Greater consultation with local communities, Councils, planners, infrastructure providers and industry stakeholders is essential, a Leader reader has said.

Dear Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Minns,

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

I write to you as a matter of urgency in relation to the housing crisis in Australia today.

The Senate Enquiry in March 2026 released two Reports, which explored intergenerational inequality, taxation and affordability in Australia. The discount on GST and negative gearing skewed the ownership of housing from owner occupiers and towards investors.

Time will tell what impact the May 12 2026 Budget changes will have on supply and demand in the housing market, and the affordability of housing for buyers. I also acknowledge the recent Reserve Bank interest rate increase, and the uncertain situation in the Middle East, which must also be factored into this situation.

With respect, the recent Federal Farrer by election highlighted the increasing concern of Australians with migration, and this was clearly reflected in the electoral result. Migration places a huge demand on current housing. I accept that regional towns need migrant labour, and that skilled migrant labour may be needed in other areas of the workforce. Migration must be reduced to a level which can equate to our housing stock.

Politics in this nation have shifted. And nowhere more astutely has this happened than in NSW.

Residents are now seeing on the ground what the Minns State Government Planning changes look like, and they do not like it at all.

Many residents are currently voicing their concerns on community Facebook sites and in local newspapers. They are angry that the infrastructure needed to sustain these increased developments is not considered in any of this planned increased density.

TOD (Transport Orientated Development) was introduced in May 2024, through the State Environment Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, to allow increased building heights and increased Floor Space Ratios near designated train stations and metro stations. Accelerated housing and density limits were permitted within 400 metres of 37 nominated transport hubs across Greater Sydney, the Illawarra, Hunter and Central Coast.

Many of these TODs have heritage properties located near these transport hubs. I, and many other people, are upset at the destruction of these properties. These properties have added character and history to our local streets for possibly over 100 years. These properties reflect the historical beginnings of many of our Sydney suburbs.

On February 28 2025, new planning controls were created in NSW to create more housing choice for people at different stages of life. Low rise development is considered one to two storeys, including dual occupancies, townhouses, terraces and low-rise apartment blocks. Mid-rise is considered three to six storey apartment blocks.

Let me continue. What we really are witnessing in Australia today appears to be a top-down response to the Federal Government's strong housing targets. The pressure has then flowed to the State Government , and then on to our local Councils. Councils are expected to show that they have developed Master Plans to demonstrate that they are meeting housing targets.

Councils across Sydney have been rapidly producing Master Plans, and rezoning proposals, to meet the big elephant in the room, "housing supply". We are told that we must increase supply. And at what cost is this to the urban environment?

I have made it clear that I will not vote for a Government who, through their Planning policies, have destroyed our urban environment.

Bayside Council, Sydney, has recently launched a Master Plan for the Town Centre. It is nothing other than overreach on density, and the Brighton Plan is highly questionable as to whose needs it is really addressing.

I was the last member to speak at the meeting of ATC members at Randwick Racecourse on May 27 2025. This meeting was held to finalise the vote on the sale of Rosehill Racecourse. As a member of the Australian Turf Club for almost 40 years, I addressed the meeting and said that "the ATC is not doing the bidding of the State Government for high rise at Rosehill Racecourse". A majority of ATC members turfed out the proposed plan for Rosehill Racecourse.

Planning in NSW is currently being done "for the community rather than with the community". The response to this co ld initially be felt through the ballot box at the State election on March 13 2027 and then into Council elections in 2028 and the next Federal election in 2028.

Government to date, has not clearly defined the term "affordability". We are increasingly told that increasing supply will improve affordability. Will it? Many of those properties to be built will not be affordable to everyday Australians. Are we strongly addressing prefabricated housing, tiny homes, and more public housing?

Construction costs have increased substantially, and feasibility margins for developers have tightened. Developers will only build projects that are financially viable. Again, many new apartments entering the market will be well beyond the reach of the average first home buyer.

Is the current approach in Australia solving the housing crisis in this country? Or are we simply reshaping Sydney, as an example, at an unprecedented speed without long term planning, and valuable community input? I think the community would agree that the latter is true.

Housing supply matters, but so does thoughtful and constructive urban planning, heritage, infrastructure, open space, amenity and liveability. Importantly, the current housing crisis in Australia cannot continue to be addressed solely through a top down approach. Perhaps the establishment of an Intergovernmental Housing Delivery Taskforce across Federal, State and Local Government would be beneficial .This task group will focus not only on policy, but also on ensuring that housing, infrastructure and community planning initiatives are properly coordinated and seen through to implementation.

