and Strathfield triangle areas, plus many more in Strathfield LGA – around 45,500 for the whole precinct. The numbers on the Homebush TOD Precinct map on this page show the maximum building height for each block proposed by the government. With zoning now complete, developers will be looking to identify and purchase sites for redevelopment quickly.

No space allocated for schools or health facilities

Unfortunately, the government’s plan does not allow for sufficient infrastructure. The government’s plan originally didn’t include any space for schools, health facilities or other infrastructure needed for current and future residents, and included loss of two schools – Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Primary (OLA) and MacDonald College. Now the government has changed the plan to keep OLA, but still zone McDonald College out of existence (it could stay there now but any new site development could only be apartments). The council’s response submission to government noted that the population increase proposed in the government’s plan equate to adding the population from a town the size of Taree, which has two public high schools, five public primary schools, six private schools, three post-secondary institutions and a large hospital. The Homebush Precinct won’t have anything like that. It’s not even sure there is enough retail or other commercial space either.

Unprofessional planning

That’s really bad planning. Given the scale of development proposed, the standard of planning is so poor as to be unprofessional. It is simply essential that planning for any precinct or suburb identify all necessary infrastructure as part of the plan and include space for everything before any rezoning. Now that the apartments are zoned, it will be practically impossible to get the land for the schools and other community needs.

The government is in such a rush that they have implemented a short-sighted, unprofessional plan that will make existing shortfalls worse. While the most serious issue is the total lack of infrastructure, there are also other serious problems in the government’s plan.

Location – extremely constrained by traffic

The NSW government’s Homebush Precinct includes a large area of Strathfield, Homebush, North Strathfield and Concord West, on the Homebush side of the train line, as shown on the map. It runs along George Street from Parramatta Road to Rothwell Avenue Concord West. The main density has been placed along George Street just west of the station, with substantial height and density increases up to Rothwell Avenue. The new zoning is R4 – high density, with maximum proposed heights for each block shown on the map. The Homebush precinct also includes enormous height increases in the Strathfield triangle.

The main problem with this plan is that, on the western side of the train line along George Street, the government’s consultants have picked a highly traffic-constrained location to massively increase traffic density. George Street already grinds to a halt multiple times a day with traffic queues hundreds of metres long. This density goes far beyond any traffic plans ever contemplated for the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, the traffic consultants’ report does not enter into any discussion of why the area was selected [Note – a new version of that traffic report has been released when the rezoning was finalised].

Comment by Charles Jago on the location:

“In the DPHI briefing for Canada Bay councillors on 23 July 2024, I asked why this area had been selected, when the traffic in it was so much greater than surrounding alternative areas. I mentioned that I had recently witnessed a buildup of cars along George Street stretching from Pomeroy Street nearly to Argonne Street – around 4.5 blocks.

“The response from DPHI staff was that this area was selected because it was previously selected for PRCUTS. There had clearly been no comparison of alternative areas to put the greater density. This means that the DPHI statement on selection criteria is wrong. And in any case, anybody living anywhere along George Street North Strathfield can tell you that the local constraints make it a worse proposition than other options.

“This represents a major problem for the area, with intensification of traffic far greater than it would have been if a more suitable site had been chosen.”

Area of increased density

Low and mid-rise housing

DPHI released the Changes to create low and mid-rise housing with an “explanation of intended effect” (EIE) document in mid-December 2023 for land within:

• 800m walking distance of heavy rail, light rail or metro stations;
• 800m walking distance of land zoned E2 Commercial Centre; and
• 800m walking distance of land zoned E1 Local Centre or MU1 Mixed Use, but only if the zone contains a wide range of frequently needed goods and services, such as full-line supermarkets, shops and restaurants.

Unlike the TOD program, the changes vary with current zoning. Where medium-rise zoning (R3 Medium Density Residential) is already in place, the proposed changes will allow 6-storey apartments within 400m of stations or centres, and 4-storey apartments for areas from 400m to 800m of these locations. The changes will also allow “shop top housing” (one or more dwellings located above a ground floor commercial premises or health services facility).

The NSW Government also wants to allow multi dwelling housing in low density residential zones (R2) within station and town centre precincts – this includes townhouses, terraces and manor houses, in addition to dual occupancies which are already allowed. The government has created “non-refusal standards” for all of these with larger heights and floor space ratios and smaller site width and site area requirements than currently exist. These buildings will be inappropriately sized for the area, but council won’t be able to stop it.

These changes are far-reaching across Canada Bay LGA and there is some uncertainty about which areas will be actually included. Depending on how the centres are chosen, these new rules could apply to the majority of Canada Bay LGA. Please refer to the map below. Despite the uncertainties, these changes are already being made legal in stages starting on 1 July 2024. The first stage permits dual occupancies and semi-detached homes in all R2 low-density residential zones across NSW.

