BYRON SHIRE HOUSING NEEDS REPORT€¦ · Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014; Byron Development...
Transcript of BYRON SHIRE HOUSING NEEDS REPORT€¦ · Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014; Byron Development...
BYRON SHIRE HOUSING
NEEDS REPORT
December 2015
Page i | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Prepared by:
Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Level 1, 356 St Pauls Terrace, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
PO Box 205, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
T: (07) 3852 1822
F: (07) 3852 1750
© Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants 2015
This document remains the property of Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants and has been prepared for the sole
use of its intended recipient. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Disclaimer:
Maps produced by Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants are included for informational purposes only and may not
have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. The map layers displayed are
compiled from various sources. Therefore, Buckley Vann gives no warranty in relation to the data displayed on maps
(including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation,
liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data.
Document Management
Author/s: Liza Valks, Jessica Binch, Brenton Doyle
Reviewer/s: Liza Valks, 30 September, 9 December 2015
Date: 10 December 2015
Job Number: 15-5183
Job Name: Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
File Location: J:\15\15-5183 Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Version History
Version Version Date Approved By Details
A 25 Aug 2015 Liza Valks Issues section - Draft
B 16 Sept 2015 Liza Valks Issues section - Final (responding to Council
comments)
C 30 Sept 2015 Liza Valks Recommendations section – Draft
D 13 Nov 2015 Liza Valks Final Draft (responding to Council comments)
E 27 Nov 2015
10 Dec 2015 Liza Valks
Final (responding to Council comments and
workshop outcomes)
Page ii | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW .............................................................................. 2
2.1 Regional and Local Regulatory Framework ........................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Constraints and Considerations .................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Expected Location and Type of Housing ...................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Planning and Development Controls ............................................................................ 5
2.1.4 Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 .......................................................................... 6
2.1.5 Byron Development Control Plan 2014 ........................................................................ 8
2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Population ................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Population and Dwelling Projections........................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Age Structure .............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.4 Socio-economic Disadvantage ................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Household Types ........................................................................................................ 14
2.3 Housing Market .................................................................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Dwelling Structure and Size ........................................................................................ 14
2.3.2 Dwelling Tenure .......................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Housing Market ........................................................................................................... 16
2.3.4 Affordability ................................................................................................................. 17
2.3.5 Development Trends ................................................................................................... 18
2.3.6 Tourist accommodation ............................................................................................... 19
3. CONSULTATION .................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Summary of research findings ........................................................................................... 23
4. SUMMARY OF ISSUES .......................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Summary of Issues ............................................................................................................ 32
4.2 Implications for housing diversity ....................................................................................... 35
5. CASE STUDIES ...................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Economic Development Queensland ................................................................................ 37
5.1.1 Purpose and Role ....................................................................................................... 37
5.1.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................ 38
5.1.3 Declared Priority Development Areas and Use of Development Guidelines .............. 39
5.1.4 Priority Development Infrastructure Co-Investment Program ..................................... 41
5.1.5 Key Considerations for Byron Shire Council ............................................................... 42
5.2 Thornton, UrbanGrowth NSW ............................................................................................ 44
5.2.1 Compact Housing Concept ......................................................................................... 44
5.2.2 About Thornton ........................................................................................................... 44
5.2.3 Housing Typologies..................................................................................................... 44
5.2.4 Design Concepts ......................................................................................................... 47
Page iii | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
5.2.5 Key Considerations for Byron Shire Council ............................................................... 48
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 65
ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 66
Attachment A: Literature Review Notes ................................................................................... 66
Attachment B: Consultation Records ....................................................................................... 67
Attachment C: Pilot Group Workshop Notes ........................................................................... 68
Attachment D: Dwelling Mix Projections .................................................................................. 69
List of Tables
Table 1. Population, Byron Shire, 2006-2014 ............................................................................. 12
Table 2. Population and Dwelling Projections, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011-2031 ............. 12
Table 3. Age group projections, Byron Shire, 2011-2031 ........................................................... 13
Table 4. Income, Byron Shire and Surrounding Shires, 2011 ..................................................... 14
Table 5. Household structure, Byron Shire and NSW, 2011 ....................................................... 14
Table 6. Dwelling structure, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011 .................................................... 15
Table 7. Dwelling size, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011 ........................................................... 15
Table 8. Dwelling tenure, Localities and Byron Shire, 2011 ....................................................... 16
Table 9. Median monthly mortgage repayment and weekly rent, Locality and Byron Shire, 2011
..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 10. Median sale price and sales, Locality and Byron Shire, July 2008 to October 2014 .. 17
Table 11. Mortgage and rental stress, Byron Shire, 2011 .......................................................... 18
Table 12. Approval data, Byron Shire, 2007-2014 ...................................................................... 19
Table 13. Area of land and expected dwelling yield for land zoned for residential purposes and
not yet developed, 2015 .............................................................................................................. 19
Table 14. Holiday letting, Localities in Byron Shire, 2015 ........................................................... 20
Table 15. Occupied and unoccupied private dwellings, Localities and Byron Shire, 2011 ......... 20
Table 16. Aged care provisions, Far North Coast aged care planning region, 2014 .................. 21
Table 17. Population projections, Older people, Byron Shire, 2011-2031 .................................. 22
Table 18. Proposed Minimum dimensions for future residential development (subdivisions) and
density targets ............................................................................................................................. 60
Table 19. Minimum Setback and Building Length Requirements ............................................... 62
List of Figures
Figure 1. Typical Lot Arrangement .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 2. Case Study of 30 Dwellings per Hectare ..................................................................... 41
Figure 3. Typical Courtyard Home .............................................................................................. 45
Figure 4. Typical Courtyard Home Floor Plans ........................................................................... 46
Figure 5. Dwelling Typologies for Thornton ................................................................................ 47
Figure 6. Density Case Study – 15 dwellings/hectare................................................................. 63
Figure 7. Density Case Study – 20 dwellings/hectare................................................................ 64
Page 1 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
1. INTRODUCTION
Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants was engaged by Byron Shire Council to prepare an
urban housing study related to community needs and housing diversity.
Byron Shire Council is developing an Urban Residential Land Strategy to set a clear vision and
policy framework for the shire’s urban residential lands. In order to inform the strategy, this
housing needs report will identify housing need, supply and market issues.
The report is structured in the following way:
Chapters 2-4 summarise issues identified as part of a background literature review and
consultation with key stakeholder groups in the local area;
Chapter 5 includes a summary of learnings from two case study analyses; and
Chapter 6 provides recommendations and strategies to address the issues identified.
Page 2 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
2.1 Regional and Local Regulatory Framework
A review of key literature, including regulatory documents and relevant discussion papers, was
undertaken to inform this study. The documents reviewed are listed below, with findings
summarised under key issue headings:
Affordable Housing Options Paper: Part A (2009);
Byron Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2022 (2012);
Far North Coast Regional Strategy 2006-2031 (2006);
Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003 (2003);
Mullumbimby Settlement Strategy 2003 (2003);
Brunswick Heads Settlement Strategy 2004 (2004);
Byron Bay and Suffolk Park Settlement Strategy 2002 (2002);
Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014;
Byron Development Control Plan 2014; and
Preliminary Urban Residential Needs Discussion Paper (2015) – prepared as an internal
staff reference document.
2.1.1 Constraints and Considerations
Common contextual factors to be considered when identifying opportunities to diversify housing
products, relate to location, existing character and amenity, and availability of services and
facilities. Further items for consideration, which may also be constraints to diversifying housing
products, have been identified below:
Valuable natural and economic features
The value of tourism to the local economy and the protection of supporting infrastructure
from inappropriate or incompatible residential development;
The importance of agriculture to the local economy and the protection of key lands;
Location and preservation of natural assets;
Avoiding natural hazard prone land or mitigating impacts;
Protection of natural resources;
Maintenance of the coastline and coastal processes;
Character, community and demographics
Housing affordability;
Achieving a sustainable population that is consistent with local values and enhances a
sense of community (and including a small footprint, defined urban boundaries and
location of residential development in close proximity to services and facilities);
Responding to changing demographics, including an ageing population and decreasing
household occupancy rates;
Reflection of the urban character of the associated settlement;
Providing a range of lifestyle opportunities.
Page 3 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Infrastructure
Capacity of existing infrastructure;
Minimising over-development of subdivisions in rural areas;
Providing a framework for the planning of new infrastructure and facilities;
Ensuring a sustainable land use pattern.
2.1.2 Expected Location and Type of Housing
The Far North Coast Regional Strategy seeks to reduce the release of new land for housing in
coastal areas, by limiting future development to within the mapped growth boundaries and
encouraging the growth of non-coastal centres. This will contribute to a greater distribution of
the population across the region and protect the coastline from excessive population pressure
on infrastructure, sensitive environments and farmland. Mullumbimby and Byron Bay are
identified to support major regional centres and provide a focus for future urban development.
The majority of future housing stock will be located in urban areas (within the growth boundaries
identified for each town) with new housing supply expected to be provided in the following three
ways:
1. Existing vacant zoned land;
2. Urban consolidation;
3. Rezoning of greenfield and brownfield sites.
Overall, a range of lifestyle opportunities is desired for the Shire, through providing a variety of
lot sizes, housing density and types, to meet the requirements and needs of the range of
existing and future residents. In general, higher density living is encouraged around town
centres and major areas of employment and the densification of these urban areas needs to
ensure that product diversity is available to residents. Dwellings also need to be well located in
proximity to services (public and active transport) and facilities, and existing urban character
needs to be preserved through well designed buildings and landscaping. Consideration should
be given to essential workers and providing realistic accommodation choices in proximity to
work places.
Housing types also need to respond to changing demographics, primarily the decrease in
household size and ageing population. It is also predicted that 80% of the increase in housing
demand will be one and two person households and this might mean a greater number of
dwellings are required to accommodate the existing population, as well as provision of new
dwellings for a growing population. There is an expectation that 60% of all future dwellings in
the region will be single dwellings and 40% will be multi-unit dwellings.
Council expects that future population growth will be distributed across six key focus areas (as
well as rural areas) as follows: 13% in rural areas, 43% in Byron Bay/Suffolk Park,13% in
Mullumbimby, 12.5% in Bangalow, 12% in Ocean Shores and 6.5% in Brunswick Heads. The
settlement strategies for each of the six key focus areas were prepared over ten years ago and,
as such, some of the expectations for future residential development outlined below may no
longer be relevant. In most areas, secondary dwellings, dual occupancies and shop top housing
in business areas are supported as ways of increasing density and providing a range of housing
products.
Page 4 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
It is estimated that 10% of residentially zoned land in Byron Shire is undeveloped. This is
expected to yield 1,800 to 2,000 additional dwellings over the next 10-20 years.
Byron Bay
Byron Bay has the largest amount of residential zoned land, 26%, out of the six urban areas. It
also has the largest greenfield development site, West Byron, comprising some 55.3 hectares
and recently rezoned in 2014 to provide a mix of low (44 ha) and medium (11 ha) density
residential development and a small neighbourhood centre (1ha). Development of West Byron
is predicted to provide some 800 to 1,100 dwellings over a 10-20 year period and will be guided
by a site-specific DCP that encourages a greater diversity of innovative housing to suit the
projected population.
Bayshore Village, a 1.88 hectare area zoned for mixed use development also has a potential
dwelling yield of 82 dwellings.
Suffolk Park
The future development of Suffolk Park is expected to be limited to infill redevelopments and
subdivisions. At current subdivision rates, available residential zoned land in Suffolk Park
(approximately 7 hectares or 30 lots) will be consumed within a couple years.
Mullumbimby
Future population growth in Mullumbimby is expected to be met by existing zoned land and
residential infill developments, such as dual occupancies and secondary dwellings. The existing
supply of zoned residential land (approximately 25 hectares) is expected to yield approximately
400-450 dwellings, which is likely to be consumed within ten years.
Brunswick Heads
It is expected that future residential development in Brunswick Heads will occur within existing
zoned land, including the redevelopment and upgrading of existing housing stock. There is
approximately 17 hectares of residential zoned land in Bayside Brunswick which has the
capacity for approximately 165 dwelling, which is likely to be consumed within ten years.
South Golden Beach and Ocean Shores
Residential development in Golden Beach and Open Shores is expected to comprise low-
medium density, in the form of detached dwellings, with some dual occupancies and multi
dwelling housing (i.e. townhouses). Infill development is ongoing, as is the development of new
residential lots in previously zoned areas. No new release areas are predicted for this locality.
The remaining section of the Polepic subdivision is expected to yield 75 dwellings.
Bangalow
Future residential growth is expected to occur by allowing secondary dwellings and dual
occupancy developments on suitably sized allotments within the town boundary. Approximately
200 dwellings are also expected to be created from the 16ha of recently zoned residential
areas.
Council’s past planning strategies and regulatory provisions are generally based on the urban
areas remaining as a predominantly low rise, single detached dwelling urban form, with
delineated character areas. However it is expected that new housing in the existing urban
areas will be largely delivered through urban consolidation around the major town centres in the
Page 5 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
form of dual occupancy, secondary dwellings, multi dwellings or redevelopment of particular
areas.
2.1.3 Planning and Development Controls
Housing Strategy Considerations
The Far North Coast Regional Strategy 2006-2031 requires local councils to prepare a Local
Growth Management Strategy (LGMS), including a land release staging program. The regional
strategy seeks an appropriate mix of housing to reflect the changing needs of the population,
including the aging population. Within Byron Shire it is expected an additional dwelling target of
2,600 dwellings by 2031 needs to be met. Council is currently preparing an Urban Residential
Strategy (focus of this report) and Rural Land Use Strategy to address these requirements.
A consistent overarching theme throughout the reviewed documents was the need to transition
town centres into denser urban environments. This should be encouraged through consultation
with the community and developers. It is generally supported that future residential
development should be limited to the Town and Village Growth Boundaries (with minor
adjustments possible) and that LEPs should not zone important environmental and rural
resource land for urban purposes. Development proposals for greenfield sites west of the
Coastal Area and outside of Town and Village Growth Boundaries would be subject to satisfying
the relevant sustainability criteria.
Preferred Development Area and Form
The consensus in reviewed literature is that the majority of future residential development
should be undertaken in urban areas, on existing zoned land and redevelopment of sites. New
dwellings should be designed to maximise adaptability to meet changing demographic needs
and provide a range of housing choices to suit different needs and different incomes. This
means that traditional houses on traditionally sized blocks should be provided, along with
smaller, lower maintenance dwellings, attached dwellings (i.e. units), multi dwelling housing (i.e.
townhouses) and seniors housing.
More specifically, the literature identifies that the planning framework should ensure that
dwellings are distributed and designed in the following way:
Limiting the growth of the urban area and allowing consolidation within the urban area
boundary to strengthen the viability of the town;
Limiting building height to two storeys, as three storeys or more is seen as inconsistent
with a town feel;
Subdivision patterns should maintain the character of the area;
Heritage character and values should be preserved and complemented by new
development;
Secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development should be permitted on suitably
sized allotments to provide a variety of housing and increase density;
Facilitate the establishment of affordable housing and aged housing;
Shop top housing in the commercial centre, where in the appropriate zone and where
associated with a business, service or particular land use;
Secondary dwellings should be limited to 60m2 and should not be used for tourism;
Lower density residential development should be located on the outskirts; and
Page 6 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
New caravan parks and manufactured home estates, where there is any potential for
permanent accommodation to occur, should be located generally in urban areas.
2.1.4 Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014
All councils in NSW use a LEP Standard Instrument or LEP Template. When preparing new
LEPs using the ‘template’, Council has the capacity to:
Decide which zones to use and where zones should be placed in accordance with State
government guidelines.
Add local objectives which provide greater explanation and detail to the standard zone
objectives.
Add additional permitted or prohibited land uses for each zone in the land use table. For
instance, a council may decide that neighbourhood shops and child care centres should
be allowed in low density residential zones, while others may decide that they should not
be allowed.
Require additional local controls to address local planning issues and to reflect the
outcomes of local and regional strategies. These often take the form of ‘model local
provisions’ which are standard clauses prepared by the Department of Planning and
Infrastructure for use by any council that wishes to include a clause on a certain issue
e.g. flooding.
Specify what will be permitted as ‘exempt and complying development’ for development
that is not specified in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying
Development Codes) 2008.
Insert local criteria or standards into some compulsory clauses.
Prepare maps that specify the lot sizes, building heights and floor space ratios (FSRs)
appropriate for their local area. This can include having different heights and FSRs in
different streets or suburbs.
Medium density zoning has only been recently introduced in the LEP 2014. Under the previous
LEP, the ability for a single residential zone to effectively regulate scale and density of
development was limited. This has resulted in residential flat buildings being located in areas
with predominantly single dwelling houses and higher density development being located in
areas that are not well serviced or located in suitable proximity to facilities.
Zoning and Permitted Land Uses
The five urban focus areas identified in 2.1.2 include a variety of zones under the Byron LEP
2014. Those of most relevance to this investigation are listed below:
R2 Low density residential;
R3 Medium density residential;
B1 Neighbourhood centre;
B2 Local centre; and
B4 Mixed use.
The following table identifies urban zones under LEP 2014 that facilitate residential
accommodation, together with the relevant zone objective and the permitted residential uses. All
other uses captured under the definition of ‘residential accommodation’ below are prohibited in
the respective zone.
Page 7 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
“Residential accommodation” is defined in the following way:
“residential accommodation means a building or place used predominantly as a place of residence, and includes any of the following:
(a) attached dwellings, (b) boarding houses, (c) dual occupancies, (d) dwelling houses, (e) group homes, (f) hostels, (g) multi dwelling housing, (h) residential flat buildings, (i) rural workers’ dwellings, (j) secondary dwellings, (k) semi-detached dwellings, (l) seniors housing, (m) shop top housing,
but does not include tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks.”
Zone Objective Residential Uses Permitted (with consent)
R2 Low Density
Residential
To provide for the housing needs
of the community within a low
density residential environment.
Attached dwellings; boarding houses; dual occupancies;
dwelling houses; groups homes; multi dwelling houses;
secondary dwelling; senior housing excluding residential
care facilities
R3 Medium
Density
Residential
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.
Attached dwellings; boarding houses; dual occupancies;
dwelling houses; groups homes; hostels; multi dwelling
houses; secondary dwelling; senior housing including
residential care facilities; shop top housing
B1
Neighbourhood
Centre
To provide a range of small-scale
retail, business and community
uses that serve the needs of
people who live or work in the
surrounding neighbourhood.
Boarding houses; hostels; shop top housing
B2 Local Centre To encourage vibrant centres by allowing residential and tourist and visitor accommodation above commercial premises.
Boarding houses; hostels; shop top housing
B4 Mixed Use To integrate suitable business,
office, residential, retail and other
development in accessible
locations so as to maximise
public transport patronage and
encourage walking and cycling.
Boarding houses; dual occupancies; dwelling houses;
group homes; multi dwelling housing; hostels; shop top
housing
Page 8 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Maximum Building Height and Minimum Lot Size
The LEP includes maps that identify maximum building height and minimum lot size for areas
throughout the Shire. Maximum building height is predominantly nine metres, with some limited
areas permitted up to 11.5 metres. Overall, minimum lot size is generally 600m2 in residential
areas, with some limited lots of 200m2 and 300m
2 in town centres within business zones.
Residential Lot Size Requirements
The LEP also includes a clause 4.1E that stipulates minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies,
multi dwelling houses and residential flat buildings in particular zones. Those that are relevant to
the residential zones have been identified in the table below.
Dwelling Type Zone Minimum Lot Size
Dual occupancy (attached) R3 Medium Density Residential 800m2
Dual occupancy (detached) R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential
800m2
Multi dwelling housing R2 Low Density Residential 1,000m2
Multi dwelling housing R3 Medium Density Residential 800m2
Residential flat building R3 Medium Density Residential 800m2
2.1.5 Byron Development Control Plan 2014
The Byron DCP 2014 contains various chapters and guidelines that apply to residential
development as well as particular localities within the Shire. Of most relevance is Chapter D1 -
Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purpose Zones. Chapter D1 of the
Byron DCP 2014 applies to the following types of residential development:
Attached dwellings;
Dual occupancies;
Dwelling houses;
Expanded houses;
Multi dwelling housing;
Residential flat buildings;
Secondary dwellings;
Semi-detached dwellings;
Shop top housing; and
Studios.
This chapter provides detailed criteria regarding building height planes, boundary setbacks,
screening, character and visual impact, fences, balconies, access, car parking, landscaping,
private open space, siting, design, character, noise mitigation, access, mobility and density
control.
In relation to shop top housing, Chapter D1 states that affordable shop top housing
accommodation is to be provided close to transport, employment and services. The dwelling
component of the shop top housing must also be consistent with the character of the area and
Page 9 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
provide a mix of dwelling sizes for various family and household types. A maximum density of
one dwelling per 150m2 of site area must also be applied, where no floor space ratio restrictions
are applicable. A minimum of 25% of the total floor space must be set aside for
commercial/retail purposes and all of the ground floor area fronting the street must be devoted
to these purposes.
A summary of the relevant locality-based DCP chapters has been included in Attachment A.
2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics
Council drafted a Preliminary Urban Residential Needs Discussion Paper in 2015 for internal
working purposes that detailed the socio-economic characteristics of the local area mostly
through analysis of Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, as well as some analysis of the
housing market using Council building records and research for the NSW Department of
Planning by MacroPlan Australia.
The paper summarised its main findings as:
What is driving the growth?
The principal economic driver in Byron Shire contributing to the growth in population both
permanent and visiting, is tourism centred on its natural assets, high quality natural
environment and scenic amenity. An approach to housing that focuses on sustainability
and encapsulates the protection and enhancement of green assets has the capacity to
provide economic benefits in the tourism, recreational, retail sectors, construction and
wholesale sectors.
From 2011 to 2026 Byron Shire will be required to cater for some additional 7000
permanent residents with only around 400 of these in rural areas.
Tourism accommodation currently inflates the demand for accommodation by swelling
the overnight population by around 22% and draws on the availability of certain types of
housing for our permanent residents.
Who are we?
The population of the Shire is comparably mobile with some 30% of residents as at the
2011 Census not having lived in the Shire and only 52% of residents living in the same
dwellings as they were in 5 years ago.
The population of the Shire is aging with an estimated 20% to be over the age of 65 by
2026.
Lone person households are expected to increase by around 2% to 29% by 2026 with the
prospect of 41% of persons over 85 living alone.
The median weekly household income for a Byron Shire resident as at the 2011 Census
was $885 some 28.5% below the State median of $1237.
How are we residing now?
Detached housing accounts for 82% of the private occupied housing stock in the Shire.
On average 208 new dwellings are approved each year with 83% of these in the urban
areas.
The total number of urban private dwellings is approximately 13,250;
Around three quarters of occupied private dwellings are ‘large dwellings’ (three bedrooms
or more);
Page 10 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Dwelling approvals for single and multi unit dwellings were fairly evenly split from 2007‐12
however since this period the number multi unit approvals in urban areas has dropped to
7% of all approvals.
Secondary dwellings in the form of garage conversions and granny flats, number in the
order of 200 across the Shire and provide a further source of additional housing however
can raise compliance issues with fire regulations, car parking and illegal holiday letting.
Of those residents purchasing their home within the Shire 11.9% are allocating in excess
of 30% of their income on their mortgage, slightly higher than the State average of 10.5%.
The level of owned outright homes or owned with a mortgage in the Shire is comparable
with the State average.
Some 19.1% of residents renting are allocating in excess of 30% of their income to rental
payments compared with the State average of 11.6. This figure varies depending on the
location, the coastal urban areas having the highest proportion.
What the challenges are?
To be sustainable and maintain liveability, the majority of new housing stock will be
provided in the urban areas, this may require changes in housing forms and density.
Land currently allocated for urban residential needs is expected to satisfy a 9 year
demand based on current development and take up patterns.
The urban areas will be required to accommodate around an additional 2170 new homes
by 2026.
Housing affordability is a key issue for all levels of Government and it would appear that
in Byron Shire this is a significant factor to its residents, particularly rental.
Renters in seeking affordable housing options are turning to makeshift living options
including garages, unauthorised rural buildings/dwellings, caravan parks; 3% of residents
as at Census 2011 lived in caravan, tent or improvised dwellings.
