28/08/2026
"I have previously spoken about a development in ### where an applicant which already had approval for 330 units asked for a rezoning to increase its allocation to 556 units and, at the flick of a pen, made an estimated $60 million profit—all thanks to the New South Wales Government. This development is 150 metres from ###. In return for this largesse, the developer returned $1 million in a voluntary planning agreement and gave $100,000 to the local school. What good is that going to do, given the gigantic negative externalities everyone else has to suffer as a result of the development?"
I guess when the developer dollars are headed your way, you change your tune... just ask the Inner West Council which voted against matching the City of Sydney's 20% affordable housing levy on developers gaining valuable additional "airspace" in the skies above our suburbs for a measly 10%, following the developers' own recommendation that guards their profits at the expense of people needing affordable housing
For all the YIMBYs out there.
Guess which MP made this speech to the NSW Parliament?
It includes phrases like “thousands of development applications littering Sydney like a pockmarked face that is undermining community support for planning, urban design and immigration”
Names and places have been redacted to protect the innocent. Please read to the end, it's worth it.
"Over the winter recess I have witnessed an unprecedented revolt against the planning policies of this Government. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "planning" as the control of urban development by a government authority. In Sydney today nothing could be further from the truth. There is virtually no control on the pace, nature, design or location of the buildings we are subjecting our citizens to. We are instead being hit with an avalanche of many ugly, poorly built developments that are substantially detracting from the beauty of our city. The bottom line is that when it comes to planning in Sydney we are getting it badly wrong.
Last week we saw a perverse situation where ### wrote an op-ed saying that we should have no more nimbys and instead have more yimbys, or "yes in my backyard". He was saying to Sydney that not only do we have to take these monstrosities but that we should be happy about it. In other words, "Shut up and take your medicine."
In my view, a nimby is someone who objects to the construction of a new pool or a second storey on a neighbour's property—in other words, a nuisance. But when the community objects to a twenty-storey tower being constructed in the heart of their suburb they are not being "difficult" or "petty" because they are right when they say it will change that community forever. It is this sentiment and the thousands of development applications littering Sydney like a pockmarked face that is undermining community support for planning, urban design and immigration.
I have previously spoken about a development in ### where an applicant which already had approval for 330 units asked for a rezoning to increase its allocation to 556 units and, at the flick of a pen, made an estimated $60 million profit—all thanks to the New South Wales Government. This development is 150 metres from ###. In return for this largesse, the developer returned $1 million in a voluntary planning agreement and gave $100,000 to the local school. What good is that going to do, given the gigantic negative externalities everyone else has to suffer as a result of the development?
Last week I visited ### Public School, which is being faced with unprecedented high-rise around the school due to a massive increase in density. This school will be in permanent shadow. We hear all this rubbish about the success of the ###, but these panels are approving nearly everything that lands in front of them. The ### panels are worse. The skyline of my community does not look sleek, new or inviting, with ordered beautiful buildings; rather it is a hodgepodge of different sizes and shapes jammed into the block wherever and however they can fit—like a giant game of Tetris. The complete lack of uniformity and design principles mean that from a distance these buildings look like a face full of smashed teeth. There should be a verdict on ### because they are not working; they are simply too friendly to developers.
Variations are completely undermining community support for density. There are stories too numerous to mention of developers promising a park, a pool or some form of civic amenity to go along with their proposed plans, only to apply for a variation and scuttling those plans after the umpire has made his decision. The cynic in me believes that it is a time-tested process: launch the plan, throw in a park to shut the locals up, get approval for the high-rise and then kill the park later on. We need to end the practice of major developers who have already been granted generous construction terms coming back for more.
We also must make it clear that if Sydney is going to have this level of density it must be shared evenly across all areas. There should be a recognition that developers and those who have their land rezoned, delivering them a windfall gain, will have to dip into their share in order to fund and support infrastructure for those in the immediate area. Most importantly, they should provide new open spaces.
There is an opportunity for the Parliament, the Government and the Opposition, to pause this madness and instead imagine how beautiful, accommodating and pleasurable our city and suburbs could be. It will require policy changes on density, design, scale and community recreation areas, but it must be done or Sydney is done for. The planning Minister is in the process of ruining the Emerald City. The House does not have to take my word for it; listen to the Government's backflips on the Minister's own policies. Time is running out.
We owe it to future generations to build developments with infrastructure. We only get one shot at it."