Greater consultation with local communities, Councils, planners, infrastructure providers and industry stakeholders is essential to ensure that future housing outcomes in Australia are achievable, sustainable and liveable for everyday Australians.

Growth should never come at the expense of the very qualities that make our suburbs desirable places to live in, in the first place. I am afraid that the current NSW State Government fails to properly comprehend this balance.

Possible solutions for Beverly Hills

I refer to David Fletcher's letter to the Editor in the 29th April, 2026 edition of The Leader titled 'Palms are part of our Heritage".

Everyone agrees that the palms of Beverly Hills are a magnificent feature of the shopping centre and the loss of the diseased trees should be replaced as soon as possible.

David Fletcher however, has also criticised Georges River Council's lack of progress on the revitalisation of Beverly Hills and the prioritising by Council on other local centres over Beverly Hills.

Beverly Hills has major hurdles to overcome in any revitalization of the centre namely;

. The T8 railway line and the Beverly Hills Railway Station dividing the north and south areas of the shopping centre.

. The six lane King Georges Road dividing the east and west sides of the centre with large trucks rumbling along 24hours 7 days a week only 2 metres from shop entrances.

. Only one signalised pedestrian crossing near the old cinema site connecting east and west sides of the centre, which takes forever to turn green.

. The loss of the 100 free vehicle parking area previously in Edgbaston Road for shoppers.

. An ugly open stormwater channel system near the old cinema site that also floods.

One common theme is that all these assets are owned by the NSW State Govt.

I cannot recall David Fletcher or his group giving any practical solutions to help revitalise Beverly Hills except to advocate for high rise buildings.

To assist David Fletcher, I have some suggestions he may wish to take to the local member the Hon. Chris Minns to assist Council in revamping Beverly Hills.

. To assist connectivity between the north and south shopping areas, the NSW State Govt fund and construct a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway station similar to the pedestrian bridge constructed by the previous NSW State Govt over Oatley Railway Station.

. Without compromising pedestrian safety, improve aesthetically the existing pedestrian entry to the Station.

. Lobby the NSW State Govt to remove all large trucks off King Georges Road through the shopping centre similar to the prohibition of trucks on Pennant Hills Road.

. Remove the pedestrian crossing near the old cinema site and fund and construct a high-level pedestrian bridge in similar location which would improve pedestrian safety, connectivity and tra^ic flow.

. Lobby the NSW State Govt to allow shoppers to park at the commuter carpark in Edgbaston Road for a minimum 3 hours/day free of charge, at present this commuter carpark is operating at approx. 10% capacity.

. Lobby the NSW State Govt to liaise with Georges River Council to implement an innovative plan to improve the appearance of the open stormwater channel that is situated close to the old cinema site.

. Lobby the NSW State Govt to quickly repair the damaged masonry garden beds on King Georges Road so Council can replant more palms.

Should the NSW State Govt pledge to allocate funds to carry out the above works and remove trucks off this section of King Georges Road, I am sure this would be the catalyst to enhance

Beverley Hills into a vibrant shopping precinct that would become a destination of choice for residents and visitors alike and would allow GRC to plant more palms and fully implement the Beverly Hills Masterplan.

Rate rises and the Code of Meeting Practice

Over the last few editions of the Leader there have been astounding remarks by Clrs Jamieson and Landsbury.

We have been Georges River Council for 10 painful years. I note the council has approved a 4.5% rate increase in a time of great financial difficulty for us all but the good councillors forgot or were not told that the Valuer General has increased the unimproved land value of I understood why he did the changes. Both Labor and Liberal -National governments have played with local government since the 1990s.

Minister Honnig requires councillors to attend council meetings for which they were elected. If they are sick or have a valid lawful reason they are allowed to Zoom in. Councillors receive an allowance to fund them being present.

In the old days ratepayers were briefed with the councillors on many topics. Committees were briefed on issues with ratepayers present. Councillors often asked questions and Council met on the same night as Committees. Mr Honnig had feedback that council staff were manipulating councillors' thoughts in closed councillor briefings and so they were to be open to the public like council and committees. There have in the past been occasions when this seemed true even in open Council. He also decided General Managers were not allowed to be involved in the political process of the Council, which has been experienced in the past.

Public forums on a different night is to stop ratepayers manipulating councillor thoughts and with a break the councillors could make a balanced decision.

Hurstville Council had an imaginative, ratepayer friendly staff who kept a very thoughtful consideration of how far the ratepayers could be pushed. Kogarah Council was a different kettle of fish who in later years closed Committees to ratepayers and made decisions which would not have gone well in Hurstville.

With imagination the Code of Meeting Practice would work in Georges River Council.