Housing affordability needs to particularly be addressed given the aging population often
on a fixed income, higher proportion of income being allocated to rent payments and that
essential workers (e.g. medical staff, emergency services, police and teachers) need to
be provided with realistic accommodation choices in proximity to their work place
The key aspects of housing affordability that the Council is able to influence are:
Development approval timeframes
Land availability
Housing form
Project partnerships with other tiers of government or the private sector to provide
target/specialised housing e.g. for the elderly, low income, disabled or students.
Infrastructure is a significant component of the process of providing services for our
residents and additional housing, the approaches chosen need to consider greener
sustainable solutions that limit cost and increase efficiency and effectiveness.
The key challenges identified in the paper are outlined below:
A mismatch between income and housing costs (housing affordability) ‐ Byron Shire has
been identified as being one of the least affordable regions in Australia and the
community has consistently identified access to affordable and adequate housing as a
key issue;
Page 11 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
A mismatch between the housing form and the household profile ‐ limited detail is
available in relation to household ‘housing preferences’ to inform future housing needs
including purchase and rental households in terms of type and price diversity;
A need to provide more smaller, modest housing products delivered at higher densities
around services and infrastructure;
Indicators such as high median house prices, high median rents and high number of
house sales pointing towards high level of house stress amongst the population;
A mismatch between current and required aged care accommodation provision;
A low provision of social housing and universally designed housing – the low provision
rate of social housing leaving many low income households in unaffordable rental in the
private market or having to source their housing outside the area;
Understanding the sea change market impacts on housing availability, affordability and
the overall economic and employment structure of the Shire;
The significant proportion of the housing stock being visitor accommodation often with
visitor behaviour and needs conflicting with the needs and expectations of permanent
residents;
Accommodating growth based on dwelling targets in a compact urban form around
specific hierarchy of centres that:
Limits future residential development within the Coastal Area to Town and Village
Growth Boundaries to protect fragile and vulnerable areas and ecosystems
Maintains amenity, character and enhance natural values
Provides improved accessibility and mobility
Reduces energy demands.
Utilises existing land resources and infrastructure; and
Facilitating affordable, flexible and universal housing for Byron Shire residents through
the planning scheme. (Byron Shire Council 2015)
The following sections include information from the Discussion Paper and additional data has
been added where appropriate.
Page 12 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
2.2.1 Population
Population figures for the Byron Shire Council area (the Shire) are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Population, Byron Shire, 2006-2014
Year 2006 2011 2012 2013 2014p
Estimated Resident
Population
30,125 30,712 31,024 31,609 32,119
Place of Enumeration
(on Census night)
30,326 30,964
Place of Usual
Residence
28,765 29,209
Source: ABS 2015; ABS 2013.
Note: p = preliminary.
2.2.2 Population and Dwelling Projections
The population of the Shire is expected to grow from around 29,210 people in 2011, to 38,140
people in 2031. This is a compound annual growth rate of 1.34%. Within the Shire, Bangalow is
expected to grow strongly at around 3.1% per year (see Table 2).
An additional 3,935 dwellings are needed between 2011 and 2031 to meet this projected
population growth. Given a proportion of these dwelling have been approved between 2011 and
2014 (around 650 dwellings), the assumed additional dwellings required from 2015-2031 is in
the order of 3,285. Considering the higher than average proportion of private dwellings being
unoccupied in coastal urban areas (which may be related to dwellings being used for holiday
letting discussed below), a buffer of a further 7% in private dwelling stock may be assumed
which brings the total closer to 3,530 dwellings.
Table 2. Population and Dwelling Projections, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011-2031
Locality
Population Population Growth
(2011-2031) Additional Dwellings
(2011-2031) 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Population Rate
Byron Bay/Suffolk Park
9,167 9,994 11,174 12,167 12,984 3,817 1.76% 1,682
Brunswick Heads 1,639 1,681 1,865 2,047 2,224 585 1.54% 258
Ocean Shores 5,667 5,993 6,330 6,571 6,737 1070 0.87% 471
Mullumbimby 3,172 3,483 3,800 4,073 4,337 1165 1.58% 513
Bangalow 1,348 1,565 1,930 2,419 2,480 1,132 3.10% 499
Total Urban 20,993 22,716 25,099 27,277 28,762 7,769 1.59% 3,422
Rural North and South
8,216 8,343 8,812 9,148 9,379 1163 0.66% 512
Total Rural 8,216 8,343 8,812 9,148 9,379 1,163 0.66% 512
Total Shire 29,209 31,059 33,911 36,425 38,141 8,932 1.34% 3,935
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
Note: Localities based on catchments in the Byron Section 94 Contributions Plan.
Page 13 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
2.2.3 Age Structure
The median age of the Shire population is higher than for NSW and Australia (42 years
compared with 38 for NSW and 37 for Australia). The population is ageing, with 20% of the
population to be 65 years of age and older by 2026.
Table 3. Age group projections, Byron Shire, 2011-2031
Age 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
0-4 1,750 1,900 1,900 1,950 2,000
5-9 1,950 2,000 2,150 2,150 2,200
10-14 1,950 2,000 2,050 2,200 2,250
15-19 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,850 2,000
20-24 1,400 1,450 1,450 1,400 1,450
25-29 1,400 1,550 1,550 1,500 1,500
30-34 1,700 1,800 1,900 1,900 1,850
35-39 2,250 2,050 2,200 2,300 2,250
40-44 2,350 2,450 2,300 2,500 2,600
45-49 2,550 2,500 2,550 2,450 2,650
50-54 2,800 2,550 2,550 2,600 2,500
55-59 2,700 2,750 2,550 2,550 2,600
60-64 2,100 2,500 2,600 2,450 2,450
65-69 1,350 1,850 2,200 2,350 2,200
70-74 850 1,200 1,600 1,900 2,050
75-79 650 750 1,000 1,350 1,650
80-84 600 550 600 800 1,100
85+ 550 650 650 700 900
Total 30,700 32,300 33,600 34,900 36,200
Source: NSW Government: Planning and Environment 2015
2.2.4 Socio-economic Disadvantage
The median weekly household income for residents as at the 2011 census was $885, well
below the state median of $1,237. The median weekly family income and individual income for
the Shire were also below the NSW average (Family Income: $1,053/week compared to
$1,477/week for NSW, Individual Income: $477/week compared to $561/week).
Page 14 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Table 4. Income, Byron Shire and Surrounding Shires, 2011
Location
Median Weekly
Individual Income
Median Weekly
Family Income
Median Weekly
Household Income
Ballina $496 $1,153 $930
Tweed $442 $1,045 $845
Lismore $469 $1,123 $907
Clarence Valley $396 $924 $768
Byron Shire $477 $1,053 $885
NSW $561 $1,477 $1,237
Source: ABS 2013.
2.2.5 Household Types
Compared to New South Wales, the Shire has a high proportion of households being lone
person households (27.6% compared to 24.2% for NSW), and one parent families (14.7%
compared to 11.7% for NSW) (Table 5). Group households also make up a higher proportion of
households in the Shire compared to New South Wales. The Shire has lower proportions of
couples and couples with families compared to New South Wales.
Table 5. Household structure, Byron Shire and NSW, 2011
Location
Couple family
without children
Couple family
with children
One parent
family
Lone Person
Households
Group
Households
Byron Shire 24.5% 25.0% 14.7% 27.6% 7.5%
NSW 26.3% 32.7% 11.7% 24.2% 3.8%
Source: ABS 2013.
Note: Assuming that the secondary family in the small number of multi-family households have
the same household type as the primary family.
Lone person households are expected to increase by around 2 percentage points to 29% by
2026, and 41% of people over 85 years of age will live alone.
2.3 Housing Market
2.3.1 Dwelling Structure and Size
The Shire had a high proportion of detached houses, and a low proportion of attached dwellings
compared to New South Wales (see Table 6). The Shire also had a slightly higher proportion of
dwellings in the ‘other’ dwelling category which includes caravans, cabins, houseboats,
improvised homes, tents, and houses and flats attached to shops and offices. In Brunswick
Heads around 10% of households lived in this form of dwelling and this may be a reflection of
people living permanently in caravan parks. The higher proportion of ‘other’ dwelling types in
both Byron Bay and Suffolk Park may also be a reflection of the cost of and desire for rental
accommodation in these coastal locations.
Page 15 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Table 6. Dwelling structure, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011
Location Separate House
Semi-detached,
row house, etc
Flat, unit,
apartment Other
Ocean Chores/New
Brighton
85.9% 5.9% 7.4% 0.8%
Bangalow 94.3% 1.4% 4.3% 0.0%
Brunswick Heads 55.0% 10.7% 24.7% 9.6%
Byron Bay 60.3% 26.8% 6.7% 5.6%
South Golden Beach 90.5% 3.6% 5.8% 0.0%
Suffolk Park 71.3% 18.9% 4.0% 5.8%
Mullumbimby 90.6% 3.7% 4.7% 0.9%
Byron Shire 9,194 1,023 603 351
82.1% 9.1% 5.4% 3.1%
NSW 69.5% 10.7% 18.8% 0.9%
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
Around 46% of occupied dwellings were 3 bedroom dwellings in the Shire at 2011. This was a
higher proportion than for New South Wales as a whole. South Golden Beach, Bangalow, and
Suffolk Park had low proportions of small dwellings (0-2 bedrooms), and high proportions of
larger dwellings (3+ bedrooms) (see Table 7).
Table 7. Dwelling size, Byron Shire and Localities, 2011
Location 0-1 2 3 4+
Ocean Shores/New
Brighton
5.8% 15.4% 55.1% 23.1%
Bangalow 3.5% 13.2% 50.5% 31.1%
Brunswick Heads 14.1% 26.6% 34.2% 16.4%
Byron Bay 10.0% 21.5% 44.9% 20.2%
South Golden Beach 1.4% 13.8% 54.3% 28.8%
Suffolk Park 6.0% 12.8% 51.7% 27.3%
Mullumbimby 4.1% 19.0% 50.7% 24.0%
Byron Shire 908 1,963 5,194 2,857
8.2% 17.5% 46.4% 25.5%
NSW 6.3% 22.5% 39.9% 29.4%
Source: ABS 2013.
As at the 2011 census, 69% of lone person households were accommodated in separate
houses, 23% in semi-detached and attached dwellings, and 7% in ‘other’ dwelling types
including caravans, cabins, improvised housing and accommodation attached to shop or office.
Page 16 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
2.3.2 Dwelling Tenure
Of the dwellings occupied on census night in 2011, around 32% were being rented in the Shire,
43% were being rented in Brunswick Heads and 41% in Byron Bay.
Table 8. Dwelling tenure, Localities and Byron Shire, 2011
Location Fully Owned Mortgaged Rented
Ocean Shores/New
Brighton
34.5% 33.8% 29.5%
Bangalow 25.4% 41.1% 30.0%
Brunswick Heads 33.5% 13.6% 42.9%
Byron Bay 32.3% 21.4% 41.4%
South Golden Beach 27.6% 36.2% 33.3%
Suffolk Park 28.1% 32.7% 35.7%
Mullumbimby 37.3% 29.0% 29.2%
Byron Shire 35.0% 28.8% 32.3%
NSW 33.2% 33.4% 30.1%
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
Note: The percentages above for each urban area will not equal 100% as ‘other’ tenure types
and tenure types not stated have not been included in this table.
2.3.3 Housing Market
The median weekly rent in the Shire was higher than for other nearby areas, and for New South
Wales as a whole (Table 9). Median rents were highest in Bangalow and Suffolk Park. The
median monthly mortgage repayment was lower in the Shire compared to New South Wales as
a whole. Mortgage repayments in the Shire were highest in Brunswick Heads and Suffolk Park.
Table 9. Median monthly mortgage repayment and weekly rent, Locality and Byron Shire,
2011
Location
Median Monthly
Mortgage
Repayment
Median Weekly
Rent
Ocean Chores/New
Brighton
$1,613 $330
Bangalow $1,517 $440
Brunswick Heads $2,000 $270
Byron Bay $1,733 $380
South Golden Beach $1,733 $380
Suffolk Park $1,950 $420
Page 17 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Mullumbimby $1,650 $320
Byron Shire $1,684 $350
Ballina $1,733 $290
Tweed $1,733 $295
Lismore $1,495 $224
Clarence Valley $1,300 $210
NSW $1,933 $300
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
According to recent property transfer data from Byron Shire Council, the median sale price of
dwellings in the Shire between July 2008 and October 2014 was $530,000. Median sale prices
were higher in New Brighton, Byron Bay, Brunswick Heads, Suffolk Park and Bangalow (Table
10).
Table 10. Median sale price and sales, Locality and Byron Shire, July 2008 to October
2014
Location Median Sale Price Number of Sales
Bangalow $535,000 379
Brunswick Heads $575,000 285
Byron Bay $595,000 1,517
Mullumbimby $459,000 631
New Brighton $650,000 63
Ocean Shores $405,000 824
South Golden Beach $430,000 147
Suffolk Park $567,000 644
All urban areas $510,000 4,491
Byron Shire $530,000 5,693
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
2.3.4 Affordability
Census data suggests that at 2011, there were 674 households experiencing mortgage stress
in the Shire, and 1,560 households experiencing rental stress. Housing stress, both mortgage
and rental stress, is when a low income household (in bottom 40% of income distribution)
spends more than 30% of their household income on accommodation costs. Both mortgage and
rental stress is high in the Shire compared to NSW (see Table 11).
Page 18 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Table 11. Mortgage and rental stress, Byron Shire, 2011
Location Mortgage Stress Rental Stress
Byron Shire 674 20.6% 1,560 41.3%
NSW 92,054 11.1% 199,398 26.3%
Source: PHIDU 2015.
In 2008, Judith Stubbs and Associates found that:
Purchase of a first quartile dwelling (those at lowest 25% price range) would result in
housing stress for around 80% of all households in Byron;
Similarly, rental of a first quartile one bedroom flat or unit would result in housing stress to
the bottom 15% of households when housing stress is defined as spending more than
30% of household income on housing.
For a median two bedroom house, rental would be generally unaffordable to around two
thirds of households in Byron, and would place all households in low to moderate
incomes in housing stress.
Those most likely to be affected are older asset-poor renters, young people in the
process of household formation, low to moderate income workers; sole parent families;
people on fixed incomes including residents with a disability and those with special
needs; and people whose life circumstances change quickly including facing divorce or
unemployment.
At 30 June 2014, expected wait times for social housing were 10 years for all dwelling types in
the Shire, except for dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms in Brunswick Heads and Mullumbimby
which had a wait time of between 2 and 5 years (NSW Government: Family and Community
Services 2014).
In 2008, around 1.8% of occupied dwellings were public housing in the Shire compared to
around 5% for New South Wales and there is significant competition for public housing
particularly among lone person households and older single people and couples (Judith Stubbs
and Associates 2008).
2.3.5 Development Trends
A total of 1,461 new dwellings where approved from 2007-2014 (see Table 12). On average a
total of 208 dwellings were approved each year, with dwelling approvals in rural areas averaged
at 34 approvals per year.
The Preliminary Urban Residential Needs Discussion Paper noted that:
A secondary dwelling is smaller than 60sqm and not able to be used for tourism purposes.
The capacity to develop a secondary dwelling was introduced as part of the Affordable
Housing SEPP 2009 provisions. This provision was expected to deliver small, relatively
affordable housing and older residents are among the primary targets for this initiative. The
demand for secondary dwelling did not ‘take off’ however until Council resolved to make
them exempt from infrastructure contributions in 2011.
Page 19 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
In the three years between mid-2011 and mid-2014, 183 secondary dwellings were approved in
the urban areas of the Shire. In 2012/13 and 2013/14, the number of secondary dwellings
approved was well above the number of multi-unit dwellings.
Table 12. Approval data, Byron Shire, 2007-2014
Year Urban Rural Total
Detached Multi-
unit
Secon-
dary1
Total Detached Second-
ary1
Total Byron
Shire
2007-
2012
330 418 73 821 158 9 167 988
2012/13 201 8 65 274 50 6 56 330
2013/14 250 11 45 306 35 8 43 349
Total 781 437 183 1,401 243 23 267 1,668
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
Note 1: Secondary dwelling data only collected since 2011. Development approvals for
secondary dwellings before 2011 not included in this data.
There is currently 127 hectares of land which is zoned for residential purposes and not yet
developed. This land might yield between 1,800-2,100 dwellings.
Table 13. Area of land and expected dwelling yield for land zoned for residential
purposes and not yet developed, 2015
Location Area of land predicted to be
developed (ha)
Approximate range of dwelling
yield
Bayshore Village – Byron Bay 2 82
West Byron Bay 55 850-1,100
Bayside Brunswick – Brunswick
Heads
17 167
Tallowood Ridge – Mullumbimby 20 390-400
Bangalow – New Release Areas 16 195-200
North Ocean Shores – Off Shara
Boulevard
5.5 75
Suffolk Park West 7 33
Mullumbimby – undeveloped land 4.5 43
Total 127 1,835-2,100
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
2.3.6 Tourist accommodation
The principal economic driver in the Byron Shire is tourism with employment arising from
tourism expenditure estimated to be around 2,500 full-time equivalent jobs.
Page 20 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
With demand for tourist accommodation, some dwellings in the Shire are used as holiday lets (a
dwelling house which is let for a short term period for holiday purposes). It was estimated in
early 2015 that whilst an exact number is unknown somewhere between 600 ‐ 900 holiday lets
occur in the urban areas of the Shire as shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Holiday letting, Localities in Byron Shire, 2015
Location Estimate number of
holiday lets
Ocean Shores/New Brighton/South
Golden Beach
49
Bangalow 53
Brunswick Heads 37
Byron Bay 602
Belongil 39
Suffolk Park 76
Tallows Beach 26
Mullumbimby 11
Ewingsdale 19
Hinterland 140
Total 1,003
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
On Census night 2011, 2,052 private dwellings were unoccupied, or 15.5% of the total private
dwellings counted. This was a high proportion compared to NSW at 9.7% and compared to
Lismore and Ballina Shires (Table 15). There was a large proportion of unoccupied dwellings in
Byron Bay (at 26.6%), and lower proportions at Bangalow and Mullumbimby.
If it was assumed that a ‘normal’ level of dwellings to be unoccupied on Census night was 10%,
the higher than average rates in Byron Shire would equate to around 730 dwellings being used
for tourist accommodation.
Table 15. Occupied and unoccupied private dwellings, Localities and Byron Shire, 2011
Location Private Dwellings ‐ Occupied Private Dwellings ‐ Unoccupied
Ocean Shores/New
Brighton
1,781 85.8% 295 14.2%
Bangalow 561 92.3% 47 7.7%
Brunswick Heads 652 83.5% 129 16.5%
Byron Bay 1,961 73.4% 710 26.6%
South Golden Beach 718 84.7% 130 15.3%
Suffolk Park 1,249 85.4% 213 14.6%
Page 21 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Mullumbimby 1,231 92.6% 98 7.4%
Byron Shire 11,198 84.5% 2,052 15.5%
Lismore City NA 91.6% NA 8.4%
Ballina Shire NA 90.4% NA 9.6%
NSW NA 90.3% NA 9.7%
Source: Byron Shire Council 2015.
2.3.8 Aged Care Accommodation
The national target for the provision of aged care services from the Department of Social
Services (now responsible for aged care and ageing) is 125 places per 1,000 population over
70 years of age by 2021-22 comprising a ratio of:
80 places in a residential setting; and
45 places in home care (Department of Social Services 2014a).
In the Far North Coast aged care planning region, which includes Byron Shire as well as
Tweed, Lismore, Ballina, Richmond Valley, Kyogle and Clarence Valley, the current ratio of
allocated residential aged care places to the older population is higher than the target, however
the ratio for home care places is well below the target (28 places/1,000 people 75 years of age
and older, compared to the target of 45 places). Ratios for operational places are lower.
Table 16. Aged care provisions, Far North Coast aged care planning region, 2014
Measure Residential Home Care Total
Low Care High Care Total Low Care High Care Total Total
Allocated Places 1,939 1,978 3,917 953 239 1,192 5,109
Allocated Places
Ratio 45.7 46.6 92.3 22.5 5.6 28.1 120.4
Operational
Places 1,854 1,878 3,732 953 239 1,192 4,924
Operational
Places Ratio 43.7 44.3 88.0 22.5 5.6 28.1 116.1
Source: Department of Social Services 2014b.
Note: Ratio is allocated places to 1,000 population 75 years of age and older.
Note: Allocated places have been allocated under the Department of Social Services approval
processes but are not necessarily all operational
Note: The Far North Coast aged care planning region includes Byron, Tweed, Lismore, Ballina,
Richmond Valley, Kyogle and Clarence Valley LGAs.
Between 2011 and 2031, the population 75 years of age and older is projected to double in the
Byron Shire, from around 1,800 people at 2011, to around 3,650 people at 2031 (Table 17).
This will result in a doubling of the demand for residential aged care and home care places to
keep up with population growth.
Page 22 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Table 17. Population projections, Older people, Byron Shire, 2011-2031
Age 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
75+ 1,800 1,950 2,250 2,850 3,650
Source: NSW Government: Planning and Environment 2015
In 2008, it was estimated that an additional 203 high care places and 176 low care places in
residential aged care, as well as 460 independent living units were needed in the Byron Shire
by 2031 (Judith Stubbs and Associates 2008).
Page 23 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
3. CONSULTATION
As well as a review of existing literature, consultation was undertaken with a targeted group of
stakeholders including real estate agents, developers, town planners working with local
developers, researchers, social housing providers, and providers of accommodation for older
people. These contacts were identified by Byron Shire Council. After an initial contact email
from Council, the consultant arranged phone interviews with each contact. Questions for phone
interviews were tailored for each stakeholder group, however interviewers had some flexibility in
asking questions and probing for information. Interviews lasted around 15-30 minutes.
Interview questions and transcripts are provided as Attachment B.
As part of Phase 2 of the project, a separate Pilot Group workshop consisting of Council
development assessment and planning staff, local planning consultants and developers was
convened to test the draft recommendations. The feedback from this workshop has been used
to inform the final report – in particular responses to floor space ratios and building heights.
A copy of the summary findings from this workshop is included at Attachment C.
3.1 Summary of research findings
A summary of consultation findings is included in the table below. In interpreting and using the
following consultation summary it is important to note that it represents a compilation of opinions
and views as expressed by the stakeholders interviewed.
Page 24 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
Supply – new lots,
layout, size and price
Stage 3 and 4 selling from a
rezoning that occurred in early
2000s.
Most lots are 600sqm.
600-800sqm lots do sell.
There is a demand for 800sqm
but the price difference between
600 and 800sqm lots does not
support viability for developers.
Bangalow is land locked by
natural constraints.
Suggest rezone land away from
highway – western side of town –
as housing near highway has
added cost with noise attenuation
measures. Similarly, sloping,
rocky land is expensive to build
on and contributes to affordability
issues.
There is current demand for 600-
650sqm lots.
West Byron still in development
stage. What happens with the
first release of West Byron will
affect perceptions and
subsequent releases.
West Byron proposes a diversity
in lot sizes to encourage a range
of building styles – lot size is
being used to influence the
housing product and diversity,
with some lots 200sqm in
medium density areas.
Consideration should be given to
develop areas outside Byron Bay
and making alternatives for
residents such that they do not
need to come into Byron Bay for
daily services.
Additional land for residential
development is needed.
There is a land release in town –
Tallowood Ridge – but too
expensive. Sites for $298-
312,000 on website.
Supply of land and infrastructure
charges are big issues. Need to
change to keep costs down.
Affordability is an issue – 2
bedroom, 1 bathroom, 50s shack,
selling for $450,000, asbestos
nightmare. Anything under
$450,000 sells well.
More land needs to be made
available – mostly in towns and
hinterland, rather than coastal
towns.
Location is a key drivers for both
purchasers and renter target
groups – people will live in a sub-
standard dwelling because they
like the location.
Holiday letting is having a large
impact on costs, amenity and
availability of housing ranging
from large houses to garages.
Use of laneways allows for more
diverse housing products.
Fitzgibbon in Brisbane kept to a 2
storey height limit and yielded 58
dwellings/ha – product is selling.
Page 25 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
Opportunities for
more efficient use of
existing land/housing
stock
800sqm lots are available for
dual occupancy – there is a
demand as people who would
like a second cottage to rent or
family member.
