There were cheers and applause in the public gallery as Georges River Council approved the final version of its Foreshore Scenic Protection Area planning proposal.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

Georges River Council will submit its Biodiversity, Character and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA) Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning.

But a single councillor stood against popular opinion.

Independent Councillor Ben Wang told the June 22 council meeting that the controls extend too far inland and will have devastating impacts on housing supply and environmental protection.

Before the council was a recommendation to endorse the final version of the Georges River Biodiversity, Character and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA) Planning Proposal and an amendment to the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 (GRDCP).

The Planning Proposal increases the subdivision lot size from 450sqm to 700sqm, and increases dual occupancy lot size from 650sqm to 1,000sqm.

It increases the minimum landscaped area requirement for dwelling houses and dual occupancies by five per cent to 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential located within the existing FSPA.

And it introduces a minimum 20 per cent landscaped area requirement for multi dwelling housing, terraces and manor houses across the Local Government Area (LGA) in response to the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Policy.

The Planning Proposal and the supporting amendment to the Georges River Development Control Plan were placed on public exhibition from 23 February to 30 March 2026

The council received two submissions from public authorities and 183 community submissions, the majority of which (59 per cent) supported the full suite of proposed changes.

The Planning Proposal came with a recommendation to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) for finalisation.

It was supported by all councillors except Cr Wang who spoke against its endorsement arguing that the plan would simultaneously stifle housing supply, damage the environment and create two tiers of development standards in the LGA.

"By enforcing 1,000 square metre minimums, the proposal effectively turns affluent foreshore suburbs into 'gated enclaves'. This forces the state-mandated target of 11,000 new dwellings into already densely populated 'Tier 2' suburbs like Hurstville and Kogarah," Cr Wang said.

Although marketed as an environmental safeguard, the plan will exacerbate urban sprawl by pushing housing demand to the outer fringes, he said.

"By insulating affluent areas from growth, the council displaces density into suburbs

like Hurstville, which already lacks sufficient green public space," Cr Wang said.

"Back in 2020 our own Strategic Plan had formally endorsed the draft Local Environmental Plan which allows dual occupancies up to 650-sqm. That was approved by the state.

"However, we received community feedback in 2021 and conducted a biodiversity study because of the community pushback," he said.

"The study only consulted 56 residents out of a population of 11,000 or 0.5 per cent of the population. This survey should be declared invalid.

"Between 2021 and 2026 the housing crisis has become an emergency both nationally and locally. To solve this problem the federal and state governments introduced measures including the state's LMR housing policy to allow low and medium density developments around transport centres like Oatley Station.

"Instead of supporting this plan to allow more housing supply, the council's proposal tightens up the planning potential by extending the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area inland beyond the ridge of the hill over properties that have absolutely zero water views.

"Instead of supporting the LMR, the council's plan enlarged the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area without a legal basis.

"This applies to one- third of the LGA. It increases Floor Space Ratio and landscape requirements. This is totally unreasonable.

"This impacts a third of our LGA. And what happens to the rest? This is not mentioned in the plan. This LGA is mandated by the state government for 11,00 houses. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the plan is actually detrimental to the environment because it does not use the latest technology to preserve the environment," he said.

Despite Cr Wangs objections, the council endorsed the Planning Proposal, unamended to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) for finalisation.