An incomplete collection of speeches, major media and other public presentations
by Sydney YIMBY members
Ku-ring-gai Council
Michael Clayden spoke at Ku-ring-gai Council Public Forum
Speech by Michael Clayden
To Ku-ring-gai Council Public Forum
13 February 2024
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to stand before you today. My address concerns the council’s current stance on GB.18, specifically regarding the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and the ‘Diverse and Well-located Homes’ State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). I stand before you to oppose the council’s response to these policies.
I am a university student and a 23-year-old who has been living in Ku-ring-Gai with my family since we moved to this area and Australia 17 years ago. With the housing crisis as it is, I struggle to see how I will ever be able to afford a home in the local area I grew up in.
At the heart of dense housing lies the principle of providing choice. This freedom is vital to building a vibrant, inclusive community where everyone can access suitable living options. Moreover, the importance of dense and diverse housing extends to affordability. Increasing the supply of homes in sought-after areas can make housing more accessible to more people.
The federal and state productivity commissions, reserve bank, multiple parliamentary inquiries and a large volume of academic research all agree that new supply, particularly in places like Ku-ring-gai, is critical to lowering rents and prices.
This brings me to an essential point regarding inclusivity in our planning processes. Consider the situation in Kuringgai, where the median house price is $3 million, and the median rent is approximately $915 per week. These figures are staggering, especially considering Ku-ring-gai does not offer amenities like those in the city. This discrepancy raises a crucial question: How can Kuringgai’s planning be considered inclusive when a significant portion of the population is priced out of the housing market?
Furthermore, it is time for the council to look beyond the outdated assumptions that have guided previous planning efforts. The future demands a new approach to planning that lessens our dependency on cars, enhances urban mobility, and promotes development that integrates seamlessly with our desire for a healthier, more accessible lifestyle. Not everyone can afford or even needs a car today, and the assumption that everyone will still require a vehicle to move around is a distorted and misguided approach to planning for the future. This is especially critical considering the Productivity Commission’s recent findings, emphasising the benefits of denser housing near infrastructure.
Given these considerations, I urge the council to reevaluate its stance on the TOD and the ‘Diverse and Well-located Homes’ SEPPs. Embracing a forward-thinking approach to housing and urban development offers us unprecedented opportunities to create an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient community.
Let us commit to a future that not only meets the immediate needs of our residents but also lays the groundwork for a thriving, equitable community for generations to come.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
State Planning Changes
Phill Balding at Wollongong Council
Phill Balding speaks in favour of State Planning Changes at Wollongong Council
I am Phill and I’ve started Greater Gong and Haven, we have about 20 folks now who will put in submissions supporting more housing in Development and Planning Applications, to counter local opposition. Our shortage is shown by a 1.5% rental vacancy rate, the 2nd worst in the state, the evidence is clear we need to build more homes to ease prices.
I support the states planning changes to push denser housing proximal to town centres and train stations, because more housing eases prices according to the research, and it is unacceptable for housing to be un-affordable in the Illawarra. I reject many of the council’s recommendations to submit objection to the state for these very modest, sensible and appropriate changes to our planning system, we should permit ordinary landowners here participate in a housing supply response. It is disingenuous to smothering our town and train with inappropriate low density zoning to block housing, wasting valuable proximal and expensive land, we must now finally deal with because of the housing crisis.
I reject the premise that planning restrictions are not the constraint on building more homes. We have a shortage of approvals, and with a consistent 70-80% completion rate we probably need to relax our planning rules to double our approvals to hit our targets. Read the reports from the productivity commission, RBA, think tanks like Grattan, Deloitte, Centre for independent studies that all regurgitate well established academic research - planning restrictions cause shortages where people want to live, people are pushed away to outbid others in neighbouring suburbs, pushing up prices for all. So any and all new housing eases prices, even expensive housing, as the new resident vacates their older home for someone less wealthy. Economists call this The Filtering Effect - The Filtering Effect is an important reason to permit more housing where people want to live.
The strong demand for apartments is clear. In the past 2 years we have seen rents rise from $380pw to $480 for 2 bed apartments. They sell for $800k when it costs nearly $500k to construct including GST and fees. It’s about $300k more than the marginal cost to produce them, or an enormous 60% gross profit margin on land they already own. Why aren’t the owners of the big houses next to Towradgi station building 8 apartments? They would make a huge profit. The answer is it is illegal due to planning restrictions. Their neighbours could build too, and so on until no one bothers anymore because the profit margin has shrunk too low. Competition works to reduce prices - this is how our market economies work if we permit it.
Theres no shortage of sky for apartments, just rights to build up. We continue to rudely force hard working Australian households pay unbelievable costs, lets foster a supply response to housing with the states changes. Many people I talk to prefer affordability over town character, those opposing an increase in density are nosy, and I strongly reject their poor values, they have 2100km of NSW coast to pick a dainty low-density town. This is a city. Let’s permit people live how they want to live, there’s nothing wrong with a harmless taller building, put people before character.