500sqm lots can accommodate
secondary dwellings.
Need more land for duplex and
unit style.
Developers to ‘value add’ on
subdivisions to get mix, style of
dwelling, instead of only selling
land.
There is a stock of land
underutilised, owned and
occupied by older residents not
interested in development –
measures need to sensitively
target this potential either through
room letting, secondary dwelling
or subdivision.
Not sure if infrastructure will cope
– 60-70 yrs old – developers will
not want to pay the cost to
upgrade.
Units and townhouses suitable in
town.
Subdivision of larger lots could
assist, but infrastructure charges
make this unfeasible.
Some redevelopment is occurring
but not really viable due to land
and redevelopment costs
associated with demolition
(including asbestos) and
infrastructure upgrading.
Small lots No comments. West Byron - small lots an
avenue to improve affordability –
aiming to release a 450sqm lot
for around $290,000.
Support concept of the higher
densities near services – off set
the smaller lot if activities
available nearby such as parks
and shops.
People looking for reasonable
sized blocks.
Tallowood Estate, larger blocks
sell, smaller lots to keep costs
down don’t sell as well.
Products on 250-310 sqm lots
are popular in other areas.
Growing interest for smaller
homes compared to 5 yrs ago
(note 600sqm lot and 3 bed
home is seen as small).
Building small buildings is
relatively expensive on $ /sqm of
floor space.
Plans need to demonstrate that a
small lot, still has room for a shed
or caravan.
Streetscape is important with
small lot development.
Page 26 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
450sqm lots selling slowly,
400sqm can’t fit a Metricon
home.
Medium density Untested demand - for duplex
and unit style, but would appear
to exist suggested market price
of $350-$450,000 for 3 bedroom
– 2 bathroom would sell
Current medium density poorly
located. Better to locate close to
town centre.
Infill development expensive –
high cost of dwellings, remove
asbestos, redevelopment costs.
Secondary dwelling may not
have helped demand, but rather
the quality of living i.e.
residences now have a kitchen
and bathroom.
Most demand is for units with 3
bed, 2 bath, double garage.
Not advocating for rows of
townhouses, but locations where
suitable and would create more
affordable rental.
Council says no to unit and
townhouse proposals. Motel was
recently converted to small units
as easier.
Two level, walk up, 1 and 2
bedroom units, with garage and
storage are needed.
Restricted by the maximum
density allowed and lot size
provisions.
Restriction on multistorey
development is also a deterrent
to development.
Can achieve on a 250sqm lot a
3-4 bed, 2 bathroom, double
garage.
People are buying houses and
splitting them into 2 or3 flats
illegally.
Quality of building design
matters.
Design of dwellings
(houses)
Land selling only – developers
not doing house & land – one
developer has been offering
packages lately.
Sustainability not high on the
agenda due to other costs and
return at resale.
Looking for 4 bedroom, 2
bathroom, double garage.
Scope to design buildings to look
like a large house but contain
three dwellings – adaptable
housing.
Cross-section: Some people
looking for larger houses, some
looking to downsize.
Land is expensive, so end up
building cheap brick and tile
project homes, which don’t suit
climate.
Height limits need to be revisited
in relation to design outcomes.
Looking for 3-4 bedroom, study,
single story, 250sqm, 2
bathroom, double garage.
Speculative building/ display
homes are generally larger to
maximise resale value.
Page 27 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
Option to mix land
uses
Easy walk to centre from all
areas of Bangalow.
Live /work developments
currently in Bayshore Dr
Industrial Estate. The legal status
of these needs to be clarified.
There are opportunities for mix of
dwellings in town, for
townhouses/units.
No comments
Affordable Rental
Housing
Rents around $400-500
Lower rents - offered a garage as
one bedroom unit $300.
Affordability a key issue.
Rents are not affordable for low
income, and single parents.
Cost of rental housing in Byron
Bay pushes demand to
Bangalow.
Families seeking 3 bed+
Rents 3 bed $600+, cheapest
$450 for 1-2 bed
Double garages $350
Peak tourist season no vacancies
anywhere.
Low income workers looking for a
single room to rent.
Single parents split rental by
subletting to supplement income.
Converted motel rooms, 1
bedroom loft style, with limited
storage and carport renting for
$350.
3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, brick
and tile for $450/week.
My Place a ballot box system –
where people that met certain
criteria are eligible for selected
lots.
There is a difference between
affordable and social housing
and this needs to be clarified.
There is also a difference
between affordable houses to
purchase and rent.
Seniors Housing
Options/
Opportunities
Retirees 55 + from Sydney, Melbourne. Brisbane Gold Coast as well as locals.
Feros Villages:
- Bangalow - Feros Village: 64 higher care facility.
- Byron Bay - 40 bed mainly low care – if required to provide a 24 hr nurse would not be viable, will close – this would apply to most facilities with
less than 50 residents/beds.
- No room to expand Byron facility due to zoning.
Cape Byron estate for over 55s but not a retirement village:
- Provides duplexes for around $395,000 – mostly owner occupier, usually only changes hands when someone passes away – demand - yes there
is a waiting list of at least 5-6 people.
- Limiting to over 55s keeps a cap on prices.
- Attractive as it is a secure environment.
Page 28 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
- Model could be easily replicated if further out of town offer a free minibus, inclusion of a heated pool important.
West Byron looking at some to be senior designed housing – 300-350sqm lots, 2-3 bedrooms.
Some people are looking to downsize, others want extra room for family to stay.
People when older still want to be part of a community, with the ability to socially mix with all age groups.
Most over 50s are couples and are not wanting to live in conventional aged housing models.
NRAS scheme (income based and purchase price) useful but uncertain about future funding rounds.
In-home care could be improved with capacity for video conferencing to check on people. Group housing, or denser housing types, would help reduce
travel times for home care.
Appropriateness of accommodation conditions contribute to health outcomes as people age. Some older people were essentially homeless and this
contributed to the need to move to aged care before generally would be required.
Need for aged care/disability care in Mullumbimby, but hard to get through council.
Key workers Cost of accommodation for aged care workers always going to be an issue because of low pay.
Byron Bay:
- Carers (for residential care facility) have left work at Byron Bay because accommodation is expensive.
- Tourism/hospitality workers - Late 20s - Renters using single bed studio or room in house.
Bangalow:
- Finding carers (for residential care facility) less of an issue at Bangalow than at Byron Bay – has a core of long term staff, but many of these
workers do not live in Byron Shire, but this could be connected to the location of where they trained (Lismore).
Younger people There is demand from this group. Opportunities for young people limited to break in to home ownership.
Fitzgibbon (Queensland) offered a product that was $221,000 for young people close to services and in their local area.
Social Housing State government is responsible for 80%, community housing providers for 20%.
Most community housing is old State government stock.
Stigma attached to this housing due to past approaches particularly clustering.
Products include houses and units.
Page 29 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
In high price areas, maximise footprint with units.
One bedroom units are uneconomic, as it costs the same to build a 2 bed and house more people.
Support with concession on infrastructure, density, parking and communal space.
Do not put in expensive location where residents cannot afford the use of services or shops.
Housing Affordability
(for Purchase)
Selling for > $800,000 out of town/sea-change.
Selling for < $800,000 local purchasers.
House prices are similar to capital cities and this is not uncommon situation in ‘resort’ towns.
The anti-development position of Council for 30 years has pushed up median house prices to $950,000 in Byron Bay.
Project builders take around 30% of profit – simply designed house, targeted at $800-$900/sqm of floor area.
Trick to reduce house prices is the reduction in either land or house size, or both.
Affordability is also connected to a culture of everybody wanting everything e.g. do homes need a theatre room.
West Byron, 450sqm blocks may be affordable for single parents.
Infrastructure and
servicing
Shire’s infrastructure not coping – rate base too low in Byron Bay to pay for amenities (including for tourists).
Bangalow – development fees around $35,000- $45,000 per lot for Section 94 Contributions.
Byron - Section 94 Contributions around $42,000/lot
Section 94 Contributions are comparative with the region.
Relaxation of secondary dwelling contributions has been too generous, a cost to ratepayers, but contributed to rental housing stock.
Need to consider engineering standards, infrastructure placement, road widths etc. What is really required, rather than what is standard practice.
Section 94 Contributions are exorbitant.
Council/ Approval
Processes
Absence of housing strategies by Council has resulted in illegal housing, land supply issues and lack of diversity and innovation.
Anti-development culture of Council.
Council is inefficient and incompetent. Length of time to approve developments increases holding costs for developers, and contributes to higher prices.
Concern expressed over development approval timeframes – suggested that Ballina online 50 days, Byron Shire Council longer up to a year.
Byron Shire Council hard to deal with x >3. Some developers ‘just wouldn’t even bother with them’.
Page 30 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
Very green/overly green.
Can be green/sustainable and still release land for residential development.
Have previously used constraints and rural zoning to limit urban expansion.
Culture of councillors changes every 4 years, generates uncertainty as Councillors too involved in the decision making process, should be delegation to
trained officers.
Council history has led to debt, ageing infrastructure, high costs for development. How has this happened?
Council officers need to be more proactive in drawing attention to alternative innovative housing forms.
Community needs to be informed and brought on side.
Decision making process should looking at whether ‘different and better’ or ‘different and worse’ – if good, expedite.
Consider Place Making planning system.
Who are the applicants:
- Mainly mum and dad clients, a few cashed up miners who do not need financial backing, GFC took a number of developers out of the market.
- Most applications are for small scale development, typically secondary dwellings, dual occupancies and units (6 unit developments are considered
a ‘big’ application). Choice of product is influenced by what real estate agents advise – comfort in a tested product.
- Typically a standard building design, not pushing the boundaries.
Financing Financiers see Byron Shire as a high risk, due to development delays and risk of court action.
Cape Byron Estate 55s - is strata title – finance through a normal bank loan.
Community title business model affects cash flow for builders so the standard freehold works best – Body corporate fees also increase prices.
Page 31 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Housing Needs Report
Topic Area Bangalow Byron Bay/ Suffolk Park Mullumbimby General Feedback
Ideas More collaborative approach, Council host regular forums with developers and community, Change the culture.
Regular Council forums with stakeholders.
Developer/builders/homebuyers need to have a good relationship.
Change terminology, use phases such as diversity and innovation, rather than affordability.
Lot sizes for new developments influence the final form, so thinking about lot sizes early on is important.
Incentives to build, but sometimes the developer will keep that extra profit for themselves rather than offering final product at a discount.
Intentional neighbourhoods – group of people with a common interest buy a super lot, use one builder and share common facilities.
Scope for a ‘funky’ manufactured home park, where people own the dwelling, but lease the land with a contribution for facilities – offers an alternative for
low income people. But needs to be well integrated, well located.
Page 32 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
4. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
4.1 Summary of Issues
So what have we learnt from our investigations to date in relation to housing affordability and
diversity? This summary of issues has been drawn from all previous phases of the project
including the literature review and consultation investigations undertaken for the project.
1. Supply and Demand (a): Byron is a highly desirable place to live and therefore there is a
high demand for dwellings. Attempting to combat affordability by simply adding to supply, given
that demand is very strong, may be difficult in this context.
Byron Shire is a popular lifestyle location, with a large number of tourists visiting the area
each year, as well as tree change and sea change families and retirees moving to the area.
Moving from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and even Perth for the lifestyle on offer, these
people have the money to afford dwellings in the Byron Shire area.
Housing supply appears to have failed to keep pace with population growth, and existing and
new housing stock is further eroded by competing demand for short term, high return, holiday
and tourist accommodation. This includes a proportion of absentee home owners who have
holiday homes in the shire only occupied for limited periods of time each year.
It is also clear that the existing variety of housing stock is extremely limited and as a result
there is a likelihood that some housing product preferences are not being met.
Adding to the supply of dwellings and the diversity of dwellings in this context may be
ineffective in impacting affordability.
2. Supply and Demand (b): Compared to demand, land and housing supply is low.
Some local community members are living in makeshift dwellings – including garages, sheds,
and caravan parks. Council changes to encourage secondary dwellings have increased
opportunities for people living in makeshift dwellings to access more formal accommodation –
from garages into secondary dwellings – and this has been a good outcome for peoples’
wellbeing; however it hasn’t necessarily meant that extra dwellings have been made available
to meet population growth forecasts. Secondary dwellings have also allowed primary home
owners to shift into the secondary dwelling in order to rent the primary residence for tourism
purposes.
There is limited urban/residential land and the cost of land is high, and developers have
indicated they find it difficult to make developments stack up financially given this cost.
There were comments that hard infrastructure in some areas is ageing and there are
questions about upgraded capacity being needed in some areas, and this contributes to the
cost of development for developers through infrastructure charges, and affordability for
buyers (as well as having cost implications for Council).
Those that are vulnerable and most susceptible to housing affordability issues in Byron Shire
include people on low incomes and unemployed, young people and families and older
people. Options for older people to live in smaller dwellings in an integrated neighbourhood
Page 33 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
setting are limited. The number of people 75 years of age and older is expected to double in
the Byron Shire between 2011 and 2031 therefore the demand for appropriate accessible
dwellings, retirement living, and residential aged care will increase strongly.
3. Affordability: Housing affordability is an issue impacting some community members,
particularly people on low incomes, young people, families, and older people.
The most acute housing stress experienced in the Northern Rivers Region is occurring in
Byron Shire, and mortgage stress and rental stress in the Byron Shire is higher than in New
South Wales as a whole. Some local residents are renting single and double garages in
Byron Bay and Bangalow, and sometimes people are leaving towns and jobs because the
area is unaffordable. In some instances the lack of housing and the alternative housing
arrangements people are living in (including garages, caravan parks and cars) can contribute
to health and wellbeing impacts.
Accommodation costs seem ‘out of step’ with local incomes and this might be explained
because housing prices are impacted by people moving to the area to retire or to use the
property as a holiday home, and investors purchasing a rental property (often with a view to
move to the area at some point).
4. Community perception (a): There is a community perception that smaller lot sizes, and
attached dwelling types negatively impact an area. There is a stigma associated with social
housing, particularly as a result of the way some of this housing product has been built (in
clusters) and managed (poorly maintained), which makes it difficult to argue a case with the
community for its expansion. There is also the perception that more diverse housing products
will adversely affect the character and attractiveness of the region.
Local views and perceptions about housing in the Shire present a conundrum for Council’s
forward planning outcomes. On one hand the community supports efforts to increase housing
diversity to enable people to afford and own life cycle appropriate homes; but on the other
hand they have an underlying desire to preserve the character of the area which is reflected
in larger lots and houses, and rural vistas. Central to the issue are the perceptions that
smaller lot sizes, attached dwellings and taller buildings do not suit the character of the area
and the strong negative stigma associated with low cost and social housing due to past
approaches elsewhere.
The community also prides itself on having a green and ecologically sustainable image and
some concern has been expressed that certain urban areas may already be approaching
their capacity in terms of liveability.
These perceptions can contribute to public opposition to any residential development that
proposes an alternative to the standard blocks and detached houses. This in turn can
adversely influence a developer’s decision to offer a different product due to concern about
the approval timelines and viability.
The challenge for Council is to achieve diverse and affordable housing products, whilst
acknowledging and protecting what makes the region unique. Care needs to be taken to
ensure that adjustments to regulations do not have any unintentional outcomes including
Page 34 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
erosion of liveability. Appropriate Council provisions around lot sizes, road widths and other
development factors can encourage diverse housing whilst maintaining the town atmosphere
and rural outlook.
5. Community perception (b): There is a perception that the Byron Shire Council is not (or has
not been) supportive of new development, that the process of gaining development approvals is
difficult and time consuming, and that development is expensive in comparison to other areas.
The perception that Council is anti-development contributes to developers pursuing ‘safe’
development types that are similar to others in the area, rather than pursuing different
dwelling types that contribute to diversity.
While this perception is starting to shift, the restrictive growth policies of previous
administrations may also be contributing to financing difficulties, whereby banks are less
likely to support projects in the Byron Shire because there is a risk that the project will be
delayed in Council decision making and appeals.
Council processes need to be efficient and give certainty to developers about what is
acceptable residential development in order to give confidence to the development industry
and reduce holding and development costs. Communicating this message to the community
(developers and residents) is a challenge for Council, and would require an concerted
ongoing effort. If Council processes and planning provisions are not getting good outcomes,
this would be even harder to communicate effectively.
6. Regulation: Planning, development regulation could be reviewed – rules regarding
development (minimum lot sizes, secondary dwellings required), infrastructure
charges/development contributions, height restrictions/CBD, flooding - could be further explored
to consider opportunities to encourage diversity of product and ease cost.
Council policies, such as infrastructure charges contributions, height restrictions, minimum lot
sizes, engineering standards, etc are influencing development outcomes and support the
status quo in terms of traditional housing product. Provisions need to be reviewed to allow for
more innovation and diversity and ultimately reduce development costs. There are examples
of work done by others (example Economic Development Queensland) that support
functional, attractive smaller homes on smaller lot sizes. These could provide a template for
adapting for Council purposes.
The literature reviewed suggests that the LEP needs to be reviewed to include appropriate
aims for affordable housing and housing choice, which should be reflected in objectives
under the R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, B2 Local Centre and
B4 Mixed Use zones, where residential development is permitted. This includes secondary
dwellings, dual occupancies, attached dwellings, multi-dwelling housing, shop top and
seniors housing. The LEP should also prioritise urban consolidation through facilitating
redevelopment and infill development opportunities, which in turn will enable more efficient
use of services and facilities.
Page 35 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Planning regulation in the Byron Shire has proven to be influential in driving development
outcomes. Previous policies including support for secondary dwellings have been taken up by
the market, so the impact of changed regulation cannot be under-estimated.
Individual provisions in the LEP may also be stifling greater diversity and housing
opportunities. For example: the definition of shop top housing which only allows it to occur
above the retail and commercial component, and not at the rear; the interpretation of heights
limits (with a mis-match between allowable storeys and RLs); and floor space ratio (0.4:1) in
the B4 Mixed Use Zone in Tweed St, Brunswick Heads, may be limiting potential.
7. Development proposals: Achieving a diversity of dwelling types is impacted by developers
and builders preferring to deliver generic, tested, cheap and easy developments, and the
market/community perception of different dwelling types.
The lack of land supply (perceived or real) in Byron Shire over the past 20 years has resulted
in Byron Shire missing out on two decades of housing evolution. Consultation highlighted that
developers may be less familiar with new, innovative building designs including new designs
that would suit the Byron Shire character. This is reinforced by the new LEP 2014, which has
generally maintained a minimum lot size of 600m2 in most residential areas to be consistent
with past planning controls.
There may also be a disincentive to provide smaller housing options with developer
contributions proportionally favouring more bedrooms.
Real estate agents are driving the types of dwellings being constructed to some degree
(including dual occupancies and secondary dwellings) as they have a perception that they will
be quickly approved by Council and improve property values. They are an easy development
for ‘mum and dad’ clients with a quick return. This does not necessarily encourage innovative
thinking or denser housing options.
There is no indication that different dwelling types would be unpopular in the local area. A
number of consultation respondents were asked if units/townhouses/small dwellings would be
difficult to sell, and these respondents suggested that they would sell without difficulty.
4.2 Implications for housing diversity
The issues identified through our consultation and other investigations have begun to inform our
thinking about future actions and recommendations. Without expanding on these prematurely,
the following broad actions and recommendations have been identified:
1. Council leadership.
Council conveying a strong, clear message that it is focused on the issue of housing in
the Shire and has introduced changes to support greater diversity and more affordable
housing options. These actions are intended to provide long term sustainability for the
Shire and its residents as well as achieving high quality built form outcomes consistent
with the community’s character and amenity.
Establishing processes in-house (for example, priority development assessment) for
desirable residential outcomes that deliver more diverse housing products.
Page 36 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Council leading the charge to shift community perceptions that small housing/small lot
housing/attached housing can be high quality, liveable and is desirable.
Joint venture/demonstration projects/design competitions/partnering with local developers
and builders to deliver different housing products and lead by example.
2. Undertake further research to determine what housing product/s are required for the Byron
Shire.
What type of housing product will best meet the needs of those locked out of housing
options in the community (including, what price points does it need to be delivered at)?
This will inform what range of minimum lot sizes and what housing form and size might be
most appropriate.
3. Further infrastructure investigations.
Investigations into the capacity of infrastructure to determine where there are severe
infrastructure impediments to increasing densities and where there is capacity. This will
help to inform potential suitable locations for increased densities.
Identify where Council can ‘unlock’ potential for the development community through key
infrastructure projects.
Determine if infrastructure /development contributions can be reduced to promote specific
housing products (as was done with secondary dwellings) and/or implications to Council’s
revenue stream by reduced development charges.
4. Changes to planning regulation to allow for smaller housing types and lower minimum lot
sizes.
Smaller homes on smaller lots sizes will generally result in lower house prices. In
combination with design requirements to ensure functional layout and high quality
appearance, an attractive and desirable housing product can be achieved..
Consider changes to minimum requirements for road widths, boundary setbacks and
other infrastructure requirements in addition to the changes above.
5. Work with Economic Development Queensland to get the benefit from 7 years of experience
in delivering smaller and more diverse housing types and shifting community perceptions.
Page 37 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
5. CASE STUDIES
A separate component of the brief required investigation into best practice case studies for
promoting the delivery of more diverse housing. Economic Development Queensland (EDQ)
were identified early on and have proved to be a sound choice and a detailed summary of
investigations into EDQ and its applicability for Byron Shire Council is provided below.
A second, particularly relevant case study, has proved more elusive. A number of leads have
been examined with most having a focus on either housing affordability, or housing supply and
diversity in high density, brown field redevelopment locations. Neither of these are appropriate
to our specific investigations. UrbanGrowth NSW was considered as a NSW equivalent to EDQ;
however, their work has never been undertaken as far north as Byron Bay and they have
recently transitioned out of greenfield development and are focusing on major urban
transformation projects in inner city areas. Rather than investigating the work that UrbanGrowth
NSW now do, as this is not particularly relevant to the Byron Bay context, a review of Thornton,
a development previously undertaken by UrbanGrowth NSW has been undertaken, as a
relevant example of diverse housing products and more compact urban form that might have
transferrable learnings for Byron Bay.
5.1 Economic Development Queensland
5.1.1 Purpose and Role
Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) was formerly known as the Urban Land
Development Authority (ULDA). The ULDA was established in 2007 under the Urban Land
Development Authority Act 2007 as a statutory authority responsible for the facilitation of:
the availability of land for urban purposes;
the provision of a range of housing options to address diverse community needs;
the provision of infrastructure for urban purposes;
planning principles that give effect to ecological sustainability and best practice urban
design; and
the provision of an ongoing availability of affordable housing options for low to moderate
income households.
The ULDA was transitioned into EDQ under the Economic Development Act 2012 in 2013, a
commercialised business unit of the Queensland Government Department of State
Development, Infrastructure and Planning (now known as the Department of Infrastructure,
Local Government and Planning (DILGP)).
According to the State Government, EDQ “is a driving catalyst for economic growth through
property and infrastructure partnerships across Queensland.” EDQ works with a range of
stakeholders, including public and private sector entities, to identify growth opportunities and
facilitate and deliver property and infrastructure project solutions for the economic benefit of
Queensland. EDQ acts as “a vehicle for industry innovation and demonstration” and is
responsible for creating prototypes for the delivery of infrastructure, planning, built form, water
and energy solutions.
Page 38 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
The roles and responsibilities of EDQ are split into four areas:
1. Industrial development: EDQ develops, sells and leases industrial land in high demand
areas for a variety of industrial land uses, as well as providing land solutions to help retain
existing industry and attract new business investment and development;
2. Regional and residential development: EDQ works with local governments and other
industry stakeholders to identify growth opportunities and deliver innovative infrastructure
and property project solutions for a variety of communities, typically in regional areas;
3. Urban development: EDQ acts as a master developer in this segment, working with private
developers to deliver major urban development and urban renewal projects; and
4. Planning services and development infrastructure: EDQ works with local governments to
identify strategic and underutilised land parcels and provide the following services:
a) Declaration of priority development areas (described in more detail below);
b) Provision of strategic and infrastructure planning services;
c) Providing development assessment services for priority development areas; and
d) Identifying and facilitating catalyst or upfront infrastructure to support development.