In particular, there are three local centres with E1 zoning (small commercial centres, surrounded by residential zoning) which could be affected: Concord West, Mortlake and Wareemba. Council staff have recommended (and the Canada Bay Greens agree) that four storey to six storey developments, plus town houses and manor houses (two storey apartment blocks usually with just four apartments) should not go in these areas, because it is inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of these places. That’s why the council’s planning staff specifically recommended removing E1-zoned centres from the changes. Note that Concord West is still affected because the rules apply around stations as well.

In addition, the changes will also have irreversible impact on heritage protected places (see endnote), with no apparent pre-analysis on the likely effects. Numerous historical places will be lost if this goes ahead.

With these changes to housing around many residential centres, the government is making changes to an area far larger than necessary to meet their housing goals. With the substantial height increases the government is requiring, they could have limited the changes to a smaller area and still achieved a huge number of additional dwellings. The broad geographical extent of the planning rules means that the majority of established suburbs across Canada Bay LGA will be irrevocably altered over time.

In addition, DPHI has recently expanded the incentives potentially available to developers for affordable housing with extra building height and floor area. However, affordable housing has been diluted to only last for 15 years.

See the council’s responses to the “Changes to create low and mid-rise housing” program and the related new “Housing SEPP” (SEPP – State Environmental Planning Policy).

Map of combined changes

The map below reflects the July 2024 release of the NSW government’s TOD changes (above); note that some smaller changes have not yet been included.

The Greens position – we support good development

The Canada Bay Greens support additional well-planned medium density housing in Sydney, where it can integrate into the existing location, infrastructure, architecture and heritage of the local area. We support “building up, not out” – because the alternative is cutting down forests including koala habitat on the outskirts of Sydney and converting farmland into urban sprawl. In principle, locations around stations and other areas are places where additional housing makes sense. We oppose more high-rise in suburban areas due to its capital and maintenance expense, its traffic impacts and other issues. See more…

Problems with the new changes

The major problems include:

• Undermining local government’s role in land use planning undertaken in consultation with the local community.
• Around 80% of Canada Bay’s heritage housing put at risk (see endnote).
• A substantial reduction in the extent of new affordable housing in Canada Bay.
• Greater loss of trees, making it impossible to meet the council’s tree canopy target of 25% by 2040.
• Degrading the quality of new housing developments by removing rules for good development.

For a more detailed explanation of the problems of these changes see Government over-reach on housing – let council do it properly (about Canada Bay Council’s motion on this), Canada Bay Council’s description of the changes or (more broadly) a quick guide from Greens NSW.

What must be done:

• There must be sufficient infrastructure, especially including green space, public transport, good transport access and public schools to meet the needs of the increased population. Right now, the current infrastructure is inadequate for the needs of the population we have today.
• The rules must ensure good quality development using accepted planning standards and not arbitrarily undermine the environment or heritage. The proposed rules for apartments don’t specify a minimum plot area or minimum frontage for new apartments, which will encourage 6 to 9 storey apartments next to single family houses – that’s bad planning.
• A part of each development must be provided to the council as permanent affordable housing, at a proportion at least similar to existing council affordable housing programs (currently 4% or 5%).
• There must be proper engagement with the community and local government.

Unfortunately, the new programs have major problems when considering the concerns given above. However, Canada Bay Council (and also the Greens) would like to work with the government to properly implement additional housing, because new housing is urgently needed.

Will the government plan work?

More broadly, the success of the government’s plans is in serious doubt. The government is desperately hoping that, with so much rezoning, developers will flood the market with new housing. However developers already have plenty of rezoned properties that they can develop, as councils across Australia have approved record levels of housing in the last ten years. In order to ensure premium profits, developers will continue to avoid flooding the market.

It’s now clear that the private sector won’t build the scale of housing we need. That’s why in Australia after World War 2, governments – federal and state – stepped up and directly developed the housing themselves. That’s what we need now.

The changes wipe out protection for heritage listed places in the areas where they apply (see endnote), undermine existing programs of affordable housing, and erode design quality controls. Meanwhile the government is not offering any additional improvements to infrastructure or services in the area, although there is a fund of $520 million shared amongst the 8 accelerated precincts across Greater Sydney for improved roads, transport links and parks – which won’t go very far at all.

See the Council’s official response to these changes, in their submission to DPHI.