It is inappropriate that we surround our high amenity town centres and stations with low density R2 after about 50m, units should be permitted to a walkable distance of 800m of places people actually go, just as the state gov are trying to enforce. You chose to smother well-located places with R2. The planners at this council are out of touch with affordability - they happily accept that a Towradgi house next to the station, preserved in R2 zoning just sold for $1.4m or an unbelievable 18x local median household salary. Why would we preserve this unaffordable low density? Do you expect to be served coffee by millionaire local employees? We should have the TODs policy expanded to all stations.
Corrimal is appropriately on the TOD list, it has grown its population by 12% to 7,000 people since 2001. Yet 0-4 year old children have swung the other way, falling by 9% to 362. 5-9 year olds are 3% less too. Thats about 30 less young families less than 2001 (but it should have grown higher), and this dangerous trend will accelerate toward a demographic dystopia as we have seen 2 bed apartment prices rise 28% lately. 18-24 year olds have also fallen 5% in Corrimal - the high school had a handful of graduates last year, I’m told roughly 30 students. All the growth of the area has been for retirees at the exclusion of others.
The alternative is sprawl to 10 suburbs south adding traffic, isolating people from their own communities and families. Your own housing strategy acknowledges there will be a change in character for more density, yet it remains totally illegal in most of the Illawarra, all we see is duplex applications outside the CBD. The council notes the targeted North Wollongong station doesn’t have shops - so why have you chosen 2 large alcohol warehouses there instead of shops and apartments? Just as bad is Bellambi’s well-located Bunnings. The west side of North Gong is full of expensive detached houses, it is the perfect location for permitting apartment buildings there - preserving this is terrible policy. Put affordability before character.
I reject the premise that we are constrained by poor public transport options, it is our low population density that constrains our transport. I catch busses and trains around here from a nearby 4 storey apartment building and am car free, the train frequency will never improve for low density housing. TfNSW respond to demand, they have a huge $8.6b budget for capital works. So over the next 20 years as we accept 50k people we proportionally expect about $4b for us. And yet quadrupling our train services from Thirroul to Dapto would only cost maybe $200m for 6 or so trains if we add the population.
I ask kindly of the councilors here to not accept these recommendations and let the state get on with the job of permitting more much needed housing.
Councillors - you won’t lose your job by permitting medium density apartment buildings around town centres, just ignore the handful of angry emails from nosy people that don’t care about affordability. However, you will lose your job by infuriating young people that want to afford to live near work, train, and in their own communities.
Extra Supply Lowers Rents
Dominic Behrens writes in the Guardian
There’s a large body of research showing that building apartments in high-amenity locations is key to easing the housing crisis….
Op-ed by Dominic Behrens in the Guardian
23 January, 2024
Podcast: Erin Riley and Andrew Bragg
Erin Riley talks to Senator Andrew Bragg
Erin Riley talks about Sydney YIMBY with Senator Andrew Bragg on his podcast The Yarn
15 January 2024
Episode webpage, with audio and notes
345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield
Peter Tulip spoke at Ku-ring-gai Council public forum
Speech by Peter Tulip to Ku-ring-gai Council public forum
In support of the development at 345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield
6 June, 2024
This was written up in the Sydney Morning Herald
I’d like to support the proposed development at 345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield and to oppose the recommendation that the height and floor space ratio be reduced. I speak as a resident of Ku-ring-gai for the past 13 years and also as an economist who has published lots of research papers on housing affordability.
The Council papers say that “there is insufficient justification for the proposed bulk and scale”.
In my view, the justification of the scale of this proposal should be obvious to anyone who reads the newspapers. Sydney has a housing affordability crisis for which the solution is increased density. The expert consensus is clear. Buildings like this are essential to make housing more affordable.
The Council papers note that the proposal is taller than any other buildings in Ku-ring-gai. That’s a good thing. Ku-ring-gai has a 5-year target of 7,600 dwellings. Tall buildings at train stations are the best way to meet this target. The alternative is bulldozing more old buildings with big gardens, which the community doesn’t want.
I think it is frankly absurd to complain that the proposal is “excessive in comparison to the heights currently permitted in the Lindfield Local Centre”. Of course it is taller. It has to be. There is no way of meeting the housing target without increasing density.
This location is one of the best places to do that. It is an easy walk to the station and across the road from a supermarket, so traffic will be minimized. It adjoins a six-lane highway and train line, so has minimal effect on neighbours or on local character.
I ask the opponents of this proposal: If we don’t put extra dwellings here, where do we put them?
I acknowledge that I am in a minority. Most Ku-ring-gai residents seem to prefer uncompromising opposition to any new housing. That may feel good. But it will lead to worse outcomes. A big increase in density is coming and we need to offer constructive suggestions about the best place to put it.
YIMBY vs NIMBY debate
Melissa Neighbour, at Sydney Uni
Melissa Neighbour participated in this debate, organised by the Henry Halloran Trust
20 September, 2023
Macarthur Parade, Dulwich Hill
Justin Simon opposes Heritage listing at Inner West Council
Justin Simon addresses Inner West Council
Opposing a proposal to Heritage list California bungalows in Dulwich Hill
20 June, 2023