5.1.2 Regulatory Framework
The Economic Development Act establishes the powers and responsibilities of EDQ and the
Minister for EDQ (MEDQ), who is responsible for EDQ. The purpose of the Act is to “facilitate
economic development, and development for community purposes, in the State.”
As stated above, one of the main functions of EDQ, in achieving the purpose of the Act, is to
identify and declare priority development areas (PDAs) and provisional priority development
areas (PPDAs) throughout Queensland, where specific economic development outcomes are
being sought. For example, the releases of surplus government land to the market in response
to housing pressures resulting from growth in the resource sector.
A PPDA is declared when there is an overriding economic or community need to expedite a
development and the development proposed does not compromise the implementation of the
relevant planning scheme. In contrast, PDAs are declared for larger sites and where a
development is more complex than what is proposed for a PPDA. Development in a PDA does
not need to be consistent with a planning scheme.
The declaration of a PPDA or PDA effectively removes the parcel of land from the regulatory
framework for planning and development under the Queensland Government’s Sustainable
Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The development process under the Act is more streamlined and
leads to effective plan making, shorter timeframes and fewer requirements during the
assessment process. Key features of the development process under the Act are identified
below:
Plan Making
Provisional land use plans (PLUP) are created to regulate development within a PPDA and
expire when the PPDA ceases (after three years). An interim land use plan (ILUP) comes
into effect the day a PDA is declared and regulates development within the PDA while a
development scheme is prepared. A development scheme must be prepared for a PDA
within 12 months after the area is declared removing it from the control of a planning
Page 39 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
scheme and remaining in place for as long as the PDA declaration. As a development
scheme regulates development within a smaller area than a planning scheme and is
intended to facilitate the sole purpose of the Act, it is a relative simple and flexible document
compared to a planning scheme.
The development assessment process for an application under the Act is much simpler than
an application under SPA, as there is only one level of assessment, no referrals to state
agencies, no negotiated decision notices and no third part appeal rights.
In addition to the declaration and planning for PPDAs and PDAs, the EDQ is also responsible
for carrying out economic development and development for community purposes both within
and outside of PDAs, coordinating the provision of infrastructure, constructing roads and fixing
charges.
5.1.3 Declared Priority Development Areas and Use of Development Guidelines
There are 26 declared PDAs throughout Queensland, including the following:
Caloundra South;
Fitzgibbon Chase (northern suburb of Brisbane);
Roma;
Queen’s Wharf Brisbane;
Tannum Sands (Gladstone); and
Blackwater.
These examples show that EDQ can declare a PDA anywhere in Queensland, from regional
areas, to coastal areas and even within the Brisbane CBD.
Within each of these PDAs, a development scheme has been prepared, which identifies specific
development outcomes to be achieved, such as maximum densities and height limits, as well as
objectives for the overall intended development of the PDA, i.e. the importance of housing
diversity and choice through a mixture of densities, types, designs, tenures and affordability.
The development schemes also often reference guidelines prepared by EDQ to guide
development of all different types, including the following:
Residential 30: this guideline outlines principles and provisions for the planning, design
and delivery of mixed residential development, typically no more than three storeys in
height and with a net residential density of up to 30 dwellings per hectare;
Accessible housing: this guideline outlines standards for the development of accessible
housing;
Residential infill in Blackwater PDA: this guideline provides guidance for infill
development in Blackwater that falls within one of the following categories:
a) Reconfiguration of a lot less than 2000m2 for residential purposes;
b) Development for a House that is PDA assessable; and
c) Development for Multiple residential on a lot less than 2,000m2;
Neighbourhood planning: this guideline outlines the standards for the planning and
design of neighbourhoods;
Low rise buildings: this guideline relates predominantly to housing up to two storeys in
height, but could also apply to low rise mixed use and single-purpose commercial, retail
and community buildings, and should be applied to greenfield and infill development;
Page 40 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Medium and high rise buildings: this guideline outlines standards for the design of
medium (three to six storeys) and high (seven storeys and above) rise development; and
Centres: this guideline sets standards for the planning and design of centres.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 below provide examples of the neighbourhood design principles
encouraged by the Residential 30 Guideline.
As mentioned above, EDQ plan and develop prototypes for innovative planning and housing
design, to achieve more diverse and affordable housing products. One example of such a
development is Fitzgibbon Chase, a residential development just north of Brisbane. Maximum
building height is two storeys and land sizes in this development are as small as 45m2, but
predominantly include lots ranging in size from 50 to 310m2 to achieve a maximum density of 58
dwellings per hectare. A number of contributing factors allow EDQ to achieve this outcome,
including the use of laneways, design and placement of infrastructure and services, reduced
boundary setbacks overriding the requirements of the Queensland Development Code (QDC))
and a good relationship with the builder responsible for the project. All products are freehold,
with no community title arrangements, in order to simplify funding and ownership arrangements.
EDQ have also prepared plans to show home owners how smaller lots can be developed and
still have sufficient room for luxuries, such as sheds, caravans and boats. The products that
EDQ offer as part of this development are identified as an affordable housing product, which are
located in close proximity to public transport opportunities and other services and facilities.
Figure 1. Typical Lot Arrangement
Page 41 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Figure 2. Case Study of 30 Dwellings per Hectare
5.1.4 Priority Development Infrastructure Co-Investment Program
As mentioned above, one of the responsibilities of EDQ is identifying and facilitating catalyst
development or upfront infrastructure that will help to encourage and strengthen economic
growth. The Priority Development Infrastructure (PDI) Co-Investment Program is a mechanism
used by EDQ to support key infrastructure projects.
The PDI program involves EDQ partnering with a local council, water distributor-retailer, state
agencies and/or developers and funding infrastructure projects that are expected to result in
significant economic benefits for a community. The program is not a grants program and all
investment projects are required to demonstrate how they will facilitate and accelerate
economic benefits for a region, including the generation of further investment.
Page 42 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
A certain level of co-investment may be required for a PDI project, depending on the suitability
of the proposed development. Local governments are also encouraged to apply lower
infrastructure charges, as an incentive to participate in the PDI program.
Funds are provided by EDQ for PDI projects on an interest free basis; however, EDQ does seek
a return on all investments to enable the ongoing funding of PDI projects. Not all projects are
required to pay the entire funding amount back to EDQ and this is determined on a case by
case basis. The general rule is that repayment must be made to EDQ within 15 years, by way of
either payments at each plan sealing, special infrastructure levy or periodic payments.
5.1.5 Key Considerations for Byron Shire Council
The most important consideration when identifying how the EDQ model might be applied in
Byron Shire is the legislative framework that allows EDQ to develop innovative and diverse
housing products. EDQ are exempt from compliance with the QDC and any planning
instruments that might have otherwise applied to the proposed development area. They are
therefore able to prepare and implement a development scheme that achieves key objectives
relating to liveability and affordability, without being bound by other statutory requirements, in
terms of design, timeframes and other relevant matters. As this legislation is not currently
available to Council and requires State level consideration, other ways of achieving diverse
housing products (not necessarily as small as those developed at Fitzgibbon Chase) need to be
identified.
The EDQ model still provides some useful matters to consider in this regard, including:
The overriding principle for EDQ to deliver a different product at a different price point
requires two things: one, reducing the size of lots and two, reducing the size of houses.
By providing smaller products at a reduced price point, this is one way that the current
issue of housing affordability (as identified in Section 4.1 of this report) could be
addressed.
Planning provisions, regardless of the legislative framework, need to be changed to allow
for smaller lots and reduced setback requirements in tandem with design requirements
for smaller buildings on smaller lots. This is one of the issues identified in Section 4.1 of
this report and the guidelines produced by EDQ provide good examples of how
provisions can be amended to be more flexible and supported of smaller lots and more
diverse housing products.
It is possible to deliver attractive, practical housing on all sorts of lot sizes and on
separate title, that meet the different needs of various segments of the communities,
including the aged, young families, first home buyers, renters, etc. As stated above, the
guidelines and other material produced by EDQ provide examples of designs and how
this can be achieved. They have delivered successful housing products for approximately
eight years and have undertaken residential surveys for feedback on the success of the
products they are delivering. Combined with their experience, this feedback assists with
the review and improvement of their approaches to planning and design. The
developments undertaken by EDQ can act as examples to the development industry of
successful, affordable and tested products, which may help to address the existing issue
of generic and ‘easy’ development products being the preferred built form in Byron,
restricting the provision of more diverse products.
Similarly, engineering standards should support innovation, and be more flexible.
Consideration needs to be given to what is actually required, rather than standard
practice. This will impact the cost of development and the development potential of a site.
Page 43 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
The guidelines prepared by EDQ and a range of other documents produced by EDQ
provide examples of these provisions and could be used to inform Byron Shire Council’s
approach to this issue and are a logical first key step. As detailed in the point above,
these examples and guidelines can be used to address the existing issue of generic and
‘easy’ development products being the preferred built form in Byron, by showing more
innovative solutions to infrastructure provision and clarifying the extent of infrastructure
actually required.
EDQ also promote the importance of having a suite of mechanisms in place to support
more affordable and diverse housing products (not just small lots), which include:
a) Targeted developer incentives, such as reducing contributions where housing
products meet certain requirements, i.e. lot sizes less than 400m2;
b) The use of alternative service providers, who can provide localised services at a
lower cost (depending on the size of the overall development);
c) Relaxations for road design (widths) standards;
d) Use of laneways in developments; and
e) Self-certification.
The success of any innovative or new approach to development relies on promotion and
championing of the product. The project would benefit from Council taking an active role
in demonstration projects (where possible) to address concerns from the community,
developers and builders. This will help to address one of the issues identified in Section
4.1 of this report, in that there is a perception that new development is not supported in
Byron and that approvals are difficult to obtain and developments are expensive to
undertake. By acting as a champion for diverse housing products and having more
flexible provisions to do this, Council will be able to demonstrate that this is not the case
and that Byron is open for this kind of business.
The language around providing more affordable and diverse products needs to change,
as certain terms and phrases reinforce preconceptions. For example, using the phrase
‘innovative housing that provides diversity’ rather than ‘affordable small lot housing’; and
‘smaller homes on smaller blocks’, can be town cottages or similar. This is one way that
the issue about community perceptions (identified in Section 4.1 of the report) of different
housing products, particularly smaller lots, can be dealt with and negative connotations
can be reduced, simply by rephrasing the product.
It is important to look at ways that development applications can be fast tracked in order
to bring products onto the market sooner and reduce holding costs. This relates to the
earlier point made about changing the regulatory framework for development to support
more diverse housing products.
Be clear about the price point (for purchasers and renters) that is required to house
certain segments of the community. Being clear about this will inform the standards for
house size, lot size and road widths that should be supported, and targeting relevant
incentives.
There is a difference between affordable housing products to purchase and to rent. There
needs to be a mechanism to ensure that investors purchasing more affordable properties
are also passing on these savings and charging affordable rental rates. This will help to
address one of the key issues identified in Section 4.1 of this report, being housing
affordability.
Page 44 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
5.2 Thornton, UrbanGrowth NSW
UrbanGrowth NSW is a State government owned enterprise established in 2013. It replaces the
former Landcom, and has a mandate to plan and deliver major urban transformation programs.
UrbanGrowth NSW is transitioning away from greenfield residential development, that was part
of the Landcom approach, and is focusing instead on urban transformation, and master
development of government land. These projects are of state or regional importance, and need
to have the scale to deliver significant housing mix, jobs and community amenity.
5.2.1 Compact Housing Concept
When looking at overall housing diversity, UrbanGrowth NSW identified a gap in the delivery of
quality housing on smaller lots, which can also contribute to meeting the increasing demands of
smaller households (which are increasing as a trend throughout Australia), improving
community sustainability and delivering improved housing affordability. As part of their 21st
Century Living Program, UrbanGrowth NSW undertook several developments to demonstrate
how compact development can be undertaken in a way that delivers quality housing products.
One of these developments was Thornton, in north Penrith.
5.2.2 About Thornton
UrbanGrowth NSW undertook market research, which revealed a strong demand for freehold,
more compact, low maintenance homes from potential buyers. As a result, a key objective of
Thornton was to provide housing diversity with a range of price points. Another primary focus of
the development was to create a transit oriented area with increased amenity, landscaping,
open space, employment opportunities, recreational and social facilities and a community hub.
Development at Thornton commenced in 2012 and is due for completion in 2020. Previously
industrial land, Thornton has a total area of 40 hectares and will achieve an overall density of 36
dwellings per hectare (between approximately 1,500 to 1,800 dwellings in total), with lots
ranging in size from 125 to 452m2. Thornton will also include retail and commercial
development, capitalising on its strategic position adjacent to a regional centre and Penrith
Railway Station.
5.2.3 Housing Typologies
In order to provide a range of houses within different price points, UrbanGrowth NSW worked
with industry to produce homes in a cost effective way. To do this, they created flexible planning
controls, designed a range of compact housing types and constructed the housing. Through
this, they introduced a system that could be replicated by the building industry within the project
and potentially future projects seeking similar outcomes.
In relation to product design, five compact housing typologies were utilised in Thornton. These
typologies are listed below and provide a good example of how products can be named and
marketed to reduce negative assumptions about compact housing:
1. Terraces and townhouses;
2. Patio homes (similar to duplex or semi-detached dwellings);
3. Courtyard homes (‘zero lot’ detached dwellings, where one or more walls of the dwelling
adjoin the boundary with the next lot);
4. Garden homes/cottage lots (more traditional detached houses on smaller lots); and
Page 45 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
5. Loft/garden apartments (similar to ‘fonzie flat’ or studio dwelling).
Research undertaken by UrbanGrowth NSW showed that for terrace houses, only four lot
widths were really required, being 4.5 metres, 5.1 metres, 6.6 metres and 7.5 metres. This is
because lot sizes that fall between these widths don’t deliver any more usable accommodation.
For example, a terrace home built on a six metre wide lot can only provide the same level of
accommodation and layout as a 5.1 metre wide lot, as it is not wide enough to accommodate
two secondary bedrooms side by side.
A photo of some courtyard homes is provided below (Figure 3), along with a typical floor plan of
a courtyard home (Figure 4). Typical lots and access arrangements, as well as lot siting and a
photographic example of each of these dwelling types is provided as Figure 5.
Figure 3. Typical Courtyard Home
Page 46 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Figure 4. Typical Courtyard Home Floor Plans
Ground Level
First Level
Page 47 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Figure 5. Dwelling Typologies for Thornton
5.2.4 Design Concepts
The concept of a more modern and useful laneway was also adopted as part of the
development at Thornton. UrbanGrowth NSW found that purely service based laneways can
have negative connotations and lead to poor perceptions of a development based on previous
experience. A number of the housing typologies listed above have rear access arrangements,
as well as including secondary loft apartments above garages with pedestrian entrance from the
laneway, to provide activation and surveillance of this space.
UrbanGrowth NSW also put careful consideration into the design of underground services.
Services for small lot housing developments can significantly influence street design, lot
configuration and the location of buildings, all of which will have an impact on ultimate yield,
design and amenity. In trying to achieve more compact housing forms, UrbanGrowth NSW
recommends that co-sharing opportunities of trenches for service providers be investigated, as
well as making use of the front road reserve before automatically placing services within a rear
lane. Services should also be designed early for a development, so that connection services
Page 48 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
can be co-located wherever possible and metering units can be integrated into the design
features of a dwelling.
5.2.5 Key Considerations for Byron Shire Council
UrbanGrowth NSW has identified some key learnings from the Thornton Project. These
learnings, along with other aspects of the development, form important considerations for
Council when considering similar development and are listed below. It is important to note that
unlike EDQ, UrbanGrowth NSW does not have any powers to override planning legislation and
instruments in effect for a particular area or create their own land use plans. When undertaking
development, UrbanGrowth NSW must demonstrate compliance with the relevant planning
instruments, just like any developer. The development at Thornton is therefore a very fitting
example of what can be done to achieve housing diversity within the existing scope of planning
requirements. Key learnings from this development include:
Council needs to identify a vision and exactly what they are trying to achieve before
commencing the planning process. A target market, as well as a price point/s, needs to
be identified, before proper planning and design can be undertaken to achieve this.
Council needs to lead by example including encouraging and supporting developers and
other industry bodies who are committed to designing, researching, redesigning, building
and demonstrating what Council is trying to achieve in regard to housing diversity. This
will help to address one of the key issues identified in Section 4.1 above, regarding a
perception that new development is not supported in Byron, approvals are difficult to
obtain and development is expensive to undertake. This may also help to change
development patterns of easy, generic and tested developments that are a known
product for developers, by showing them that there are other ways of producing an
affordable and desirable product.
The naming of housing products is extremely important for creating an image for people
of what a development is going to look and feel like. For example, a garden home sounds
much more inviting than small lot housing and patio homes sound more pleasant than a
duplex, yet they are describing the same product. Community perceptions about different
housing products, particularly smaller lots and affordable housing, is often negative and
developments are often stigmatized by previous experiences by poorly built and
managed developments. This is one of the key issues identified above in Section 4.1 and
can be challenged by naming products in a way that does not trigger negative images for
the community.
Planning controls need to be flexible and encourage innovation. More diverse urban
outcomes need to be supported in suburban areas to achieve higher densities, balanced
with design outcomes to achieve the desired amenity and standard of living. This
correlates to the issue identified in Section 4.1 above, stating that planning regulations
need to be changed to become more flexible and supportive of more diverse housing
products.
Designing and locating services and access arrangements (i.e. laneways) plays an
important part in the design and overall density outcome for compact housing
developments. These matters need to be considered by Council in the upfront planning of
a development, as well as designing planning controls for such developments.
Research is incredibly important and innovation is an iterative process. Focus groups
representing target markets need to be consulted and their feedback needs to be
reflected in housing designs. This is also another way of changing community
perceptions, by involving them in the process.
Page 49 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Partnerships are powerful. More can be achieved by working with likeminded partners
who support the vision of the development and are committed to innovation.
UrbanGrowth NSW had the support of key stakeholders, including the State government
and the building industry, which enabled the project to become a reality.
Council needs to understand tradeoffs. UrbanGrowth NSW identified early on in the
process through their market research that buyers wanted their own home, on their own
block and they preferred detached houses; however, they were willing to trade yard
space for amenity, provided that the lot was still freehold title. This is consistent with
findings from the consultation undertaken with stakeholders in the Byron community, who
have identified that residents are often happy to live in sub-standard dwellings and
sacrifice space and comfort, just to live in Byron and be a part of what the community has
to offer.
Page 50 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Byron Shire is a highly desirable place to live and visit. Its natural features, climate and local
character that attracts visitors, workers, families, sea-changers and retirees alike. Accordingly
demand for housing – permanent, rental and short term/tourist accommodation – is high. Those
same natural assets that lend to the shire’s attraction, need to be managed and protected for
the important contribution they make to local environmental processes and the scenic amenity
of the region. They are also part of a set of considerations that influence and limit the land
available for urban purposes.
The high demand for housing, and limited land available for urban development, in part
influence and drive up housing prices. Housing supply appears to have failed to keep pace with
population growth, and existing and new housing stock is further eroded by competing demand
for short term, high return, holiday and tourist accommodation.
It is also clear that the variety of housing stock is extremely limited. The current mix of dwellings
in the Byron Shire at 2011 showed 82% of dwellings were separate houses, and 18% were a
mix of detached, attached, and other dwelling types. This limited mix can also be inferred to
mean that some housing product preferences are not being met.
Byron Shire Council recognises the housing challenge facing the Shire. It has committed to
develop a comprehensive Urban Residential Land Strategy – a component of which is to
encourage greater housing diversity. In particular, it is hoped that a range of mechanisms,
initiatives and planning policy change will lead to:
more variety of dwelling types appearing in the local market, which will also help satisfy
unmet housing preference across the whole community (in particular key workers,
families, empty nesters and first home buyers) and thereby better responding to housing
needs throughout the full life cycle;
slightly higher yields of housing stock from the same land supply (through for example,
supporting smaller housing on smaller lots, increased height allowances, and so on); and
as a consequence of these,
greater price variation (particularly showing up at or below the current median price point)
that benefit home owners and/or is passed on by investors into lower rental prices.
The recommendations following, encompass a variety of tools and mechanisms focussed on:
Regulatory or policy change;
Internal Council governance; and
Council led initiatives.
Regulatory and policy changes aim to remove unnecessary impediments to housing diversity
and allow more flexible responses and innovation in housing. This is in keeping step with more
contemporary residential development controls used elsewhere. On their own they will likely
only facilitate some slower take up and change. Accordingly the suite of recommendations
(governance and other initiatives) working together will likely generate more rewarding and
timely outcomes.
Page 51 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Regulatory changes include:
Targeted amendments to subdivision provisions;
Consideration of building height increases;
Identification of dwellings per hectare targets; and
Reconsideration of floor space ratio criteria.
Where possible, changes that can be incorporated into the LEP are preferred, over DCP
provisions which tend to be interpreted as guidance only. However, it is noted that in some
instances DCP provisions may be both appropriate and preferable.
Internal governance/or policy matters focus on:
Targeted developer incentives (reduced/waive contributions costs for specific
development types);
Clear vision on what housing product/price point is specifically being targeted and use
this to inform policy change, future investigations; demonstration projects, etc.;
Additional studies and investigations for residential land supply;
Investigation into targeted infill redevelopment sites; targeted height bonuses (sites or
precincts); and in particular to identify new residential land opportunities that have fewer
impediments for residential development (that is, appropriate infrastructure, fewer
topographic/environmental constraints, etc).
Council led initiatives to create:
Fast track approvals for targeted residential development (by type or quality) (reduce
holding costs; bring products on the market sooner);
Changing the language around housing types (town cottages, garden homes; patio
homes);
Demonstration projects/joint ventures/partnering – building a relationship with the
development industry of sharing ideas, expectations;
Best practice model/exemplar information, suitable housing typologies, etc.;
Cultural change – communicating that Council is motivated to address the issue of
housing its local residents and is actively encouraging high quality, diverse housing mix;
seeking design excellence; and working with the development community for better,
sustainable outcomes for its community; and
Partnerships with like-minded partners Urban Growth NSW, EDQ, local UDIA groups, etc.
The full range of recommendations are detailed in the following table and diagrams.
Page 52 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
Regulatory changes
Byron Shire is a highly desirable place to live, and therefore has a high demand for dwellings. While simply adding to supply will not necessarily combat housing prices or
diversity, providing for better yields, increased densities and additional well located urban land may assist.
Housing stock in the Shire is currently dominated by detached housing and there is a lack of product diversity.
Provisions that support increased yields of housing stock especially in greenfield areas and through infill development.
Regulatory changes will be
used to address these issues
in the following way:
Remove impediments in
planning controls
restricting different
housing forms;
Introduce more
contemporary planning
controls for residential
development (that still
reflect the shire’s
character and form);
Support increased yield
from the same amount
of land;
Allow for smaller
housing on smaller lots,
Explanation: Noting the actions under ‘Council Leadership’ and the importance of taking the community on the journey, a practical approach
may be to focus initially on pilot test areas within existing urban precincts using master planning projects before making shire-wide changes.
Given Byron Town centre (infill suburban) and West Byron (greenfield suburban village) are currently the most advanced, Council may focus
on these locations first to promote and implement the new concepts and recommendations.
1. Building on the experience gained from the Byron Town Centre Master Plan and West
Bryon projects, identify and apply density targets and dwelling mix as per Table 18
attached to other urban locations (and having regard to the initial policy context set out
below):
Byron Shire Urban Neighbourhoods have been identified by Council (see diagram
below). This diagram recognises the differences of local communities across the Shire
and that regulatory changes may be more locationally specific in some instances,
reflective of the local character and community. This categorisation identifies broad
neighbourhood/character types as follows:
Predominantly new greenfield development areas;
Future housing likely to be in the form of infill /redevelopment;
Towns/villages with distinct local character; and
Other suburban neighbourhoods.
In order to make some recommendations on
future density targets and mix it is necessary
to make assumptions about dwelling
preferences using the latest available
propensity data; this approach has
limitations when forecasting dwelling mix
projections. Details of this process are
included as Attachment D to the report.
