Council Submits Views to NSW Government Regional Housing Taskforce

Published on 31 August 2021

Coffs Harbour City Council has made a clear submission to the NSW Government Regional Housing Taskforce to assist in their work to identify technical barriers and challenges in the NSW planning system that are preventing the delivery of housing supply in regional NSW.

Council’s Section Leader Local Planning Sharon Smith said this process provides an excellent platform to put forward ideas and solutions around regional housing.

“Most importantly Council contends that there are many matters that influence the delivery of housing in the regions, including property economics, federal tax policies, development feasibilities, market conditions and economic incentives.  Planning is just one part of an incredibly complex issue.”

Council considers that there are a number of matters that the NSW Government can undertake to address the issues being explored by the Taskforce.

1. Assist delivery of diverse forms of housing.  Limited housing diversity is an issue across NSW and many people cannot access housing of an appropriate size and type to meet their needs. The North Coast Regional Plan and Council’s adopted Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) both seek to address the current lack of housing diversity in Coffs Harbour LGA by including objectives and strategies to achieve a greater proportion of smaller dwellings and a wider variety of dwelling forms. Council would welcome recommendations made by the Taskforce that explicitly target the delivery of a diverse suite of housing types and sizes, and specifically directed at the difference between infill and greenfield development.

2. Support councils to expedite local strategic planning and statutory amendments. Zoning new land for development, or carrying out local planning exercises to facilitate increased infill development, requires significant council resources. Currently, Council’s ability to deliver actions contained in the Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy 2040 are constrained by budget and staff resources. Many councils in NSW would be in similar situations. Council recommends the NSW Government provide support to councils to carry out strategic planning actions outlined in adopted growth management plans to put in place increased opportunities for residential development.

3. Provide financial assistance to Councils.  This is particularly important to councils who are being impacted by the ‘flee change’ to the regions as a result of COVID-19. It would assist to ensure that appropriate strategic planning can be put in place to support medium to high density housing in infill areas (i.e. funding to carry out development feasibility analysis and place plans for Park Beach and Jetty infill areas).

4. Assist with timely infrastructure delivery. Review and provide mechanisms to levy contributions toward critical enabling infrastructure, including public realm outcomes, including connectivity and for creating great places. This is particularly important to support liveability in infill or medium density locations.

5. Draft Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). Council notes that the introduction of the Housing SEPP will provide additional opportunities for development of more diverse residential accommodation in regional areas. It is requested that sufficient design guidance be provided for housing typologies proposed under the draft Housing SEPP, for both the development industry and consent authorities. Council generally supports the recommendations contained within the draft SEPP in relation to controls for development of boarding houses, development of residential flat buildings undertaken by social housing providers, public authorities or joint ventures, development of dwelling house and secondary dwelling being undertaken at the same time that can be approved as complying development and the creation of ‘co-living housing’ and ‘independent living units’ as new types of ‘residential accommodation’ with permissibilities in medium density residential zones.

6. Investigate general incentives for developers.  Developers could be incentivised to provide additional density within identified areas which are already zoned and permissible for higher density. There are significant social advantages to locating social and affordable housing close to services, shops and ‘everyday’ types facilities, so that they are able to be accessed by walking or cycling to reduce the need for a car. Higher density areas also give rise to incidental socialisation and opportunities for people to interact, so those on their own can have some sort of human contact daily. An effective way to get developers interested in constructing in regional areas is to provide them with monetary incentives to do so.

7. Investigate regional incentives for developers. Government could provide incentives for developers to encourage investment in regional areas, for example, a development in Sydney could be allowed to add additional levels above the height limit but must then invest in development in designated regional cities or activation precincts and provide a certain proportion to social housing.

8. Refer to overseas experience. Overseas examples can always provide useful information and alternative models should be looked at – such as social housing projects in Denmark – where any significant large scale development that is to be undertaken always has to contribute a certain percentage to social housing. This allows for mixed dwelling types to be constructed within the one area/development, which also enables aging in place. Large apartment blocks sit alongside low rise apartments, town house villa style housing and also single dwellings and the social housing within these developments are dispersed so there is not a concentrated area of social housing, creating a more diverse environment. These developments also always invest heavily in their open spaces and public realm as numerous studies have revealed that the higher quality the outdoor environment the lower the crime rate.

9. Provide information and education to reduce stigma. There seems to significant stigma associated with the provision of affordable and/or social housing stock, particularly the NIMBY effect. This NIMBY community pressure is becoming increasingly apparent in regional cities, particularly on development applications that are determined by the elected Council. This would appear to be a significant barrier to the provision of land stocks. The NSW Government could assist to address the need for new thinking and community education to address issues such as NIMBYism, as well as encouraging the uptake of innovative housing models and finance options.