All about socially cohesive, connected and resilient communities, cities and places
The story shared by Karen Stiles below highlights the very real human impacts of planning and development regulation decisions. The loss of apartments in the inner city (blocks being redeveloped to deliver less and more luxurious apartments than pre-development) has been a challenge for councils for some time. And it is sadly to become more common. I live in this neighbourhood too, which is still one of the most dense areas in Australia, and has a lot of old low cost rental housing. The community is diverse from young to old, from low to high income, from loners, to families, to shared group households. My fear is that strong communities like this, already doing the "heavy lifting housing density" will become victims of planning policies that will allow them to be knocked down under the guise that an increased supply of affordable and social housing will be delivered. Stories like the one below tell us that this is unlikely without strong controls about what existing stock must be replaced with. ⭕ If we are in a housing crisis why do we still allow development that reduces housing numbers? ❌ If housing affordability is actually our crisis, why are we allowing development that results in a decline in the number of affordable homes that house vulnerable people in communities they are connected to? ⭕ If we can create regulations quickly that enable increased housing density around stations, why can't we regulate that the increase must deliver more public benefit - e.g. affordable housing, social housing, social assets. I propose: ✔ All development proposals must be accompanied by an SIA that considers the social impacts on existing tenants of apartments or homes. ✔ Where housing already exists, any development proposal must deliver an increase in the provision of homes, not a decline ✔ Where housing already exists, any development proposal must demonstrate that it will deliver a higher provision of affordable rental housing then is already there Otherwise, we are just enabling the gentrification of our neighourhoods, the further erosion of social cohesion, and real human costs, for no real social benefit. Cathy Sherry Dr Barbara Doran Paul Scully Rebecca Pinkstone Tim Sneesby Tim Williams Jen Guice Beck Dawson Matt Collins Pia van de Zandt Trina Jones Julia Miller-Randle https://lnkd.in/dab72pVH
We lost one of our neighbours the other day. He climbed over the balcony railing and threw himself from the top floor of his apartment building onto the ground below. He’d been in that unit for 23 years and was a regular sight to all of us living in the little cluster of towers in Sydney’s Kings Cross, as he sat on a chair on his open balcony, watching the world go by. But last week, the world no longer passed by; it stopped right at his door. His nine-level building of 35 cheap rented studios, he learnt, is about to be torn down and redeveloped into a flashy new one of just 12 luxury three-bedroom apartments. He was set to be evicted, and homeless. https://lnkd.in/eCZ9dPKN Thank you Sue Williams for this important social commentary. Cathy Sherry Philip Thalis Elizabeth Farrelly Paul Scully Alex Greenwich MP
Maggie W.
7mo
I so agree. It should be a given, that more dwellings, and not fewer are a condition of submitting a DA for review. If this condition is not met, no resources are allocated to reviewing and deliberating the details. There are currently 2 adjacent DAs in Liverpool Street near corner of Darley Street. Both propose to replace studios and boarding house style accommodation with a handful of luxury apartments.
Ian Hay
7mo
Sarah Reilly (She/her) (PIAFellow) this does have a lot to do with the internal processes within council for both a) levying the contribution where it results in a loss (as in this instance), & b) and communicating that to developers so they are aware they must build that cost into the development feasibilities (and act as a disincentive to that sort of development). I'm not suggesting that a contribution is anywhere near enough to cover the housing loss, much less the social and wellbeing impact on vulnerable groups of the loss of low income housing. But in the current legislative environment, that's the first step. I think there is merit in having a set of standard mitigations for loss of low income housing, whether there is an SIA to accompany this or not. For example, under international standards you need to demonstrate that you 'improve or at least restore' the living standards of project affected people. That's a precedent that could be contemplated. I think there is value in requesting a review of council processes in assessing and mitigating loss of low cost housing, to come up with a higher bar, more consistent processes, clearer guidance on evidence/documentation requirements and hopefully industry agreed mitigations.
In my opinion, housing crisis is a political toy passing from a politician hand to another for attracting votes! There are heaps of research and studies to tackle the issue but there is not guts to implement that! There are talkings than actions.
Garry O'Dell
7mo
Regulatory requirements are a starting point but are only as good as the skills of the assessor and organisational values. My research finds that the organisational context and the values of the development assessor have a significant contribution to decision-making.
Dr Barbara Doran
7mo
Very sad. I will keep this article on hand for any relevant contexts - and there are some coming up
Really important message Sarah, hear hear
Professor, Macquarie Law School and strata consultant. Author, 'Strata Title Property Rights: Private governance of multi-owned properties' (Routledge, 2017)
7moSarah Reilly (She/her) (PIAFellow) do you know what happened to SEPP 10? This is from an article I wrote in 2010 "Strata Termination in New South Wales" (2010) Aust Prop Law Journal 227. I am cutting and pasting because it is a long time since I did the research, but there was a SEPP that addressed this problem.