It is important that the higher proportion of
smaller lots, semi-detached and attached
properties should not be only targeted
through new greenfield development, which
would then have a substantially different feel
to other locations, but also should be located
near facilities and services around the town
Page 53 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
which should translate
into lower price points;
Create space in the
development process for
more creative, diverse
housing types;
Articulate Council’s
policy position more
specifically, particularly
through identified
density targets;
Initially density targets could be introduced and applied broadly across these
neighbourhoods as follows:
Suburban Village Greenfleld; Suburban Village Infill – 20 dw/ha;
Suburban Heritage ; Suburban – 15 dw/ha.
Target densities of 20 dw/ha in some zones are more likely to be achieved with
complementary 3 storey height limits in place.
Further investigation and refinement of targets based on precincts; localities or site
specific investigations should be undertaken. This would be a high priority task.
centres. The mix of dwellings suggested
above will need to be balanced throughout
the urban areas of the region. An approach
for achieving this is discussed later under
‘Further investigations’.
Density targets would work hand in hand
with floor space ratio provisions (LEP) being
retained to ensure scale of future
development remains proportional to lot size.
This could be supplemented by lot
dimension and setback requirements (DCP)
as per Table 18.
Page 54 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
2. The Byron Town Centre master plan study can be used to guide and inform regulatory
changes specific to the Town Centre and the immediate surrounding ‘suburban infill’
area via LEP amendments including:
Identify sites or blocks where 3 storey development is expected;
Ensure opportunities for shop top; mixed use development are encouraged and
supported;
Removal of floor space ratio requirements; and
New DCP Chapter articulating specific design excellence /best practice guidelines
for new mixed use/ residential development particularly for 3 storey typologies.
This may give rise to possible adverse
community reaction to changes – negative
perception of higher buildings and concerns
about additional traffic generation. This
should be explored and a response
considered.
3. Zone changes – Investigate land that could be zoned R3 or B4 to improve opportunities
for meeting housing mix targets. Criteria for possible conversion may include:
Proximity to services (community, retail, employment);
Good access (pedestrian, transport);
Adjoining existing centres;
Existing traditional retail/commercial centres;
Appropriate infrastructure capacity (or ability to upgrade).
4. Adjust lot dimensions and setback requirements for the various residential lot types as
per Table 18 and Table 19 below.
5. Consideration of floor space ratio requirements within local planning regulation.
There are three approaches that can be taken in relation to floor space ratio (FSR)
provisions:
1. Adopt density targets and minimum lot size recommendations and remove
FSR provisions; or
2. Adopt density targets only and adust FSR provisions to suit either infill and
Suggest ‘road testing’ a number of DAs to
determine outcome of removal of FSR
provisions, and a review of existing
alternative planning provisions to ensure
other design and planning outcomes will still
be achieved.
Page 55 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
greenfield development areas; or
3. Adjust FSR and minimum lot size provisions to facilitate higher densities,
without adopting any density targets (mainly suited to infill development
areas).
There is potential for conflict between the policy intent and outcomes of proposed new
provisions if they are retained with new lot size and density targets. Planning outcomes
ordinarily sought through this mechanism can also be achieved through alternative
provisions including:
Private open space provision;
Height and setback standards;
Urban design outcomes and other built form requirements.
However there is also feedback to suggest that FSR is a useful current tool for avoiding
over-development on individual sites and should be retained.
Policy changes and further investigations
Further research and investigations by Council will sharpen the focus and effectiveness of regulatory (and other) recommendations made in this report. Further information
that drills down into the detail of some recommendations will also better inform consequences or trade-offs of some actions, and identify additional opportunities to deliver
additional, and more diverse housing in the Shire
Possible policy change –
reduced or waived
development contributions or
other fees and charges (i.e.
lodgement fees) for specific
residential outcomes/
products
1. Reduce or waive /developer contributions or lodgement fees specifically for semi
attached/attached dwellings. Further work should be undertaken by Council to:
Understand cost implications of lost revenue;
Determine how narrow or broad the reductions/incentives should apply, that is:
i. across the Shire or more locality /site specific ;
ii. if it should apply to all residential products (or higher yield outcomes only);
Need to evaluate impact of different options
on revenue stream.
Page 56 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
iii. in areas where higher density outcomes (that is, 20 dw/ha) are delivered; and
iv. whether it is linked to design excellence.
2. Review developer contribution amounts based on the number of bedrooms – the current
rates may be unintentionally discriminating against dwellings with fewer bedrooms
(studio, 1 and2).
Further investigations –
assess and identify existing
non-urban land that is
suitable for future urban
purposes.
3. Use findings from the Rural Land Use Study to determine if suitable urban land is
available and zone accordingly. Particularly focus on bringing land that is less
constrained online sooner, for example: land that can be appropriately and cost
effectively serviced; has minimal environmental or topographic constraints; close to
community services and employment.
Further investigations – to
identify:
Sites/precincts for
increased building height
changes (from 2 to 3
storeys)
targeted infill
redevelopment
opportunities
4. Using a combination of GIS analysis in the first instance and refined by on-the-ground
survey, investigate opportunities for increased building heights. In order to balance the
supporting neighbourhood character while facilitating greater housing yield/supply,
criteria could be investigated to identify likely suitable sites for an additional storey.
There is likely to be some adverse reaction to 3 storeys in the Shire as it is perceived to
be out of step with the local character. However, some further investigation to identify
possible sites, localities or precincts suitable for 3 storeys should be further explored.
Criteria for site specific locations might include:
A prominent street corner;
Of a minimum lot size (for example 750 m² to allow further redevelopment);
Adjacent to or within a certain radius of commercial, retail, mixed use, or
employment node;
Adjacent to public open space, golf course;
On land with a ground level (existing) slope equal to or more than 15%, in which
case a partial third storey is permitted below the balance of the dwelling,
Current LEP provisions generally allow 9m
above natural ground level (which could
potentially accommodate 3 storeys) however
the provisions talk of a 2 storey outcome and
this is generally considered the acceptable
outcome.
Additional Council resources will be required
to undertake this work. Results of this
process will take time. However, findings
from this can be rolled into subsequent
regulatory amendments.
Higher density development is best located
near facilities and services, and these are
near the centre of towns. This will also help
to ensure the mix of dwellings suggested
Page 57 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
Where it is a requirement to provide a residual flood refuge or an environmental
area and is not likely to impact adversely on the existing or future amenity of any
adjoining land on which residential development is permitted.
Development shall have regard to overshadowing, visual impact and any impact on
privacy, and incorporate through appropriate design responses.
Alternatively a land use survey (GIS, desktop and on-site) could identify possible ‘trial’
sites (as per Policy change recommendation #4 above).
5. As above, using a combination of GIS analysis in the first instance and verified by on
ground survey investigate opportunities for infill redevelopment. Initial GIS/desk top
process could identify sites based on the following attributes:
Minimum lot size of 700m²;
Vacant land and or sites with only 1 dwelling constructed;
Land in residential zones.
Identified sites would be further refined through comparison against satellite and other
available data (local knowledge, google maps/google street view); and field work.
Land owners could be targeted with information about new redevelopment opportunities
and financial incentives.
6. Using a community engagement exercise such as master planning, charrette or targeted
workshop, develop an integrated design response to inform regulatory changes (density,
zone mix, lot size and height) that support infill development. Implement findings
through LEP amendments and/or DCP amendments.
above is balanced throughout the urban
areas of the region, including new greenfield
development and infill development.
Page 58 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
Council Leadership
Identify which sectors of the community are unable to access housing (rental or purchased) and determine what product and what price point would allow them to do so
Council led initiative –
develop a process to identify
key price points for new
housing products
1. Working with and utilising EDQ’s knowledge around this space, identify target price
points for:
Key workers;
Seniors living;
First home buyers;
Families.
in the region, and which housing product/s would suit. This will inform further actions
such as incentivising certain housing products through fast tracked DA processes or
reduced fees and charges to target these specific housing types.
Additional resources required to do this
work.
A perception that Council has/is not supportive of development or supportive of residential developments
Council’s DA processes are lengthy, costly and underpinned by a risk adverse culture
Council initiatives and
governance changes
1. Low risk fast tracked DA processes for certain housing types (guaranteed approval
times; delegated decision making).
2. Create a culture of Council being proactive in addressing the housing issue and
supporting good quality, well designed and diverse housing stock for Shire residents.
3. Training, mentoring and support to DA officers and/or Councillors to build knowledge
and confidence to approve appropriate housing projects that deliver more housing mix,
under a performance based planning system.
Dedicated resources and training to underpin
a successful ‘fast track’ process will be
required
Will take time to establish culture and
demonstrate goodwill. Internal (and in time,
external) champions within the organisation
at the highest level to show leadership will
be necessary to drive change.
Page 59 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Issues and type of
solution
Mechanism or Action
Detailed recommendation
Additional comments (where required)
Community perception that smaller lot sizes, and increased number of attached dwellings will negatively impact on the character of the area, and result in poor quality design
and dysfunctional neighbourhoods
Perception by developers, real estate agents, that there is no market for smaller housing; different housing products.
Council led communication
and information/marketing
1. Partner with select developers or property owners to approve and construct high quality
demonstration projects.
2. Build relationship with the local development community – via seminars, workshops, and
information sessions. Use these opportunities to:
Share information on the intent and details underpinning policy/regulatory changes;
Test changes/seek feedback from users of the system;
Look for ‘partnering’ opportunities and local community champions for housing
diversity;
Identify other opportunities that might open up opportunities for greater housing mix
at lower price points (that is, car parking provision review; developer contribution
incentives; changes to engineering standards, etc.) in relation to residential
development.
3. Develop information packages and best practice notes on a range of residential
development matters including:
Housing typologies that suit new lot dimensions and diverse housing products;
Design outcomes/requirements (internal and external);
Subdivision templates.
4. Consider changes to definitions or housing language to remove negative perceptions.
For example replace duplexes and small lot housing with ‘town cottage’, ‘garden terrace’
patio units’ and housing choice.
5. Host and organise best practice tours (in conjunction with EDQ or Urban Growth NSW)
Page 60 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Table 18. Proposed Minimum dimensions for future residential development (subdivisions) and density targets
Lot Type Lot Size Lot Dimensions (minimum)
Comments and Additional Information (see separate table for setback requirements)
Mix of lots for 15 dw/ha density (%) (refer to diagrams below)
Mix of lots for 20 dw/ha density (%) (refer to diagrams below) Examples
Type A Traditional Lots
500-800m2
20m lot frontage
25m depth
OR
25m lot frontage
35m depth
OR
20m lot frontage
40m depth
Primarily one to two storey developments.
Can include three or four bedroom products.
Private open space can be primarily available in as ground level recreation areas, as well as second level balconies.
Car parking can be provided in private garages (usually two per dwelling).
45% 8%
Type B Small Lots
350-500m2 15m lot frontage
25m depth
OR
12m lot frontage
30m depth
OR
18m lot frontage
20m depth
Primarily one to two storey developments.
Can include three or four bedroom products.
Private open space can be primarily available in as ground level recreation areas, as well as second level balconies (70-120m
2 per dwelling).
Car parking can be provided in private garages (usually two per dwelling).
Can have rear access arrangements.
37% 27%
Type C Integrated Housing Lots
Combination of lots ranging from 250 to 350m
2
(minimum of three lots)
10m lot frontage
25m depth
OR
15m lot frontage
20m depth
OR
10m lot frontage
30m depth
These developments would be suited to three storeys in some locations (to be determined by Council).
Can include two, three and four bedroom products.
Private open space can be primarily available in as ground level recreation areas, as well as second level balconies (35-60m
2
per dwelling).
Car parking can be provided in private garages (usually two per dwelling).
Can have rear access arrangements.
Note: Similar product to Type D lots, although each dwelling has a freehold title.
18% 65%
Page 61 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Lot Type Lot Size Lot Dimensions (minimum)
Comments and Additional Information (see separate table for setback requirements)
Mix of lots for 15 dw/ha density (%) (refer to diagrams below)
Mix of lots for 20 dw/ha density (%) (refer to diagrams below) Examples
Type D Large Lots for Multiple Dwelling Housing and Attached Dwellings
Lots ranging from 780m
2
to 1,400m2
26m x 30m
OR
35m x 40m
OR
35m x 30m
These developments would be suited to three storeys in some locations (to be determined by Council) and is likely to be necessary to achieve 20dw/ha outcomes.
Can include one, two and three bedroom products.
Private open space can be provided in the form of balconies or ground floor private open space for applicable units (15-30m
2 per dwelling).
Car parking can be provided in private garages or basement areas (usually one per dwelling).
Note: Similar product to Type C lots, although dwellings are located on the same lot, share common property and are typically attached/semi attached.
Page 62 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Table 19. Minimum Setback and Building Length Requirements
This table demonstrates the setbacks that should be achieved (as a minimum) to provide a
suitable development footprint on the range of lot types identified in Table 18 above, depending
on the respective lot width.
Setbacks and Building Length
Lot width
10.0m - 12.4m
Lot width
12.5m - 14.9m
Lot width
15.0m - 19.9m
Lot width
20.0m +
Ground First Ground First Ground First Ground First
Front boundary 2.4* 2.4 2.4* 2.4 2.4* 2.4 2.4* 2.4
Rear boundary 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 2.0
Side boundary 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 2.0
Built to boundary walls^
0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Maximum length of built to boundary walls (% of lot boundary length)
70 65 60 55
* 4.5m to garage or carport wall ^ Buildings may only be built to one boundary
Notes: For corner lots, both street frontages are to be treated as the front boundary of the site with the
relevant setbacks applied.
The above setbacks are more relevant to development on greenfield sites. Infill development will need to take into consideration other locality factors such as solar orientation, privacy, street width, road function, consistency with existing streetscape, proximity of residences on adjoining properties, etc.
A minimum front boundary setback of 2.4 metres is identified in the table above. This setback has been determined on lot width only, irrespective of the area of the lot. As such, this is a minimum only, that has been identified to provide a suitable development footprint on a site, whilst also achieving an appropriate rear boundary setback.
(Compiled from Economic Development Queensland – various sources).
Page 63 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Figure 6. Density Case Study – 15 dwellings/hectare
Type A lots (500-800m2) = 40 lots / 45%
Type B lots (350-500m2) = 34 lots / 37%
Type C lots (250 to 350m2) = 16 lots / 18%
Total = 90 lots / 100%
Area = 6.4 hectares
90 dwellings
15 dwellings/ha
Many large lots
Few small lots
Basic finish to parks and streets
Footpath on one side of most streets
Diversity Density Design
Type A
Type B
Type C
Page 64 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
Figure 7. Density Case Study – 20 dwellings/hectare
Diversity Density Design
Many small lots
Few large lots
Basic finish to parks and streets
Footpath on one side of every street
Area = 6.4 hectares
124 dwellings
20 dwellings/ha
Type A lots (500-800m2) = 10 lots / 8%
Type B lots (350-500m2) = 34 lots / 27%
Type C lots (250 to 350m2) = 34 lots / 27%
Type C lots (250 to 350m2) = 46 lots / 38%
Total = 124 lots / 100%
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type C
Page 65 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Shire Council – Housing Needs Report
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013, 2001.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Basic
Community Profile, 2011 Third Release, http://www.abs.gov.au/census.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2013-14,
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02013-14?OpenDocument.
Byron Shire Council 2015, Byron Shire Preliminary Urban Residential Needs Discussion Paper.
Department of Social Services 2014a, Guide to Aged Care Lawi, http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-
aged-care-law
Department of Social Services 2014b, Links to the 30 June 2014 Stocktake of Australian
Government Subsidised Aged Care Places, https://www.dss.gov.au/our-
responsibilities/ageing-and-aged-care/tools-and-resources/ageing-and-aged-care-research-
and-statistics/general-ageing-and-aged-care/links-to-the-30-june-2014-stocktake-of-
australian-government-subsidised-aged-care-places
Judith Stubbs and Associates 2008, Affordable Housing Strategy: Background Report.
Judith Stubbs and Associates 2009, Affordable Housing Options Paper: Part A.
NSW Government: Planning and Environment 2015, Population, household and dwelling
projections, 2014 edition, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-
us/deliveringhomes/populationandhouseholdprojections/data.aspx
NSW Government: Family and Community Services 2014, Expected Waiting Times, Mid North
Coast and Northern NSW,
http://www.housingpathways.nsw.gov.au/How+to+Apply/Expected+Waiting+Times/Mid+Nort
h+Coast+and+Northern+NSW.htm
Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU) University of Adelaide 2014, Public Health
Information Development Unit Data by LGA, http://www.adelaide.edu.au/phidu/maps-
data/data/
Attachment A Literature Review Notes
Page 1 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
LITERATURE REVIEW
Preliminary Urban Residential Needs Discussion Paper, 2015:
- Discussion paper relates to urban areas of Byron Bay, Suffolk Park, Mullumbimby, Ocean Shores,
Brunswick Heads, North Ocean Shores, South Golden Beach and Bangalow
- 2011-2026 Byron Shire cater for additional 6,940 permanent residents with only 400 in rural areas
(growth of 1.36% per annum) – total of 27,100 persons
- Highest annual growth rate expected in Byron, Suffolk Park, Brunswick and Bangalow (1.8%), with
Mullumbimby around 1% and rural areas and Ocean Shores around 0.2%.
- Additional 2,400 new dwellings project by 2026, 7% buffer for holiday letter brings estimate to 2,560
- Regional growth projection of 60,400 by 2031 (Far North Coast Region)
- Tourism accommodation inflates demand for accommodation by swelling overnight population by
around 22% and draws on availability of certain types of housing for permanent residents
- Aging population – 20% of population over 65 by 2026 (78% increase in this age group)
- Lone person households expectation to increase from 2% to 29% by 2026
- Prospect of 41% of persons over 85 living alone
- Average of 208 new dwellings approved each year, with 83% in urban areas
- Over past two years, approvals for multi-unit dwellings has dropped from 80 units/year to 9 units/year
and approvals for detached dwellings has increased from 60 dwellings/year to 285 in 2013-2014
- 75% of occupied private dwellings are large dwellings (three bedrooms or more)
- Secondary dwellings recognised as source of additional housing (potential compliance issues)
- Majority of future housing stock will need to be located in urban areas
- Land allocated for urban residential needs expected to satisfy nine year demand based on current
demand and take up patterns
- Urban areas required to accommodate an additional 2,170 homes by 2026
- Consideration for essential workers (medical, emergency, teachers, etc.) and realistic accommodation
choices in proximity to their workplace
- Project partnerships with other tiers of government and/or private sector to provide
specialised/targeted housing (elderly, low income, disabled, students)
- Past population growth not truly reflective of future expected growth (slow past growth as a result of
sewer moratorium and others)
- Value of tourism and agriculture to economy, remain a priority in terms of protecting key lands and
support infrastructure from inappropriate or incompatible residential development
- Median age of population 42 years, those between 50-59 comprise highest proportion by age of
population
- Expected increase in young families
- Household size generally decreasing over past century, number of people per household expected to
be 2.26 in 2006
- Growth in couple only families and decrease in couples with children families expected by 2026
- Lone person and group households increasing generally
- Far North Coast Region Residential Submarket Analysis Report (2013) identifies three age cohort
market segments
1. First home buyer (20-34 years)
2. Upgraders (35-49 years) looking for larger or higher quality property
3. Downsizers (50-64) looking for a smaller dwelling
4. Retirees (65 + years) looker for a smaller dwelling
- Currently 70% of current housing in urban areas, with predominant building form being separate
houses. Expected to increase to 75% by 2026
- High vacancy rates as a result of holiday letting, allowance of 7% of private residential stock being
used for tourist accommodation
- Larger more luxurious dwellings are pricing people out of the normal residential market
Page 2 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- Lone person households accommodated in cabins, caravans, improvised housing or accommodation
attached to a shop, townhouse/units and separate houses
- Current trend of decreasing household size may require greater number of dwellings to accommodate
same number of people, but this trend is not evident in current housing stock where large detached
dwellings on large blocks continue to be the dominant dwelling type
- Current planning regulations limit height of residential buildings to two storeys and nine metres except
for central Byron Bay, where it increases to 11.5 metres
- Medium density residential zone recently introduced into 2014 LEP
- Secondary dwellings limited to 60m2 and cannot be used for tourism (brought in as part of Affordable
Housing SEP 2009, with expectation to deliver small, affordable housing primarily for holder residents
– took off once the requirement for infrastructure charges was removed)
- 88% of secondary dwellings in urban areas
- Some illegal holiday letting occurring
- Shortfall in high care and oversupply in low care dwellings for the elderly
- Undersupply in self-care units for seniors living
- Seniors housing development under consideration in Ewingsdale, with potential to yield 250
accommodation units
- Shire Development Control Plan 2014 encourages introduction of universal/adaptable design
principles and access and mobility for new construction and renovations
- Potential shortfall in dwellings negligible, little need to explore additional land release in next ten years
unless rural lifestyle housing regulations change to diminish anticipated capacity, significant economic
project arises, contributing to rapid growth, strategies for SEQ growth are ineffective and project
populations gravitate to Byron Shire
- Densification of existing urban areas required to provide diversity and make efficient use of developed
and serviced land, but need to make sure that dwellings are in walking distance of shops/services and
recreation, close to public transport and linked to pedestrian and cycle networks, existing urban
character is preserved, dwellings are well designed and landscaped (amenity) and encourage
transition to denser urban environment through consultation with community and developers
- Byron Bay has largest amount of residential zoned land (26%)
- Undeveloped land makes up approximately 10% of residential zoned land in shire and expected to
yield 1,800-2,000 additional dwellings
- Byron Bay: mix of single dwellings and medium density in and around centre, mixed use development
area, residential land susceptible to flooding and coastal hazards. In 2014, 55.3 ha rezoned for
residential with a predicted yield of 800-1,100 lots (West Byron). Bayshore Village site has potential
dwelling yield of 82 dwellings (1.88 ha zoned mixed use).
- Suffolk Park: residential areas and includes larger residential lots. Parts susceptible to flooding and
coastal hazards. Seacliffs subdivision estimated yield of 33 dwellings
- Brunswick Heads: medium density development in town centre, new LEP includes areas for mixed
uses. Suburb of Bayside Brunswick includes dual occupancy and single detached dwelling houses on
small blocks. Some land zoned for expansion of residential area to the south, with approved concept
plan approving up to 151 residential lots and 167 dwellings.
- Ocean Shores: low-medium density residential development, primarily detached dwellings with some
dual occupancies and townhouses. Area has bushfire risks and environmental attributes. Polepic
subdivision estimated remaining yield of 75 dwellings.
- South Golden Beach and North Ocean Shores: characterised by single storey dwellings and some
dual occupancies on larger lots. Infill development ongoing and development of new residential lots in
previously allocated areas. No new release areas contemplated for the locality.
- Mullumbimby: heritage character. Tallowood residential estate lot yield of approximately 300
(remaining stages).
- Bangalow: historical village. Approximately 200 lots available in new release residential zoned areas.
Page 3 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- 2014 DCP and LEP specific urban housing issues as priority: reducing minimum land area for dual
occupancies, residential flat buildings and multi-dwelling housing, better delineation of low density and
medium density zoning, affordable housing and tourist accommodation (holiday letting strategy)
- Settlement strategies prepare over ten years ago and need review (meant for 10-20 year timeframe).
- Need to consider natural assets, scenic landscapes and culture, as well as constraints relating to
climate change and hazards, natural resources and environmental assets.
- Housing affordability affect diversity requirements
- Secondary Dwelling Strategy (in response to Affordable Housing SEP 2009)
- Far North Coast Regional Strategy 2006-2031 requires Byron to prepare a Local Growth Management
Strategy to meet dwelling target (2,600 additional by 2031), incorporating a land release staging
program, provide an appropriate mix of housing to reflecting changing needs and respond to ageing
population, no rural residential development in coastal area, rural residential development only in
accordance with growth management strategy
- Pathway to pursue amendments to LEP – planning proposal process, need Council support and
positive gateway determination from planning minister (can be seen as ad hoc if large scale)
Page 4 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Affordable Housing Options Paper: Part A, 2009:
- Need to significantly diversify housing opportunities and stock in order to meet changing demographic
needs, including a strong increase in demand for smaller, more manageable dwellings for older
households
- Current and project shortfall in affordable housing (particularly rental) for low to moderate income
families in housing stress and need
- Far North Coast Regional Strategy predicts 2,600 additional dwellings by 2031
- Supply likely provided in four development scenarios. Bulk would need to be in existing vacant zoned
land and through urban consolidation. Small amount met through rezoning of greenfield and
brownfield sites (State government objects for 40% of housing to be multi unit dwellings in close
proximity to existing centres and 60% detached dwellings)
- Predict that 80% of net increase in demand will be one and two person households, majority of which
will be older households needing a mix of dwelling types, in proximity to services, transport and shops.
