Sydney Councils Are Failing to Meet Housing Targets
Building approvals data for the first year of the Housing Accord shows Sydney councils are failing to meet their housing targets.
The worst performers are Lane Cove, North Sydney and Woollahra. Shortfalls are worse in wealthy inner suburban areas than in the west.
Sydney YIMBY calls on the State government to enforce its targets.
Data on building approvals by local government area, released by the ABS today, covers the first 12 months of housing targets under the National Housing Accord.
This map shows building approvals as a percentage of housing targets for 33 local councils in the Greater Sydney area. The table below gives more detail.
Building Approvals as Percentage of local council housing targets
Greater Sydney 2024/25
The worst recent performer has been Lane Cove Council, which is meant to be building 680 homes a year. Instead, only 131 homes, or 19% of the target, were approved for construction. Second worst was North Sydney, where only 284 were approved, 24% of the target. Third worst was Woollahra, where 109 were approved, 29% of the target. As the map shows, shortfalls are worse in wealthy inner suburban areas than in the west.
The building approvals measured by the ABS differ from the Development Applications (DAs) which UDIA recently reported on. Building approvals are typically obtained immediately before construction. They lag DAs by a few quarters but provide a more accurate measure of actual building activity.
The underperformance of Lane Cove and Woollahra is slightly mitigated given they over-achieved (relative to pathetically low targets) in previous years. However, North Sydney has persistently failed. Over the preceding three years, it approved only 27% of the target set by the Greater Sydney Commission. North Sydney is also identified by UDIA as being among the worst councils in determining DAs.
Councils need to be told they are on notice and that persistent failure to achieve targets will result in remedial action. An initial remedy might be for local and regional planning panels to take under-performance into account in considering rezoning and development applications. If that isn’t enough, then automatic upzoning and/or non-refusal standards should follow.
The Minister for Planning, Paul Scully should write to the laggard councils asking them to explain how they plan to rectify their low approval rates and explaining that remedial action will be taken in the absence of a satisfactory response.
The State opposition has called for ambitious targets backed by strict sanctions. It needs to specify what those sanctions will be. In the absence of detailed information to the contrary, opposition policy is difficult to distinguish from the ineffective policies of the Stokes-Perrottet government, which delivered feeble supply and deteriorating affordability.
DPHI actively monitors approval times and other measures where high-frequency data is important. League tables are reported here. Georges River is the worst in Sydney, followed by Willoughby. Minister Paul Scully has told six councils to improve performance. This is very good. However, the main objective is housing supply. It is the level – rather than the speed – of approvals that determines affordability. Building Approvals, completions, SSDs, DAs and Complying Development Certifications need to be added to the league tables. The public should be informed of how the government’s most important policy is going.
In the longer run, targets need to be substantially increased for over-priced inner and eastern suburbs. But we should start by monitoring and enforcing the targets we have.
Building Approvals and Local Council Housing Targets,
Greater Sydney, 2024/25
|
Council |
Annual target |
Approvals |
ratio to target |
Rank |
|
Lane Cove |
680 |
131 |
19% |
33 |
|
North Sydney |
1,180 |
284 |
24% |
32 |
|
Woollahra |
380 |
109 |
29% |
31 |
|
Waverley |
480 |
149 |
31% |
30 |
|
Randwick |
800 |
251 |
31% |
29 |
|
Strathfield |
700 |
221 |
32% |
28 |
|
Willoughby |
680 |
224 |
33% |
27 |
|
Ku-ring-gai |
1,520 |
526 |
35% |
26 |
|
Northern Beaches |
1,180 |
415 |
35% |
25 |
|
Hornsby |
1,100 |
392 |
36% |
24 |
|
Hunters Hill |
80 |
31 |
39% |
23 |
|
Sydney |
3,780 |
1,698 |
45% |
22 |
|
Inner West |
1,560 |
724 |
46% |
21 |
|
Mosman |
100 |
48 |
48% |
20 |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown |
2,900 |
1,418 |
49% |
19 |
|
Cumberland |
2,440 |
1,311 |
54% |
18 |
|
Georges River |
1,260 |
720 |
57% |
17 |
|
Campbelltown |
2,100 |
1,204 |
57% |
16 |
|
Blacktown |
4,280 |
2,488 |
58% |
15 |
|
Ryde |
2,320 |
1,392 |
60% |
14 |
|
Sutherland Shire |
1,200 |
745 |
62% |
13 |
|
Penrith |
1,680 |
1,068 |
64% |
12 |
|
Liverpool |
3,340 |
2,230 |
67% |
11 |
|
Wollondilly |
1,100 |
785 |
71% |
10 |
|
Fairfield |
1,180 |
868 |
74% |
9 |
|
Bayside |
2,020 |
1,527 |
76% |
8 |
|
The Hills Shire |
4,660 |
3,613 |
78% |
7 |
|
Camden |
2,040 |
1,605 |
79% |
6 |
|
Parramatta |
3,900 |
3,086 |
79% |
5 |
|
Blue Mountains |
120 |
115 |
96% |
4 |
|
Canada Bay |
1,000 |
1,167 |
117% |
3 |
|
Hawkesbury |
260 |
355 |
137% |
2 |
|
Burwood |
660 |
1,110 |
168% |
1 |
|
|
||||
|
Sydney Sum |
52,680 |
32,010 |
61% |
References:
NSW’s Housing targets: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-targets
ABS Building Approvals: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/building-approvals-australia/latest-release#data-downloads (local government data is available a week after the regular release. Select the NSW LGA data cube from the Small Area datacubes)