Feedback on these changes across NSW

Other councils’ concerns

• Northern Beaches Council: Radical state planning changes to create medium and higher density housing …”Proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 would override all NSW councils’ planning controls and restrict a local council’s capacity to refuse inappropriate development. The implications of the proposed policy are alarming for the Northern Beaches, our community and the environment.” 
• Ku-ring-gai Council …”There will be impacts on heritage, trees, biodiversity, traffic and stormwater. Significant tree loss across Ku-ring-gai. No consideration currently given to the necessary infrastructure to support density such as schools, transport and community facilities.”

Local Government NSW

Key concerns surround Government’s housing supply changes “… the process disregards the carefully considered strategic planning work undertaken by councils in consultation with their communities and the Department to deliver agreed housing targets tailored to the characteristics and capacity of different places.“

Better planning network

“… extensive damage to the environment, loss of heritage, and overload infrastructure and local services.” See more…

We all want to see new housing measures that will put a roof over people’s heads, expanding the quantity of quality housing accessible to everybody.

At the council meeting on Tuesday night (20/2/2024), councillors unanimously supported my motion supporting the aims of the NSW government’s package of housing changes, but calling on major improvements to implementation of the package. We are offering to work with the government to ensure new housing is done right, building on successful work that is already under way in Canada Bay.

Unfortunately, the NSW government’s recent package of “reforms” would – as currently written:

• wipe out protection for around 80% of heritage properties across most of Canada Bay!
• undermine Council’s affordable housing program. Instead of 4% or 5% of housing in new developments being dedicated to Council for affordable housing in perpetuity, it would be perhaps 2% for only 15 years – then given back to the developer!
• undermine council’s tree targets with inadequate “deep soil” requirements to ensure enough trees on new residential apartment developments, making it impossible to meet our tree canopy growth target of 25% by 2040.
• lead to very poor developments due to an absence of proper rules for minimum frontage and minimum plot size for new apartment blocks. Without these rules (which enable effective consolidation of land parcels for apartments – normally standard across Canada Bay) we would likely see ridiculous outcomes such as single family homes next to six or eight storey buildings.
• include a chaotic range of bonuses that would create unexpected housing scale outcomes in specific locations, some of it entirely disproportionate.
• potentially cover a huge area across Canada Bay, substantially and unpredictably changing the character of many suburbs.
• over-ride a substantial amount work both completed and still under way by Council staff including community consultation.
• not address our critical infrastructure requirements, including finance for infrastructure implemented by council
• and more.

I called upon the state government to step away from their dictatorial “one size fits all” agenda with its destructive provisions, and allow council to get on with implementing an effective program to increase quality housing in Canada Bay. Specifically, my motion (passed unanimously) called on council to offer to negotiate new housing targets with the government to properly put their aims into practice with the most effective approaches for our LGA.

These issues are shown in the documents below, including government documents and council meeting docs as well as reports by council staff in response to the government plans. See the detail in the following documents:

More broadly, I have doubts about whether the government’s approach will work. In essence, the government wants to flood the market with new housing in order to lower the cost of housing. The problem is that they are relying on private developers to build new housing and sell it – companies who plan their sales campaigns very carefully to get premium price sales. They are not compelled to build new housing on the government’s schedule – in fact that seems rather unlikely. In other words, the current Labor government is doubling down on a similar strategy to the former coalition government, whose same policies brought us to the current situation.

To solve the current housing crisis, NSW and Australia would do well to look at different housing policies being pursued elsewhere in the world: places like Austria or Denmark have far more effective policies. These approaches make higher use of public and social housing. Alternatively, one could look to Australian post-war housing policies that invested in public housing and were successful in their day, with some similarities to currently successful European housing programs.

by Councillor Charles Jago

I support an increase in medium rise development across Canada Bay, provided that the infrastructure is in place to support it. For environmental, economic and social reasons, medium rise offers more benefits than high density. Medium rise will still provide enough additional density to provide a very large number of new homes across Sydney.

Looking around the world, cities such as Paris and Athens stand out with a substantial height limit of twelve storeys. They do have specific central business districts with high-rise, but suburban areas mostly keep to the height limit. There are already high-rise buildings across Greater Sydney, but I recommend that Sydney’s suburban areas would be better off with medium density.

What level of medium development is best? From a purely technical point of view, a lower building such as 4 storeys will be cheaper to construct and more energy efficient per dwelling than a 12 storey building. The 4 storey building will also be able to harvest enough energy from its roof to power a lot of its energy needs, which is far less likely for much taller buildings.

However, we need to accept that there will be a range of building heights for different needs.

Why not high-rise?

I don’t support high-rise in suburban areas, because the construction and operating costs are higher, and also they are less energy efficient in both construction and operation.