- Lesser number of smaller multi unit dwellings required for young families and singles.
- 20% of new demand will be households of three or more people (including share households).
- Increasing demand for age appropriate housing, including additional 203 high care places, 176 low
care places, 1,800 smaller manageable dwellings for older people and 460 self care units/independent
living units in age restricted developments by 2031.
- Shortfall in high care and slight oversupply in low care places, undersupply of self-care units for
seniors living
- 19 strategies identified to diversify housing stock and meet changing needs, as well as maintain and
increase housing affordability
1. Increase housing choice in well located areas close to transport, services and retail
(sustainability)
3. Include appropriate aims in the revised LEP for affordable housing and aged and disability
housing relating to increased housing choice in terms of type, tenure and price point. Include
related objectives and housing types in relevant zones under new LEP, including R2 low density
residential and R3 medium density residential zones and B2 local centre and B4 mixed use,
where residential development is permitted (particularly multi unit dwellings).
4. Through zoning and development controls, support development of more manageable and
smaller dwellings closer to transport, services and facilities in major urban centres and within
localities with suitable topography that allow for social and physical integration with surrounding
urban areas. This includes villas, dual occupancies, low-rise apartments, shop-top housing,
secondary dwellings and townhouses. Prioritise urban consolidation through redevelopment and
infill development that facilitates efficient use of existing services and facilities. Support for
identification of precincts for smaller more management dwellings and sites for age restricted
development, as well as larger sites to accommodate larger retirement villages and aged care
facilities (multi level care). Document identifies specific sites for aged care, as well as specific
sites for manufactured housing estates or caravan parks.
6. Developer incentives - use of developer incentives in selected localities, precincts and sites, for
example, density bonuses.
7. Implement developer incentives and benefits share through voluntary planning agreements.
9. Monitor outcomes of strategies.
10. Actively pursue best use of resources through development and funding partnerships.
17. Review DCP to protect amenity in precincts recommended for density bonuses.
Page 5 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Byron Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2022, 2012:
- 28,767 (estimate for 2009 - 32,126)
- Growth for the period 3.5% (previously 7.8%), regions growth 6.9%, state growth 4.4%
- Distribution: 27% rural; 20% Ocean Shores; 19% Byron Bay; 11% in Suffolk Park; 11% in
Mullumbimby; 6% in Brunswick Heads; and 6% in Bangalow.
- Median age: 41 years old
- 53% are married or de facto, 47% are single (13% are divorced)
- 4% have a need for disability assistance, 11% provided unpaid care to people with profound or severe
disabilities
- 10,713 households
- 66% are family households; 27% are lone households
- Over 81% live in houses (not flats or semi-detached)
- 76% own one or more cars
- Community concerns and priorities:
o Identify and target a sustainable population that is consistent with the community values.
o Sustainable development in the built environment:
a) Balance between increased affordable housing and sustainable development where the
coastline is managed and maintained for its current beauty.
b) Minimise over-development of sub-divisions in rural areas.
c) No avenue for next generation to settle in this Shire due to lack of available land and
increasing land prices.
o Management of development:
a) Fear of other local government development policies.
b) Urban development to incorporate best practice combination of high density and mixed
use facilities and green areas for community use, while still providing a sense of living in
a naturally beautiful ecosystem. Avoid over-development/commercial over-
development/urban land release/ugly development.
- Identified challenge: City to regional migration increasing expectations for services and infrastructure
that may not be able to be met
Page 6 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Far North Coast Regional Strategy 2006-2031, 2006:
- Applies to the six local government areas of Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley and
Tweed.
- Future growth will be managed by preventing the spread of coastal development (protecting coastline
from excessive population pressure) and encouraging the development of non-coastal centres and
appropriately located housing
- Regional has high population growth rate and a median age expected to rise from 39 to 51 years by
2031, proportion aged 65 years or more expected to more than double by 2031, while the proportion
of young people is projected to decline to 14%, leaving just 54% of the population in the working age
group
- Region wide: extra 60,400 people, 51,000 new homes (2,600 in Byron) and 32,500 additional jobs
- Key drivers of growth: in-migration from the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Region and other areas of
NSW, population flow from South East Queensland and greater accessibility due to the upgrading of
the Pacific Highway.
- Region expected to be characterised by a series of contained centres, a coastal area protected from
inappropriate development, and growing towns and villages across the Region. A connected network
of towns and villages will provide a choice of well designed housing and associated lifestyles.
- Coastal towns such as Byron Bay, known as a national and international tourist destination, will have
retained their village character while still providing a gateway to many regional assets and attractions.
- Predict a greater demand for diversity in housing form to match the requirements of changing
household structures, particularly an increase in one and two person households.
- The population and housing challenges are to:
o manage the expected population growth in a way that retains village character, enhances a sense
of community, limits the spread of urban development, and minimises damage to environmental
values and rural production
o support the development of non-coastal centres provide a framework for the planning of new
infrastructure and facilities for the growing and ageing population
o provide choice in housing form and affordability in appropriate locations that responds to changing
demographics and the associated reduction in household occupancy rates
o ensure that new development reflects and enhances the character of the settlement in which it is
located and is based on best practice urban design principles.
- If current trends were to continue, around 75% of the Region’s future additional housing would be
located within coastal areas, leading to further pressure on existing infrastructure services, farmland
and sensitive coastal environments.
- The Regional Strategy will reduce the proportion of additional dwellings in the Coastal Area to 60% by
limiting future development to within the mapped Town and Village Growth Boundaries. This will
ensure a more even spread of population across the Region and assist in strengthening the growth of
non-coastal towns and centres. 35% of new housing will be in major regional centres of Tweed Heads,
Lismore and Ballina
- Establish green breaks between settlements and towns
- Encourage growth of non coastal towns and villages by identifying potential lands for new housing and
industry to boost local economies without compromising environmental values or quality of life.
- Require that any development proposals for greenfield sites west of the Coastal Area and outside of
the Town and Village Growth Boundary be subject to satisfying the Sustainability Criteria (see
Appendix 1)
- Environmental Assets and Rural Land on the Regional Strategy Map are protected from urban
development other than appropriately planned rural residential development
- Local environmental plans will not zone land within the Environmental Assets and Rural Land area to
permit urban purposes.
Page 7 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- Local environmental plans will not rezone land within town supply catchments and significant
groundwater areas if this has the potential to reduce the quality and quantity of these assets.
- Rezoning of land for future development within the catchments of coastal lakes (as defined in
Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71—Coastal Protection) will consider the
recommendation of any Coastal Lake Sustainability Assessment which has been prepared.
- Subdivision and dwelling standard provisions in local environmental plans will reflect the objectives of
the relevant zone and the Regional Strategy.
- Coastal Zone Management Plan – consider this when proposing new development
- Future urban development is not located in areas of high risk from natural hazards including sea level
rise, coastal recession, rising water tables and flooding.
- Local environmental plans will make provision for adequate setbacks in areas at risk from coastal
erosion and/or ocean based inundation in accordance with Coastal Zone Management Plans. Until
these plans are made by the Minister for Natural Resources, councils cannot zone land or approve
new development or redevelopment in potential hazard areas, unless assessed within a risk
assessment framework adopted by the council.
- The major towns of Murwillumbah and Casino, and towns of Mullumbimby, Byron Bay and Kyogle
support the major regional centres. These communities provide a focus for some future urban
development within their service catchments.
- Region is characterised by mainly detached housing (71%) with less reliance on multi-unit dwellings
(22%) and other forms of accommodation (7%).
- Decreasing occupancy rates and changing demand from traditional single detached housing to multi-
unit dwelling types means that the provision of a variety of housing forms is needed in appropriate
locations.
- The Strategy reinforces and promotes increased housing choice by directing future urban growth to
appropriate locations across the Region. Higher density living is to be encouraged around the town
centres and areas of major employment.
- A defined hierarchy of centres achieving appropriate densities will provide a range of housing giving
choice in form and affordability. Sufficient land will be made available for employment purposes and
community facilities.
- Land will not be zoned for future urban investigation as it may create speculative land values and
unreasonable long term aspirations for future higher uses that may not be appropriate due to physical
constraints and/or infrastructure capabilities.
- Aim: 60% single dwellings and 40% multi-unit for the 51 000 proposed dwellings within the Town and
Village Growth Boundaries by 2031
- Where demonstrated by a local environmental study that a minor adjustment to the Town and Village
Growth Boundary is necessary so that new development is consistent with it, some minor variations of
the boundary may be considered.
- In determining the extent of any variation, consideration will be given to the efficient use of
infrastructure/services, avoidance of significant environmental constraints and natural resources, and
reinforcement of the regional settlement hierarchy. Any minor variation will be determined through a
joint analysis undertaken between the local council and the Department of Planning.
- Any future development proposals on greenfield sites in the non-coastal area located outside of the
Town and Village Growth Boundaries are subject to satisfying the Sustainability Criteria
- Local environmental plans will ensure that all new development reinforces existing urban and rural
centres, towns and villages.
- A land release staging program will be developed to ensure the orderly release of new housing.
- Councils will plan for a range of housing types of appropriate densities, location and suitability that are
capable of adapting and responding to the ageing of the population.
- New caravan parks and manufactured home estates, where there is any potential for permanent
accommodation to occur, should be located generally in urban areas.
- Local environmental plans cannot use the Transition Zone in the Standard Instrument (Local
Environmental Plans) Order 2006 to identify land for future urban investigation purposes.
Page 8 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- Local environmental plans will maintain interurban breaks between existing and new settlements.
- No land in the Coastal Area will be released other than land identified within the Town and Village
Growth Boundary or within an approved rural residential release strategy.
- Councils will demonstrate through the Local Growth Management Strategy how dwelling targets
(Table 1) for each local government area will be met in local environmental plans.
- Planning for urban land must be integrated with the supply of relevant infrastructure and transport
provision.
- Future rural residential land will only be released in accordance with a Local Growth Management
Strategy agreed to by council and the Department of Planning, and consistent with the Settlement
Planning Guidelines.
- No new rural residential development will be permitted within the Coastal Area, other than
development already zoned or within an approved rural residential release strategy.
- Any development proposed for greenfield sites in the noncoastal area that is located outside of the
Town and Village Growth Boundary will be subject to satisfying the Sustainability Criteria.
- Potential for residential accommodation above commercial space, which can bring a higher level of
vibrancy to the centre - a greater number of people and business in the most active parts of a centre
without consuming additional land
- New buildings should be designed to maximise adaptability to meet changing demographic needs and
alternative future uses.
- A wide range of housing choices to provide for different needs and different incomes. Traditional
houses on their own block will be available along with smaller, lower maintenance homes, units and
terraces for older people and young singles or couples.
- Development on urban land in Tweed Heads, Kingscliff, Byron Bay and Ballina will not result in the
beach or adjoining open space being overshadowed before 3.00 p.m. midwinter (standard time) o
6.30 p.m. midsummer (daylight savings time). For other beaches or waterfront open space in the
Region, development will not result in overshadowing before 4.00 p.m. midwinter or 7.00 p.m.
midsummer (daylight saving time).
- Local environmental plans and development control plans (and subsequent land release
development) will be consistent with the Settlement Planning Guidelines, and the Government’s
Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW (2003) as applicable.
- Around 23,500 of new jobs will be linked to service and construction industries, with the remainder
export-driven employment. This anticipated employment growth translates to a need for about 156
hectares of additional industrial land and about 76 hectares of additional commercial land (a total of
232 hectares)
Page 9 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003, 2003:
- Key strategy proposals:
o Agricultural land to be protected as a valuable resource;
o No residential development to occur on flood prone land;
o No development to occur on land with slope greater than 20%;
o A staged release of identified development areas through the LEP and DCP process in
consultation with the community;
o Subdivision design, lot sizes, density, height, setbacks and built design to reflect a country village;
o Limiting the growth of the village and allowing garden flats and dual occupancy development
within the village boundary to strengthen the viability of the village;
o Permitting higher density development in the 3(a)(Business Zone) area and as designated in new
development areas;
o Permitting garden flats and dual occupancy development on suitably sized allotments to provide a
variety of housing, affordable accommodation and a manageable increase in density;
o Facilitation of affordable housing and aged housing;
- All possible areas for village expansion have been investigated. A staged release program is
proposed to manage future, limited residential area expansion:
o The first stage of the land release program is infill and further development of existing
2(a)(Residential Zone) land. It also includes the rezoning and subsequent development for
residential purposes of the free parts of the 1(d)(Investigation Zone) land south of Thomas Street
(Area 6). Included in the first stage will be an amendment to the planning scheme to permit the
development of land at the south east of the village (Area 4), but not for residential subdivision.
This land is suitable for alternative forms of development such as a caravan park, aged care
facilities, motel, manufactured homes or eco-village development. First stage land release will
also permit minor subdivisions of land off Corlis Close and Parrot Tree, subject to the relevant
issues being addressed.
o The second stage of the land release program will occur after stage one lands have been
substantially developed. A five-year lead-time is advisable. This allows time for rezoning and
other necessary amendments to planning controls, approval and construction of subdivisions and
provision of services, without unduly restricting the supply of land. The take-up and development
rate of residential land will inform decisions about further land release.
o The current population of Bangalow (2001 census) is approximately 1,200. Based on the
availability of residential land outlined in this Strategy, the population capacity of the village in
stage one of the land release program is approximately 1,800. The long-term population capacity,
including development of Areas 8 and 9, is approximately 2,100. Urban consolidation through
medium density developments and mixed residential/commercial developments will add to that
figure.
o A full structural review of the Strategy should occur every five years or so. That review may
identify the need to amend the land release program.
o 10 year planning horizon
o Demand for subdivided land and detached housing beyond this ten-year time horizon will no
longer be able to be met in Bangalow.
- A range of housing options is required to reflect the needs of the community. These shall be provided
in a manner that retains the character of the village. Areas have been identified where higher density
housing will not adversely impact on the character of the village. These include the village centre and
adjoining open space on the Thomas Street land. Garden flats and dual occupancy are proposed to
be permitted on suitably sized lots designed in accordance with the revised DCP.
- Outcome: Locate increased density in the village centre and allow garden flats consistent with
established character elements. Allow mixed use (commercial/residential) developments in the village
centre.
Page 10 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- Bangalow’s historical emphasis on detached housing has resulted in a low density and corresponding
high consumption of land for urban purposes. This is an unsustainable land use pattern if the village is
to maintain its inherent and community-endorsed characteristics of a small footprint, defined village
boundaries, and keeping new development within walking distance of the village business centre.
- flood prone land should not be rezoned to permit residential development
- no further development involving filling or intensification of runoff (such as through increased hard
surface area) should be permitted on flood prone land unless adverse impacts on flooding can be
averted
- Limited tourist accommodation is available. The village would be well suited to the provision of bed &
breakfast accommodation or a small motel. A well-developed caravan park or camping facility suitably
located would provide an alternative style of accommodation. Land near the Old Pacific Highway
(Area 4) could be suited to this type of development.
- Motels and hostels should be concentrated in the village centre 3(a)(Business Zone) and within
walking distance (400 metres) of the village centre on the approach roads.
- Development in Bangalow generally is not higher than two storeys. New development in the main
street – a heritage precinct – must respect existing building heights. A two-storey height limit is
appropriate for the entire village.
- Need to recognise and facilitate different types of development:
o garden flat is proposed as a small dwelling with the following attributes:
they are ancillary to another (usually larger) dwelling;
they are about double garage size;
they may be attached (e.g. an ‘undercroft’ or ‘downstairs’ unit) to the “main” dwelling, or
detached (e.g. a converted garage); and,
pedestrian (but not always vehicle) access and private open space may be separate from
that of the other (or “main”) dwelling.
o Criteria for garden flats:
either attached to, or detached from, an approved dwelling house (whether existing or
proposed-and-not-yet-constructed);
only where there are no more than 2 dwellings on an allotment;
minimum lot size 800 m2;
maximum gross floor area of 60 m2 with up to 15 m2 deck/balcony;
must have direct access to a minimum of 30 m2 of useable open space, including any
deck/balcony;
car parking:
1 space for the main dwelling, except where primary access is off a lane in which
case 2 spaces are to be provided;
1 space for the garden flat;
A third space which MUST BE accessible to either;
Stack parking and parking in front yards is not acceptable.
- Need for greater controls over bnbs
- Existing definitions do not provide the flexibility required to address all possible forms of multi-unit
development. A new umbrella definition is required which covers residential flat buildings, villas,
townhouses, combinations of attached dual occupancy buildings and the like. This Strategy proposes
that medium density be permissible with consent in the 3(a)(Business Zone and within 400 metres (by
foot, not straight line) of that zone in existing residential zoned areas.
- Co-housing is a style of co-operative living providing the autonomy of private with many of the
resource advantages of community living. It is usually based on each household having freehold title
of their own site and a share in the community land and facilities, which include a common house with
kitchen and dining room. There are some rental or part rental co-housing communities. This form of
Page 11 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
development requires land where medium density development is permissible. When identifying
where to permit medium density development in Mullumbimby, consideration needs to be given to
allowing for this type of development.
- Mixed development refers to two or more forms of development in one building. Residential
development associated with commercial development has in the past been dealt with under the
different requirements of each defined use. The relationship of residential developments with adjoining
land requires focussed consideration. For example, developments in commercial areas can be built to
the boundary, without setbacks. This has the potential to adversely impact on the amenity of
residential dwellings. Integrated development controls for mixed uses are required.
- Housing of various densities could be provided on commercial zoned land if designed as a mixed-use
development. Cottage industries that preserve artisan skills could be nurtured through shop top
housing that creates a living/work space
- Residential development would be permitted in conjunction with a commercial use or home
employment. Shop-top housing could provide higher density development for the village.
- In relation to the 3(a)(Business Zone) a new LEP should consider the amount of land zoned for
commercial purposes. Investigate the introduction of a mixed-use zone that would facilitate
commercial uses attached to residential uses. Encourage mixed commercial/residential use of the
existing houses along Byron Street to add interest to the entrance to the village and retain the
character of this area. This is permissible at present, however the creation of a specific zone will draw
attention to this possibility and increase the likelihood of it occurring.
- Eco-villages here too.
Page 12 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Mullumbimby Settlement Strategy 2003, 2003:
- The analysis of ecological and physical constraints has determined areas of land that are suitable for
future development for a range of uses. This analysis has shown that the expansion of Mullumbimby
is physically limited.
- This Strategy proposes no additional land for rezoning for residential settlement. Some key issues
need to be addressed before other land can be considered.
- The existing supply of zoned land for residential development is expected to yield approximately 280
lots. At the rate of growth experienced in the late 1990’s this represents only 5 to 7 years supply.
- Agricultural land be protected as a valuable resource through zoning controls;
- General Rural Zone) land be protected in the interest of retaining Mullumbimby’s rural outlook and to
maximise the amount of rural land available to be improved through developments in technology over
time;
- No development to occur on flood prone land;
- No development on land with slope greater than 20%;
- A staged release of identified development areas through the LEP and DCP process in consultation
with the community;
- Subdivision design, lot sizes and built design to reflect a country town and the opportunity to
experience a rural lifestyle;
- Permitting garden flats to provide additional variety of housing and affordable accommodation;
- This Strategy does not propose residential densities of the order suggested in the North Coast Urban
Planning Strategy of 15 dwellings per hectare. This is principally due to a desire to maintain the
character of the town, which historically has not included a high proportion of medium density
development. New release areas are located away from the centre of town. The average development
density of the town is quite low, at about 10 dwellings per hectare.
- Flood prone land and other land on the floodplain are not recommended for settlement but the
outcomes of a floodplain management plan may yield some development.
- The residential area has a uniform low scale, dominated by single storey detached dwelling houses on
a range of lot sizes. A small amount of medium density and dual occupancy development is scattered
throughout the town. The location and size of a number of churches adds to the character of the
residential area.
- A range of lifestyle opportunities, provided through a variety of lot sizes, housing density and types, is
required to meet the range of needs of existing and future residents.
- Stormwater and capacity for on-site drainage are issues of relevance to some areas but site-specific
assessment is required. In some instances the development of constrained land can be justified. For
example, a land parcel may be too small for effective agricultural production despite having a “prime
agricultural land” classification.
- Limit development on prime agricultural land, and protect agricultural lands from encroachment by
residential development as this may impact on agricultural activities. Do not expand the town into
large rural land parcels without natural boundaries. Maintain a clearly delineated edge to the village.
- No residential development to occur on flood prone land. No fill is to be placed on land subject to the 1
in 100 AEP level unless it can be clearly demonstrated that substantial benefits to the existing flood
situation will result. Uses other than residential, such as open space, could be managed on flood
prone land.
- No residential development on land with slopes greater than 20%.
- Any development proposals for land containing significant vegetation must include a design for
protection of this vegetation. Where planting is proposed local native plant species are to be used.
These requirements are to be included in a Development Control Plan for Mullumbimby.
- The Byron Rural Settlement Strategy unconstrained land in the Wilson’s Creek/Alidenes Road area,
and deferred rural settlement in this area pending the outcome of the Mullumbimby Settlement
Strategy. This was to allow assessment of the land for more intensive residential settlement.
Page 13 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- The land is unconstrained and does not have agricultural attributes that warrant protection. It is
capable of residential development for a hamlet or small village, although there is no pressing need for
such development at this point in time.
- Due to the potential for village development in the longer term, this area should be excluded from rural
settlement in the next annual review of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy. The potential for village
settlement will be determined as part of the 5 or 10 year review of this Strategy, depending on the
availability of residential land in Mullumbimby. Until that time, the area should remain as rural.
- Retain heritage character, two-storey height limit, support shop-top housing, allow mixed use
development that incorporates a shop front, address parking and community facilities through the
review of Section 94 plan, include guidelines in the review of Development Control Plan No. 11 -
Mullumbimby, retain contributory housing and allow commercial reuse where appropriate.
- Council’s Section 94 Plan is currently being reviewed. This will establish the level of contributions for
- new development in Mullumbimby and look at the facilities required that could be linked to these
funds. The use of Section 94 funds is limited by the need to establish a nexus between the collection
of funds and what the money is spent on.
- Outcome: Where section 94 funds are limited or cannot address an identified deficiency, investigate
partnerships with developers to negotiate better outcomes. Encourage discussion of subdivision
applications in the community to enable early identification of opportunities for co-operation.
- Assess the impact of additional residential development on the demand for parking and community
facilities in the town centre and amend Section 94 plans if necessary.
- There has historically been negligible demand for medium density residential development in
Mullumbimby. That could change if land supply is limited.
- There is presently about 30 hectares of land available for residential subdivision. At a rate of 40 lots
per year, after the sewerage infrastructure constraints have been addressed, Mullumbimby’s land
supply could be fully utilised within five to ten years.
- At present the market is perceived to prefer single dwelling houses, but changing demographics could
mean that the preference for smaller dwellings will increase. This is confirmed by the Department of
Housing, which is experiencing increasing demand for one and two bedroom accommodation.
- Medium density development in Mullumbimby can provide a greater variety of housing choice to
reflect the requirements of existing and future residents.
- The provision of garden flats will also meet some of the demand for rental housing in small dwellings.
- The central business area is currently a mixture of single and two-storey development. Three-storey
development would be incongruous and would not conform to the community’s vision for the town. A
two-storey height limit is recommended.
- Support garden flats
- Regulation of bnbs
- Co-housing: This form of development currently is only possible on land where medium density
development is permissible. Consideration needs to be given to allowing for this type of development
on a broader range of sites.
- An eco-village is a sustainable community, which cares for its people and the earth in either a rural or
an urban area. See paper “Eco-villages - A Sustainable Lifestyle” by David Kanaley, for further
information.
- This form of development requires the eco-village proposal to be developed in conjunction with a
rezoning of the land on which the village is proposed to be constructed.
- Outcome: Planning scheme to facilitate eco-village developments.
- Planning scheme and development controls for mixed residential/commercial developments.
- Future population growth is expected on existing zoned land and in residential infill developments
such as dual occupancy and garden flats.
- A five to ten year supply of zoned land exists at present. No rezoning of additional land is proposed at
this stage.
- Environmental attributes can change rapidly; future subdivisions should be restricted to a 5-year
supply of allotments to avoid long-term conflicts.
Page 14 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- New areas will be considered through a new LEP and community consultation when the majority of
the approved lots have been purchased and developed. This will limit speculative demand and should
ensure an orderly staged release of land in sequence with the most economic provision of community
services and infrastructure and reasonable consistency with contemporary planning controls.
- The 2(a)(Residential Zone) needs to be reviewed to reflect the various outcomes proposed for the
residential areas. A single residential zone is no longer sufficient
- The current 3(a)(Business Zone) allows retail, commercial, tourist and professional services. This
diversity is appropriate and should be maintained. Development is currently allowed up to 9.5m or
three stories. Height limits need to reflect existing and desired future building heights. This Strategy
recommends that the height limit in the town centre should be maintained at two storeys.
Page 15 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Brunswick Heads Settlement Strategy, 2004, 2004:
- Brunswick Heads is limited in the quantity and quality of land available for residential development.
This Strategy has reviewed the existing 2(a)(Residential Zone), taking into account the need to
provide for a range of housing options such as single dwellings, dual occupancy and medium density
development. The relationship of residential development with the river and adjoining parklands,
Tweed Street, South Beach Road, and the commercial area has been considered.
- It is important to retain streetscape and character. There is a need to provide guidelines and to review
controls for density, height and setback of development so that the existing character and scale of the
village is retained.
- There are major natural constraints to the growth of Brunswick Heads:
o the Brunswick River to the east and north
o the Nature Reserves to the west and south
o flood-prone land
o wetlands and coastal erosion hazard along the coastline
o acid sulfate soils
- The Pacific Highway bypass of Brunswick Heads also provides a clearly defined physical barrier to the
westward expansion of Brunswick Heads.
- The only area available for expansion is a southward extension of Bayside Brunswick, south of the
village.
- The Strategy renews the concept of “garden flats.” Otherwise known as granny flats or studio flats,
these small dwellings contribute to current housing needs by assisting in providing affordable housing,
by providing rental income, and expanding housing options for the increasing number of single
persons and low occupancy households.
- As a new form of development, garden flats should undergo a trial period, say three years. The
contribution of garden flats to the village, and their impacts, should then be reviewed.
- Another new form of development is the ‘dual purpose’ dwelling. In the town centre and South Beach
Road developers can elect to classify residential developments as ‘dual purpose’ dwellings which may
be used for either permanent or short term (tourist) accommodation. This gives flexibility to the owner
of each unit to choose. A trial period is proposed.
- Based on population growth rates and the availability of housing put forward by this Strategy, the
theoretical estimated population design capacity of approximately 3200 will be reached in 15 to 20
years.
- Garden flats are currently permissible as a form of dual occupancy but are not commonly applied for.
It is unlikely that garden flats will meet the likely demand for affordable housing in Brunswick Heads.
- This Strategy has determined that there is no more developable land in the Brunswick Heads village
catchment. Development and population growth will occur within the boundaries of existing zoned
land.
- In 2001 the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning issued guidelines for the development of urban
settlement strategies on the North Coast of New South Wales. These guidelines require Councils to
demonstrate a commitment to sustainable development principles.
- 1988 LEP - The LEP has one all-inclusive 2(a)(Residential Zone) which has for 13 years permitted
most forms of residential development throughout the residential areas of the Shire. Dwelling-houses,
dual occupancy, residential flat buildings, motels and hostels are permissible subject only to generic
Shire-wide development controls such as minimum lot size and setbacks.
- This broad-based permissibility system in Byron Shire as a whole has given rise to examples of
inappropriately located development and land use conflict issues. Residential flat buildings in some
instances have been built in areas of predominantly single dwelling-houses, with poor integration into
the streetscape. Conversely, some higher density development has not been located within proximity
to services such as shops and open space. Large commercial-scale bed and breakfast establishments
Page 16 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
in residential areas of Byron Bay have resulted in comments and claims of additional traffic, noise and
servicing requirements.
- 2002 DCP - Subdivision minimum lot size:
o 600 m2 for a general lot (note: this precludes subdivision of the ¼ acre (1012 m2) lots often found
in older subdivisions, including parts of Brunswick Heads, because 1200 m2 is required before
subdivision can occur);
o 650 m2 for corner bocks;
o 800 m2 for battleaxe blocks.
o Minimum lot size for dual occupancy (attached or detached) is 800 m2.
o Minimum lot size for medium density (3 or more units) is 1200 m2. There is also a requirement of
250 m2 of site area per dwelling.
- Development Control Plan No. 6 Bayside Brunswick: 1992 - The DCP stipulates that a minimum of
10% of allotments should be small lots (450 m2) and at least 10% of land should be allocated for
medium density housing. The DCP includes a subdivision concept plan.
- This Strategy does not propose residential densities of the order suggested in the North Coast Urban
Planning Strategy of 15 dwellings per hectare. This is principally due to the community’s desire to
maintain the character and sense of place of the village, which historically has not included a high
proportion of medium density development. The average development density of the village is quite
low, at about 10 dwellings per hectare.
- preference for full life-cycle housing, low maintenance housing, generally smaller dwellings, ease of
access.
- lower occupancy rates suggest a demand for smaller than average dwellings; garden flats.
- Council requires the floor levels of new residential buildings to be 500mm above the 1-in-100 year
flood level. Parts of Brunswick Heads, especially at the north of the village around the river, are flood
prone at the 1 in 100 year level.
- The investigation sites near the southern intersection with the Pacific Highway have some slopes
above 20%. This land is unsuitable for residential development.
- Outward expansion will be confined to the land in the 2(a)(Residential Zone) south of the village in the
Bayside Brunswick area.
- The Brunswick Heads village centre has a uniformity in building height, bulk and density. Many
developments in the commercial area are 2 storeys high and there are a few 3-storey buildings.
Residential development is also a mixture of single and 2 storey, with a very few 3 storey residential
flat buildings.
- There are approximately 22 hectares of land zoned 2(a)(Residential Zone) in one contiguous area at
Bayside Brunswick considered suitable for urban development.
- Land supply is therefore limited to the Bayside Brunswick area. This land will not be available until:
o sewerage treatment capacity is available;
o subdivision design and engineering plans have been approved by Council;
o subdivision works have been constructed.
- The undeveloped part of the Bayside Brunswick estate has the capacity for approximately 270 lots. At
recent growth rates this represents about 13 years of land supply.
- Any additional population will have to be either accommodated through redevelopment and upgrading
of existing housing stock, or will need to be accommodated in other towns and villages and possibly
outside of the Shire
- There are a considerable number of medium density developments – holiday flats and residential flat
buildings – in the village generally east of Tweed Street. Many are on allotments which would be
considered too small under current community expectations, and many are deficient in carparking
under current standards. Existing use rights would maintain the permissibility of medium density
development, but would also allow application for redevelopment to other non-conforming uses. This
Page 17 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
is an undesirable situation from the community’s viewpoint as it can result in unforeseen and
potentially undesirable types of development.
- Simply zoning these areas for medium density is not desired by the community as it may fuel
speculation leading to redevelopment of consolidated lots with developments of an unprecedented
and undesirable bulk.
- Recognition of existing use rights under local planning instruments to the actual quantum of the
existing development would provide certainty to landowners and to the community as the likely long
term form of development on these sites.
- No further development involving filling or a intensification of runoff should be permitted on floodprone
land;
- Hard surface area should not be increased on existing developed residential land;
- Car parking requirements for new developments are calculated in accordance with Council’s
Development Control Plan schedules. All parking required for residential development should be
provided on-site
- Residential developments in Brunswick Heads are generally a mix of single- and twostorey, with a few
three-storey buildings closer to the town centre. Community feedback suggests that a proliferation of
three-storey developments would seriously erode the low-key village atmosphere of the village.
- A two storey height limit will apply throughout Brunswick Heads including the 3(a)(Business Zone).
- The following points are indicative of possible development controls for garden flats, although this
remains to be confirmed through planning instruments:
- These small dwellings will be permissible throughout the residential areas, other than in areas
oriented towards medium density, motels and hostels.
- Garden flats accommodate additional population and should be levied section 94 contributions
accordingly.
- Brunswick Heads is more suited to smaller B & B’s of up to three guest rooms.
- It is proposed that B & B’s be split into size classes. Facilities with up to three guest rooms would be
permissible in the business area, two guest rooms in the residential area east of Tweed Street, and
only 1 guest room elsewhere.
- Existing definitions do not provide the flexibility required to address all possible forms of multi-unit
development.
- A new umbrella definition is required which covers residential flat buildings, villas, townhouses,
combinations of attached dual occupancy buildings and the like.
- The context of residential developments in a commercial area requires focussed consideration. For
example, developments in commercial areas can presently be built to the boundary, without setbacks.
This has the potential to adversely impact on the amenity of residential dwellings.
- This Strategy proposes to not differentiate between tourist and permanent residential accommodation
in the business area of Brunswick Heads. Development in this area is likely to be in the form of mixed
residential/commercial development.
- 3(a)(Business Zone) - 7.5m two-storey height limit.
o Residential development to be permitted only if commercial floorspace is provided on the whole of
the ground floor street frontage of developments;
o Residential development to be permitted in accordance with a unit-area formula. The intention is
to reduce the incentive to consolidate adjoining allotments and redevelop buildings of undesirable
bulk and scale;
o No differentiation between tourist and permanent residential accommodation.
- Development should be at lower densities on the outskirts of the village:
o single dwellings
o garden flats
o dual occupancy
o no medium density, motels or hostels
Page 18 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- The current 2(t)(Tourist Area Zone) permits a range of developments and uses which are
inappropriate to the site or to Brunswick Heads in general. The land is not suited to a resort or tourist
unit style of development.
- In view of the potential for natural habitat to regenerate on this land, future subdivisions of this land
should be restricted to a 5 year supply of allotments
Page 19 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Byron Bay and Suffolk Park Settlement Strategy 2002, 2002:
- The future development of Byron Bay is limited to the existing 2(a)(Residential Zone), the
3(a)(Business Zone) and the 7(f2)(Urban Coastal Lands Zone), and redevelopments within the
existing town area.
- Design guidelines should be developed to retain the character of older parts of the town, including the
streetscapes, building styles and relatively homogenous development patterns.
- The future development of Belongil Spit is being determined through the Coastline Management Plan
process and is likely to be fairly limited. Currently, Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 prohibits dual
occupancy, residential flat buildings and a range of other developments in urban coastal areas
including Belongil.
- Suffolk Park is to remain a detached housing area, with no increases in density such as through dual
occupancy or medium density development.
- Residential development in Byron Bay and Suffolk Park is constrained by environmental features and
limited infrastructure capacities.
- There is strong demand for residential property but, even if the infrastructure constraints were
addressed, it is evident that the community does not support a demand-driven growth scenario at this
point in time.
- This Strategy does not identify additional land for new residential subdivisions.
- Urban consolidation is facilitated in the town centre and in dual occupancy and medium density
precincts.
- It is unlikely that all development opportunities will be acted on – some landowners are simply not
interested in residential development (particularly in commercial areas) or don’t have the resources to
develop their land.
- Byron Development Control Plan No. 1 - DCP No. 1 applies to the whole Shire. The relevant controls
under Byron DCP No. 1, for strategic purposes, are:
o Subdivision minimum lot size:
o 600 m2 for a general lot (note: this precludes subdivision of the ¼ acre (1012 m2) lots common in
the older parts of Byron Bay);
o 650 m2 for corner lots;
o 800 m2 for hatchet-shaped (“battleaxe”) lots.
o Minimum lot size for dual occupancy (“duplex”) whether physically attached or detached is 800
m2.
o Minimum lot size for medium density (3 or more units) is 1200 m2 and 250 m2 of site area per
dwelling.
- Planning controls to be reviewed to facilitate diversity in housing choice, particularly smaller dwellings
(1 & 2 bedroom) in medium density developments.
- Medium density development in a range of areas, particularly non-prime real estate areas. Facilitate
medium density and other development by the Department of Housing. Facilitate development of
manufactured home estate/s. Maintain minimum 30% permanent rental in current and future Council
caravan parks & encourage minimum 30% permanent occupancy in private parks. Investigate use of
LEP & DCP or other mechanisms to facilitate and retain Affordable Housing (as defined) whether
provided by the Department of Housing or private developers.
- The major physical constraints to growth in Byron Bay and Suffolk Park are:
o the severance of Byron Bay by the North Coast Railway line, and the lack of crossings of this line;
o inadequate capacity of the Byron Bay town centre to cater for through traffic;
o sewage treatment plant capacity;
o limited capacity of Byron Bay High School;
o stormwater drainage limitations;
o flooding and flood plain management;
o parking congestion in Byron Bay town centre;
Page 20 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
o flora and fauna impact;
o coastal erosion hazard;
o acid sulfate soils and peat;
o the lack of available job opportunities;
o the cost and availability of serviced residential land;
o physical/ecological constraints to expansion. undeveloped land parcels in Byron Bay and Suffolk
Park are constrained for residential development by environmental attributes, particularly:
o flooding at the 1% Annual Exceedence Probability (1-in-100 year) level;
o high risk potential acid sulfate soils;
o State Environmental Planning Policies 14 (Coastal Wetlands) and 26 (Littoral Rainforest);
o steep slopes (over 20%).
- catchment-based environmental repair and enhancement scheme, under which floodprone and other
constrained land unsuitable for residential development will be eventually revegetated.
- In the absence of a Floodplain Management Plan there should be no rezoning to higher order uses on
floodprone land. Consideration may be given to non-structural developments such as open space, car
parking, camping and caravan parks in accordance with relevant guidelines. Further investigation of
stormwater management measures is required, as detailed in the Byron Bay CBD Stormwater
Strategic Plan 1999.
- The future development of Byron Bay is restricted to limited infill within the existing town area. In
addition, the threat of coastal erosion is a significant consideration when considering development in
the coastal zone. Parts of the existing town are floodprone at the 1 in 100 level.
- The future development of Belongil Spit is being determined through the Coastline Management Plan
process and is likely to be fairly limited.
- The future development of Suffolk Park is limited to infill redevelopments and subdivisions. Outward
expansion of East Suffolk Park is restricted by the Broken Head Nature Reserve and Taylors Lake to
the south and by Environmental Protection zones to the north, south and west.
- The future development of Skinners Shoot has already been determined through Council’s Rural
Settlement Strategy. Skinner’s Shoot Road is a major constraint.
- This area has no future potential for either residential or rural residential Development. maintain and
enhance protection of the natural environment. Planning system to link development with
infrastructure capabilities.
- All residential development to provide car parking on-site.
- The capacity of sewerage infrastructure is a constraint to further development. No further development
should be permitted which places additional loading on the sewerage system until upgrading works
are completed. LEP to incorporate provisions to link development with effluent reuse capacities, as
detailed in the Byron Bay Effluent Management Strategy, such that there is no increase in the mass of
nutrient load from the STP to the Belongil catchment as measured at the outlet to the constructed
wetland.
- Stormwater requires management but should not be considered as a constraint to development in
Byron Bay town centre. Planning instruments to encourage management measures such as on-site
infiltration & water conservation. Council to investigate a Section 94 plan for town centre stormwater
infrastructure.
- Adopt a new “dual use” definition for residential development in central parts of Byron Bay. Limit
motels and hostels to town centre localities. No motels or hostels in Suffolk Park 3(a)(Business Zone).
- Further consultation to ascertain desirable design characteristics, including new buildings and
retention of older buildings. Obtain advice from a heritage adviser on design guidelines for character
precincts and buildings.: Adopt design guidelines in planning instruments for neighbourhoods in Byron
Bay and Suffolk Park. Two storey height limit for all development (commercial and residential). Design
guidelines to be developed.
- Garden flats will only be permissible in specified residential areas, including dual occupancy precincts
and character areas. Adopt a legal definition and development controls (including permissible
Page 21 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
localities) for garden flats. The garden flats concept should be reviewed after three years to gauge the
effectiveness of development controls, impacts on residential amenity, and whether they have proven
to be an effective response to housing supply issues.
- New definitions and permissible localities for bed and breakfast establishments based on (a) one
guest room, (b) up to three guest rooms and (c) up to five guest rooms. Note: this system should be
modified in the event that the legal definition of “bed and breakfast establishment” is amended to a
maximum of three guest rooms.
- Adopt new definitions for multi-dwelling development to cover all forms of urban residential
development of three or more dwellings on an allotment. Review development controls to permit on-
site management of residential flat buildings.
- Develop integrated controls for mixed commercial/residential developments.
- Adopt a new definition for “dual purpose” development, permissible in 3(a)(Business Zone) and other
areas close to beaches already providing tourist accommodation.
- The Byron Bay residential area will generally maintain a single detached dwelling urban form,
particularly in the delineated “character areas”. Some consolidation will occur in the residential area
south of the town centre through dual occupancy.
- Medium density development should be confined to precincts which have already developed in Shirley
Street, Lawson Street, Sommerset Street and Jonson Street.
- Residential densities should be limited to single detached dwelling-houses only on allotments
adjoining sensitive environments. This will minimise encroachment and buffer effects generally,
especially the predation of native fauna by domestic animals.
- Precincts for different types of residential development such as dwelling-houses, dual occupancy and
medium density.
- Develop design guidelines to maintain and enhance predominant character of built form and open
space/landscaping. Garden flats permissible in delineated character areas, subject to design
guidelines. Bed and breakfast establishments permissible in character areas subject to the dwelling
complying with local neighbourhood character. Amend exempt and complying development criteria
(e.g. dwelling extensions, recladding) to encourage consistency with neighbourhood character.
- Wategos Beach - Single dwelling houses only, no dual occupancy or medium density. No commercial
development (e.g. shops, hostels, motels, boarding houses). No B & B’s.
- Sunrise Beach - Single detached dwelling-houses; B & B’s (1 guest room). Medium density in existing
precincts.
- Suffolk Park - Single dwellings;. B & B’s of 1 guest room; no B & B’s, motels or hostels.
- Land currently zoned 2(a)(Residential Zone) is subject to environmental constraints, particularly
significant vegetation, which may decrease the lot yield.
- It can be assumed that there is pent-up demand for new subdivision areas due to the prevention of
subdivision and other development under the sewerage “moratorium” which has operated since late
1997.
- At current rates of subdivision the available zoned land in Suffolk Park – approximately 23 hectares –
will be consumed within five years of the sewerage infrastructure upgrade.
- Available zoned land in Byron Bay at the Sunrise Beach subdivision is exhausted.
- Future demand will be directed to residual vacant lots (of which there are approximately 200 in Byron
Bay and Suffolk Park combined) and to redevelopment areas, mainly the town centre.
- Garden flats: Garden flats are proposed in the area identified for general dual occupancy, on lots
between 600 and 800 m2 (whereas dual occupancy will be permissible on lots over 800 m2). There
are 210 lots between 600 and 800 m2. Some already have dual occupancy and have been discounted
from this calculation. Garden flats are also proposed in the “character areas” on lots greater than 800
m2. 150 lots are eligible for garden flats. An occupancy of 2 persons per garden flat is assumed.
- Development capacity within the existing zoned residential area – remaining subdivision capacity and
dual occupancy and medium density development.
- 3(a)(Business Zone): Residential development in the town centre will include tourist facilities, such as
motels, hostels and serviced apartments, or permanent residential dwellings.
Page 22 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014
Areas identified as community title and multiple occupancy. Development controls are specified for these
areas that limit density, etc.
Zones in town centres:
- R2 Low density residential
- R3 Medium density residential
- R5 Large lot residential
- B1 Neighbourhood centre
- B2 Local centre
- B4 Mixed use
- RU5 Village
- SP3 Tourist
Height:
- Predominantly 9 metres, very limited 11.5 metres
Minimum lot size:
- Byron: number of areas of 600m2, some 200m
2 and some 1,000m
2
- Suffolk Park: number of lots 600m2, some 1 hectare
- Bangalow: number of areas of 600m2, some 200m
2 and some 300m
2
- Mullumbimby: number of areas of 600m2, some 200m
2 and some 8,000m
2
- South Gold Beach and Ocean Shores: number of areas of 600m2, some 200m
2 and some 1,000m
2
- Brunswick Heads: number of areas of 600m2, some 200m
2 and some 1,000m
2
R2 Low Density Residential
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
- To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home-based child care; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Attached dwellings; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Business identification signs; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Group homes; Health consulting rooms; Home industries; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Roads; Seniors housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Examples: Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Commercial premises; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Health services facilities; Home occupations (sex services); Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Residential accommodation; Residential care facilities; Tourist and visitor accommodation;
Page 23 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
R3 Medium Density Residential
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.
- To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.
- To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home-based child care; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Attached dwellings; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Business identification signs; Child care centres; Community facilities; Group homes; Home industries; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Respite day care centres; Roads; Seniors housing; Serviced apartments; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Examples - Camping grounds; Entertainment facilities; Home occupations (sex services); Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Rural workers’ dwellings; Tourist and visitor accommodation
B1 Neighbourhood Centre
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people
who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home-based child care; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Boarding houses; Business premises; Child care centres; Community facilities; Health consulting rooms; Home industries; Hostels; Hotel and motel accommodation; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Respite day care centres; Roads; Shop top housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Examples - Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Eco-tourist facilities; Health services facilities; Home occupations (sex services); Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Residential accommodation; Tourist and visitor accommodation;
B2 Local Centre
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of
people who live in, work in and visit the local area.
- To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.
Page 24 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
- To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
- To encourage vibrant centres by allowing residential and tourist and visitor accommodation above
commercial premises.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home-based child care; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Boarding houses; Child care centres; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Home industries; Hostels; Information and education facilities; Medical centres; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Examples - Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Home occupations (sex services); Recreation facilities (major); Residential accommodation;
B4 Mixed Use
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.
- To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations
so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home-based child care; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Child care centres; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Hostels; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Medical centres; Multi dwelling housing; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Examples - Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Home occupations (sex services); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Residential accommodation;
SP3 Tourist
1 Objectives of zone
- To provide for a variety of tourist-oriented development and related uses.
- To encourage tourist development in designated areas to reduce impacts on residential amenity in
other zones.
Page 25 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Home occupations
3 Permitted with consent
Amusement centres; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Child care centres; Community facilities; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities; Flood mitigation works; Food and drink premises; Function centres; Helipads; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Recreation areas; Respite day care centres; Roads; Signage; Tourist and visitor accommodation
4 Prohibited
Any development not specified in item 2 or 3
4.1E Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings
(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.
(2) Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the table to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the table opposite that zone, if the area of the lot is equal to or greater than the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the table.
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Dual occupancy (attached) Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
800 square metres
Dual occupancy (detached) Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
800 square metres
Multi dwelling housing Zone R2 Low Density Residential
1,000 square metres
Multi dwelling housing Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
800 square metres
Residential flat building Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
800 square metres
4.2B Maximum number of dwelling houses or dual occupancies on multiple occupancy or rural landsharing community developments
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to permit: (i) people to collectively own a single lot of land and use it as their principal place of residence, and (ii) the erection of multiple dwellings on the lot and the sharing of facilities and resources, and
(iii) the collective environmental repair and management of the lot, and
(iv) the pooling of resources to economically develop a wide range of communal rural living opportunities,
(b) to facilitate closer rural settlement in a clustered style in a manner that: (i) protects the environment, and (ii) does not create any unreasonable demand for the provision of services or any unreasonable demand for the uneconomic provision of services.
(2) This clause applies to land outlined by a thick green line on the Multiple Occupancy and Community Title Map.
(3) Development may be carried out with consent for the erection of more than one dwelling house or dual occupancy (attached) on such a lot provided that:
Page 26 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
(a) if there is a number shown for that lot on the Multiple Occupancy and Community Title Map—the total number of dwellings on the lot will not exceed the number marked for that lot on that Map, or (b) if there is no number shown for that lot on that Map—there will not be less than 3 dwellings, and not more than 1 dwelling for every 3 hectares, up to a maximum of 15 dwellings, on the lot.