High-rise construction requires extensive use of steel and concrete, creating higher costs than for lower buildings which use different – less expensive – building materials. Consequently, high-rise buildings also show increased energy intensity (ie reduced energy efficiency), due to greater embedded energy in the steel, concrete and other components.

Similarly, the operational cost of high-rise is higher due to the additional building services – primarily water and sewerage pumps, lift operation, air-conditioning and security – which is more than for smaller buildings. Then in their operation, these building services also require greater energy to operate than medium density buildings.

In addition, high-rise towers are intrinsically less safe. In the event of fire or any other emergency, people in a tall building take longer to escape. People trapped on upper floors may be out of reach of rescue vehicles ladders.

For these reasons, medium density buildings are intrinsically better than high-rise.

But even further, research shows greater social problems tend to occur in high-rise. The greater scale reinforces social isolation. This is a generalisation, but buildings of lesser height find it easier to establish a higher perception of community.

What else does good development need?

People need infrastructure:

• transport – trains, buses, any other public transport and roads that allow people to move in a timely way, including access to constrained areas with only one road in and out.
• schools
• green space
• and more…

Conservative councillors in Canada Bay argue that we have no choice but to approve many bad development proposals.

The argument that councillors need to support oversized development has constantly showed up in previous council debates on developments, leading to acceptance of many oversized developments. The argument says that rejecting the motion would lead to the government – either the Minister or the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) – to taking over the development and imposing an even worse solution.

This has actually happened. In the case of the Parramatta Road (PRCUTS) rezoning in October 2022, Council deferred approval and DPE then took it over more or less the next day and gave the developer largely what they wanted. And DPE may have done this in other situations, showing that there is sometimes substance to the argument. Thus the threat of a worse outcome from DPE is the main reason given by councillors for passing far greater scale than the community wants.

However, the underlying issues never get addressed. No attempt is made to actually address or even discuss the recurring problem. And meanwhile, any attempt to find middle ground usually gets rejected out of hand. At the same time, the community and anybody seeking something better get treated like children. If this had only happened once, allowing overdevelopment because DPE would do worse would be a reasonable response. But it happens constantly. That’s why a local resident I know described this practice as “a racket”.

Rather than support the community, the majority of councillors have instead taken the pressure off the bully boy tactics of the major NSW political parties in supporting overdevelopment. The effect is to create a developer’s playground, where our community gets shaped mostly by developer profits. They have chosen to continue the racket of acting as the proxy of the NSW government in imposing developments that have disproportionate impact on the livability of our suburbs. It becomes a good cop/bad cop routine in which the council blames the government – but most of the community just sees the council approving bad developments.

Like me, the community supports reasonable development that won’t compromise local traffic and other infrastructure. But instead they get something that will always be larger than will fit in the locality.

There is a way to address this problem: to identify the issues and build community support for change. This would mean that council would need to make decisions that reflect reasonable community concerns, and then lead opposition to unreasonable government pressure. Yes, this would be difficult. But it would be possible if the councillors were united and ran a community campaign to explain the issues to the community and ask for their support.

The Bushells development came to a council meeting in early December 2022 – three months before the NSW state election. That was the ideal time to raise the issue in the community and put pressure on the NSW government to support reasonable community expectations. That’s what I asked other councillors to do at that time. Of course, there was no guarantee that that battle could be won. But we will never know, because no other councillor present was willing to oppose the scale of the development.

7/12/2023

I was disappointed this week that Council was unable to agree on formally requesting that Angelo Tsirekas, resign from his position as Mayor following a finding of corrupt conduct by ICAC.

The Council meeting this week considered a motion proposed by Councillor Ferguson that noted that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) had found Mayor Angelo Tsirekas corrupt and “expressed grave concern with the reputational damage to the City of Canada Bay Council” and called on Angelo Tsirekas to resign.

I supported the motion. I believe that, although Angelo Tsirekas has done some good things, his corrupt behaviour is unacceptable and that Council should dissociate itself from that behaviour.

A number of other councillors did not agree. They were not of the view that the council’s reputation has suffered. They also did not want to make any comment on the behaviour of the mayor. Councillor Michael Megna put up an amendment that effectively just referred the matter to the Minister for Local Government; that Council write to the Minister to expedite a response. That amendment was successful, replacing the original motion. The public gallery got a bit noisy at that point; I didn’t agree with that amendment either. Yes the Minister is responsible for making the decision to dismiss the Mayor, but Council has copped out on its own leadership role.

The Minister has suspended Angelo Tsirekas, who has denied the finding of corruption. Currently, according to the ABC article, the mayor has been granted additional time and will appeal to the NSW Supreme Court for a review of ICAC’s findings.

It would be great to get this overall matter resolved quickly.