(4) Development consent must not be granted under subclause (3) unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) there will be appropriate management measures in place that will ensure the protection of the landscape, biodiversity and rural setting of the land, and (b) the development is complementary to the rural and environmental attributes of the land and its surrounds.
residential accommodation means a building or place used predominantly as a place of residence, and includes any of the following:
(a) attached dwellings,
(b) boarding houses,
(c) dual occupancies,
(d) dwelling houses,
(e) group homes,
(f) hostels,
(g) multi dwelling housing,
(h) residential flat buildings,
(i) rural workers’ dwellings,
(j) secondary dwellings,
(k) semi-detached dwellings,
(l) seniors housing,
(m) shop top housing,
but does not include tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks.
These terms being further explained as follows:
attached dwelling means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, where: (a) each dwelling is attached
to another dwelling by a common wall, and (b) each of the dwellings is on its own lot of land, and (c) none
of the dwellings is located above any part of another dwelling.
boarding house means a building that: (a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and (b) provides lodgers
with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and (c) may have shared facilities, such as a
communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and (d) has rooms, some or all of which may have
private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers,
dual occupancy means a dual occupancy (attached) or a dual occupancy (detached).
dual occupancy (attached) means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other, but
does not include a secondary dwelling.
dual occupancy (detached) means 2 detached dwellings on one lot of land, but does not include a
secondary dwelling.
dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable
of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.
dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling.
group home means a permanent group home or a transitional group home.
group home (permanent) or permanent group home means a dwelling: (a) that is occupied by persons
as a single household with or without paid supervision or care and whether or not those persons are
Page 27 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
related or payment for board and lodging is required, and (b) that is used to provide permanent
household accommodation for people with a disability or people who are socially disadvantaged,
but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or
People with a Disability) 2004 applies.
group home (transitional) or transitional group home means a dwelling: (a) that is occupied by persons
as a single household with or without paid supervision or care and whether or not those persons are
related or payment for board and lodging is required, and (b) that is used to provide temporary
accommodation for the relief or rehabilitation of people with a disability or for drug or alcohol rehabilitation
purposes, or that is used to provide half-way accommodation for persons formerly living in institutions or
temporary accommodation comprising refuges for men, women or young people,
but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or
People with a Disability) 2004 applies.
hostel means premises that are generally staffed by social workers or support providers and at which: (a)
residential accommodation is provided in dormitories, or on a single or shared basis, or by a combination
of them, and (b) cooking, dining, laundering, cleaning and other facilities are provided on a shared basis.
moveable dwelling means: (a) any tent, or any caravan or other van or other portable device (whether on
wheels or not), used for human habitation, or (b) a manufactured home, or (c) any conveyance, structure
or thing of a class or description prescribed by the regulations (under the Local Government Act 1993) for
the purposes of this definition.
multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land,
each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.
residential care facility means accommodation for seniors or people with a disability that includes: (a)
meals and cleaning services, and (b) personal care or nursing care, or both, and (c) appropriate staffing,
furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care,
but does not include a dwelling, hostel, hospital or psychiatric facility.
Note. Residential care facilities are a type of seniors housing—see the definition of that term in this
Dictionary.
residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an
attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.
semi-detached dwelling means a dwelling that is on its own lot of land and is attached to only one other
dwelling.
seniors housing means a building or place that is: (a) a residential care facility, or (b) a hostel within the
meaning of clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a
Disability) 2004, or (c) a group of self-contained dwellings, or (d) a combination of any of the buildings or
places referred to in paragraphs (a)–(c),and that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for: (e) seniors
or people who have a disability, or (f) people who live in the same household with seniors or people who
have a disability, or (g) staff employed to assist in the administration of the building or place or in the
provision of services to persons living in the building or place,
but does not include a hospital.
rural worker’s dwelling means a building or place that is additional to a dwelling house on the same lot
and that is used predominantly as a place of residence by persons employed, whether on a long-term or
short-term basis, for the purpose of agriculture or a rural industry on that land.
shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business
premises.
Page 28 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Byron Development Control Plan 2014:
Chapter D1 - Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purpose Zones
The types of residential development to which this Chapter applies include the following:
- Attached dwellings
- Dual occupancies
- Dwelling houses
- Expanded houses
- Multi dwelling housing
- Residential flat buildings
- Secondary dwellings
- Semi-detached dwellings
- Shop top housing
- Studios
Provides criteria on building height planes, setbacks, screening, character and visual impact, fences, balconies, access, car parking, landscaping, private open space, siting, design, character, noise mitigation, access, mobility, density control
D1.10.1 Density Control
Objectives
To provide affordable shop top housing accommodation close to transport, employment and services.
Performance Criteria
The siting, design and density of the dwelling component of the development must be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and must provide a mix of dwelling sizes to accommodate different family profiles.
Prescriptive Measures
The density of the dwelling component of the development must not be greater than one (1) dwelling per 150 square metres of site area where no floor space ratio restriction applies under Byron LEP 2014.
A minimum of 25% of the floor space of the entire development, not including car parking, must be set aside for commercial/ retail purposes. All ground floor space fronting the street must be devoted to retail premises and/or business premises.
Chapter E5 - Certain Locations in Byron Bay and Ewingsdale
Focuses on development controls for Bayshore Village, Byron Central Hospital and North Byron Beach Resort
Chapter E5 identifies specific development controls for Bayshore Village, Byron Central Hospital and North Byron Beach Resort.
Chapter E1 - Suffolk Park
Dwelling(s) may be permitted within Zone B1 only if demonstrated to be directly associated with and subsidiary to retail, business, community or associated development within Zone B1. Shop top housing is Council’s preferred form of residential development within Zone B1.
Page 29 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
Chapter E1 identifies design criteria for development in Suffolk Park. This chapter states that dwellings may be permitted within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone, only where directly associated with retail, business, community or other land use established in the zone. The preferred method of providing dwellings in this zone is through shop top housing.
Chapter E2 - Bangalow
To provide for a variety of residential development forms and densities, including innovative multi dwelling housing and other medium density forms which best utilise the town’s topography and maximises the use of services.
Bangalow urban release areas: To provide for a range of residential lot sizes that are responsive in terms of environmental constraints and will achieve affordable housing principles and improve housing choice to a broader population. Structure plans for sites provided (may need amending).
Chapter E2 provides design criteria for development within Bangalow. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage a range of residential development types and densities, including innovative multi dwelling housing and other medium density forms. This chapter also identifies requirements for the Bangalow urban release areas, with the objective being to provide for a range of residential lot sizes that are responsive to environmental constraints and improve housing choice for the broader population.
Chapter E3 - Mullumbimby
The existing subdivision pattern in Precincts 2 and 3 is dominated by long narrow lots often with houses located across two lots with large rear yards with laneway access. These properties provide opportunities for infill housing in the form of dual occupancy development, small lot subdivision and boundary adjustment or re-subdivision.
Chapter E3 identifies design criteria for development in Mullumbimby. It identifies opportunities for infill hosing, particularly in the form of dual occupancies, small lot subdivision and boundary realignments.
Chapter E4 - Brunswick Heads
The residential areas of Brunswick Heads contain a varied and compatible range of architectural styles, materials, landscapes and streetscapes. Housing comprises mainly low density, low rise single and attached dwellings with low-impact bulk and scale. New development is designed to respect the integrity and character of heritage items, consistent with Chapter C1 Non-Indigenous Heritage.
New residential development is consistent with the requirements of Chapter D1 Residential Development in Urban and Special Purpose Zones. Development is designed to enhance the low key, family-friendly, coastal village character, streetscape and scale of Brunswick Heads. s
Chapter E4 provides design criteria for development within Brunswick Heads. It states that new development is to be consistent with and enhance the existing character and scale of development within the town, being predominantly low density, low rise single and attached dwellings, with reduced bulk and scale.
Draft Short Term Holiday Accommodation Strategy (no date):
- It outlines draft planning controls to regulate short term holiday accommodation in Byron Shire and
provides details on the registration system, fees and charges (rates and registration fees) and
compliance action. In developing the Strategy it became apparent that existing Council controls for
other types of tourist and visitor accommodation such as Bed and Breakfast, Serviced Apartments and
Rural Tourist Accommodation were inequitable. Therefore, this Strategy also proposes amendments
to existing planning controls for other forms of tourist and visitor accommodation to improve equity.
- Three levels of assessment are proposed to regulate short term holiday accommodation.
1. Exempt: holiday homes are only available for rent in Australian School Holiday periods, for a total of less than 90 days in any calendar year.
Page 30 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Bay Housing Needs Assessment – Literature Review
2. Complying: maximum of 3 bedrooms, and are rented for less than 90 days at a time in any calendar year
3. Development Application: 4 or more bedrooms, or for dwelling houses that cant satisfy the complying provisions and are rented for less than 90 days at a time in any calendar year
- To comply, holiday homes must meet all of the additional provisions stated under the relevant clauses.
These controls will apply to all owners/managers renting a property for short term holiday
accommodation.
Attachment B Consultation Records
Page 1 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Byron Shire Council
Housing Needs Report
Consultation Contacts and Questions List of consultation contacts
Consultation Contacts Locality
Real Estate
Real Estate Agent – Bangalow Bangalow
Real Estate Agent – Bangalow Bangalow
Real Estate Agent – Byron Bay Byron Bay
Real Estate Agent – Mullumbimby Mullumbimby
Developers/town planners
West Byron Urban Release Area - Developer Byron Bay
Bayview Land Development Pty Ltd Byron Bay
West Byron Urban Release Area – Town Planner Byron Bay
Planners North
RVI Planning Byron Bay
Anstey Homes
EDQ Throughout Queensland
Retirement housing
Cape Byron Estate Retirement Village Byron Bay
Feros Village Bangalow, Byron Bay
Affordability Projects
Haven Home Safe, Bendigo
University of NSW – Built Environment
The questions for each stakeholder group are included below for reference:
Real Estate Agents
RENTING/BUYING: What can you tell us about the preferences of people and trends
overall and specific groups in terms of:
Size of dwellings? Number of bedrooms? Land size?
House versus unit/townhouses?
Location (proximity to services, transport, coast, walkability, recreation areas)?
Mixed use centre or suburbia?
Sustainability (energy efficiency, building materials, walkability, ability to have a
vegie garden)?
Page 2 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Specific groups:
Lower income workers.
One parent households.
Older people, older couples, older singles.
Young singles, young couples.
Families.
Who drives the types of new dwellings being offered on the market? Do you think the
preferences of purchasers or what the development industry chooses to offer?
Are there examples of housing options elsewhere that you would like to see developed in
the Byron Shire?
Do you think your clients would purchase smaller more affordable dwellings (whether
houses or units) that are well located, over larger houses?
Are there any issues that people don’t like about townhouses and units compared to
houses? Prompts: parking, privacy, noise and safety?
Do you think people seeking a tree change/sea change are having any impact on housing
price growth? Are these people seeking a different type of dwelling to locals?
Do you think houses and units available for holiday lets are having any impact on housing
availability and therefore on housing price growth? Are properties available for holiday
letting different types of dwellings to what locals are looking for?
We are particularly interested in affordable dwellings – Where are the affordable dwellings
located in the area you work in? How many bedrooms do they have? Are they houses or
units?
Has the growth in secondary dwellings contributed to offering more affordable rental stock,
or are these mainly used for other purposes?
Developers
Who are (who are you expecting) to be your primary customer? Are they owner occupier or
investor, are they young or old, are they singles, couples, groups of professionals, young
families, families with older children?
What do customers want in terms of dwelling size and dwelling type? How do you know
this?
Who drives the types of new dwellings being offered on the market? Do you think the
preferences of purchasers or what the development industry chooses to offer?
Are there examples of housing options elsewhere that you would like to see developed in
the Byron Shire?
What influence does finance play in influencing dwelling types? Is funding easier to obtain
for housing projects over units and townhouses?
Do you think purchasers want smaller, more affordable dwellings? (Understand what they
consider to be “smaller” – dwelling size; lot size; product…)
Do you think population ageing and the growth in older people living alone will impact the
types of dwellings in demand? Will it influence what you provide? Given this growing
market, how can we ensure these smaller, more affordable dwellings are available to this
market in the future? How do we make this happen? What are the barriers to this
happening?
Page 3 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
We are interested in providing quite specific detailed recommendations to Council about
how they can assist and encourage developers to deliver more affordable/more diverse
housing types. What recommendation would you give to Council?
Prompts:
The approval process? Impediments (regulatory; organizational; cost…)
Infrastructure provision and infrastructure charges?
Cost of fees and charges?
Risk?
Confidence in delivering something different?
Lower return?
Customer preferences?
Housing Providers, Social/Affordable Housing
Is there a need for additional community and social housing in the Byron Shire Council
area?
Where are the particular areas of need? What sort of household types are most in need?
What type of dwelling is mostly required?
Council is interested in developing strategies to encourage more diverse and affordable
housing. We’re aren’t so much interested in proving that there is a need or assessing or
quantifying the level of need, but more so in strategies to deliver better outcomes.
How can Byron Shire Council support your work in delivering more affordable, more
diverse housing types (without direct investment)?
Aged Care, Retirement Villages, Home Care
Is there unmet demand for retirement village units and residential aged care? Is there a
long waiting list for your facility/village?
Do you think that older people who receive home care services are living in homes that
meet their needs? Have the required features to make life easier – single storey, walk in
showers, bars etc.? Are they too big or too small? Are they isolated from neighbours?
Large yards for maintenance? What else?
How can home care services be delivered more efficiently and with a better level of care to
your clients in terms of dwelling types, locations, etc.?
Town Planners:
Who are the typical types of residents/applicants? Are they owner occupier or investor, are
they young or old, are they singles, couples, groups of professionals, young families,
families with older children?
What do applicants/residents want in terms of dwelling size and dwelling type?
Who drives the types of new dwellings being offered on the market? Do you think the
preferences of purchasers or what the development industry chooses to offer?
Do you think purchasers want smaller, more affordable dwellings? (Understand what they
consider to be “smaller” – dwelling size; lot size; product…)
Do you think residents would purchase smaller more affordable dwellings (whether houses
or units) that are well located, over larger houses?
Page 4 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Do you think population ageing and the growth in older people living alone will impact the
types of dwellings in demand? Will it influence what developers provide? Given this
growing market, how can we ensure these smaller, more affordable dwellings are available
to this market in the future? How do we make this happen? What are the barriers to this
happening?
Do you think people seeking a tree change/sea change are having any impact on housing
price growth? Are these people seeking a different type of dwelling to locals?
Do you think houses and units available for holiday lets are having any impact on housing
availability and therefore on housing price growth? Are properties available for holiday
letting different types of dwellings to what locals are looking for?
We are particularly interested in affordable dwellings – Where are the affordable dwellings
located in the area and do you see many applications for these types of dwellings?
Has the growth in secondary dwellings contributed to offering more affordable rental stock,
or are these mainly used for other purposes?
Are there examples of housing options elsewhere that you think should be developed in the
Byron Shire?
We are interested in providing quite specific detailed recommendations to Council about
how they can assist and encourage developers to deliver more affordable/more diverse
housing types. What recommendation would you give to Council (including options for no
investment)?
Prompts:
- The approval process? Impediments (regulatory; organizational; cost…)
- Infrastructure provision and infrastructure charges?
- Cost of fees and charges?
- Risk?
- Confidence in delivering something different?
- Lower return?
- Customer preferences?
Page 5 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Byron Shire Council
Housing Needs Report
Consultation Records
Note: The following comments pertain to the provisions of urban area housing. Other comments
were provided that relate to issues in the rural area and these will be taken on board as part of
the Rural Land Use Strategy process.
Real Estate Agents
Real Estate Agent – Bangalow 27 July 2015
Preferences/demand overall:
New blocks of land 600-800sqm are selling in Bangalow
Need more land for duplex and unit style even if it’s free standing (smaller separate
developments)
This would increase choice, would contribute to affordability if could be delivered to the
market at around $350,000-$450,000
Units at $450,000 would sell easily, especially if 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom
Getting this price depends on development costs though. Respondent was talking to
developer/town planner for Green Frog development at Bangalow and development fees
were around $35,000-40,000 per lot for Section 92 contributions
Walkability: well the three residential developments around at the moment: near the highway
(Blackwood Crescent), south of town (Charlotte Street) and western side of town (Sansom
Street). All walking distance to town if you wanted to do that.
Getting a cross section of people looking.
Retirees/older people: 55 years + are always around from Sydney and Melbourne and also
from Brisbane and Gold Coast.
Young couples and families still around.
The area not that affordable for low income people/single parents
Rents $400+ so not that easy for split families etc.
Opportunities for young people limited, hard to break in to home ownership
The 45+ age group will always be there.
Real Estate Agent – Bangalow 27 July 2015
In Bangalow:
There are some subdivisions of 40-50 lots, rezoned (early in the 2000s?), so now selling
stages 3 and 4.
Lots around 600-800sqm
Mostly 600sqm, some 700sqm, some 800sqm for dual occupancy.
People are looking for 800sqm lots so they can have that second cottage to rent out, income
stream, or for kids, older parents.
Granny flat on 500sqm still okay for that though.
800sqm lots are in demand, nowhere near enough. The price difference between a 600sqm
and 800sqm lot doesn’t make it viable for the developer to offer more 800sqm lots.
Developers are not doing the value add, not into construction, just want to sell the lots.
Page 6 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Although lately one developer is doing some building.
Really untested demand for townhouses, units, but respondent thinks there is demand there.
Bangalow hasn’t had a history of medium density.
Even for people wanting a weekender. Could suit people from Brisbane spending a three
day weekend in the region. Less maintenance.
Medium density would be welcomed.
Bangalow Village Edge
They’ve put the medium density on the extreme western end. The furthest part of the estate
from centre of Bangalow.
Some infill development occurring but with the high costs of dwellings already, would be
difficult to make money given demolition, removing asbestos, redevelopment costs.
There are also natural constraints in Bangalow – flood, so some land not suitable for
development.
There is some interest in sustainability but not paramount, cost of land and building so high
people not wanting to spend more. Key question: Will that add to resale value?
Rental affordability is an issue.
Knows someone renting a garage as a one bedroom unit, not a legal dwelling. Small
dwellings: $300/week, $500/week for 2 bedroom dwellings.
Expensive for single people.
Also an issue with land chosen for subdivision – tends to be left over land - steep, south
facing, rocky.
Building costs therefore higher, effluent disposal is then an issue, cost of energy higher, etc.
compared to decent ground with sea breeze, sun for heating, run off.
Also, one estate is near the highway, so it’s noisy, had to put up noise barrier walls and
double glazed windows etc which adds to the cost of finished product.
Why not rezone land on western side of town away from highway.
Cost of housing in Byron Bay does encourage people to move up to Bangalow and create
demand in Bangalow.
Council seems to say that there isn’t demand for rural land but there is.
All lifestyle blocks. Not that much serious agriculture happening.
Seemed to be saying that smaller lots aren’t viable for agricultural use anyway. Lots of
smaller lifestyle blocks used for niche agriculture, but only macadamias seem to be viable
but then these cost more to get into anyway, so some land is used as agistment for cattle.
The cattle farmer brings the cows on looks after fencing etc.
Seemed to be saying that perhaps more residential subdivision of these lots would be okay
given not useful for agriculture anyway.
Page 7 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Real Estate Agent – Byron Bay 30 July 2015
For purchase: people are looking for 4 bed, 2 bathroom, 2 garage, 600-650sqm, houses
most popular, people are looking for 3 bed, 2 bathroom, 2 garage units.
For renters: tourism town, so hospitality workers, workers under late 20s. Single bedrooms,
studios, bedrooms in houses.
As well as families looking for 3+ bedrooms.
Probably a 50/50 split between single hospitality workers and families in rental market.
Houses 3 bedroom from $600+/week, cheapest $450/week for 1-2 bedroom.
Double garages renting for $350/week.
Price range <$800,000 are local people
>$800,000 people from other areas, sea change, income in the local region wouldn’t support
someone buying in that price range so they’ve earned their money elsewhere.
Locations don’t really matter as most houses/units within 2 minutes drive of Byron Bay.
Low income workers looking for a single room rent
Single parent families might split one rental/sublet – one bedroom out to someone else to
cover the rent.
It’s a desirable location, a top tourist destination.
Around 1.2 million visitors a year, and a small resident population – 10,000?
Peak season, no vacancies anywhere.
“loved to death”
Second dwellings may not have really helped with demand, but have improved the way
people are living, people moving out of garages into secondary dwellings, so they have a
kitchen and bathroom. Contributed to wellbeing. Not great living in a garage.
The interview felt like the questions we have weren’t really getting anywhere, so asked what
respondent thinks council could do, what needs to change?
More residential development outside of Byron Bay. Need to keep the feel of Byron Bay, so
residential development in surrounding areas.
More development in Ewingsdale, Myocum, Broken Head, past Suffolk Park etc. Make it so
residents don’t need to come into Byron Bay for services/shops/etc.
Infrastructure isn’t coping in Byron Bay – only small number of residents to pay Council
rates. Local rates not enough to keep up with infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure needs in terms of highway, roads, parking, garbage, sewerage etc.
State government support needed to bring up to a level that the area can prosper – it is a big
tourist destination so maybe role for state government.
West Byron – 1,000 houses – so a lot of extra cars contributing.
Real Estate Agent – Mullumbimby 7 and 10 September 2015
We do need to do some things, not advocating for mass development.
Overly green Council, no future in this area without change.
Land and infrastructure charges are big issues, need to change to keep costs down.
They did try a share scheme between developers and council but that didn’t work.
Affordability is an issue – 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 50s shack, selling for $450,000, asbestos
nightmare.
Page 8 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
$400-450,000 will sell.
There is a land release in town – Tallowood Ridge – but too expensive $300,000 on website.
Some of that cost was Council fighting it, went to court, went to State government to resolve.
Talks with developers, 4-5 developers, and they say they wouldn’t even bother with
development in Byron Shire, Council is a pain to deal with.
Council insurance also an issue. For example, had to take local fire engineers advice over
fire experts from the developer, otherwise an insurance issue for Council. Proponent had
commissioned fire studies from two consultants.
Market – cross section of people looking and what people are looking for. Some looking for
larger properties, some people are downsizing, looking for classic timber home, timber floor,
high ceilings, reasonable size block – not small blocks.
New dwellings at Tallowood Estate, slightly larger blocks sell, smaller lots to keep costs
down don’t sell as well, bit further than walking distance away from town. Closer to town
would be good.
Council need to encourage developers into town, developers end up going to the State
Council is inefficient and incompetent.
Residents end up selling homes that don’t have approval for bits and pieces because takes
too long. 6 months to get anything through.
Council a major part of the problem
Land is expensive, end up building brick and tile as cheaper, not conducive to climate, need
insulation etc. End up building cheap project homes.
Exorbitant Council costs.
Three issues:
- Infrastructure costs
- Length of time to approve
- Holding costs for developers
Tallowood – exactly what happened.
Sewerage system, neighbors’ objecting, reasonable access to sewer, proposing to upgrade
sewerage plant at the same time. Length of time to do make a decision.
Four years to change zoning.
Council is the problem and always has been.
Green Council and that’s okay. Needs to be balanced. Need to release land over time.
Need some land to be rezoned: Keep 1B Rural protection zone, but look at rezoning some
1A, or allow to small acreage.
Council is missing out on revenue if charges high discouraging development.
Mullumbimby could grow, needs more infrastructure, facilities, services – police station, bus
service – fundamental things. Understand that costs money, but development through
infrastructure charges and rates can contribute.
We don’t want high rise, industrial, we don’t want estates of townhouses.
Units/Townhouses – suitable locations are available, Council said no to previous proposal.
Two level, walk up, 1 and 2 bedroom units, with garage and storage.
Motel recently converted to 1 bedroom loft style apartments, renting for $350/week, but
basic, no storage, carport not garage for storage.
Crisis in rental, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, brick and tile homes for $450/week to rent.
Page 9 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
People using rent assistance to support high rent costs.
Canefield land, on the main road in, Argyle Street, borders on river – some low lying, limited
agricultural value. Could be rezoned for housing.
Mullumbimby flood prone, flood zone, basin – but engineering, bio-retention basins, fill –
would allow. Cost passed on to developers which increases price.
Strong growth in need for aged care/disability care. Was a proposal for aged/disability care
facility, part of the land flood prone. Developers want to build these things but discouraged
by Council.
Agree with the green principles, but sustainable development. Amenity as entering town also
important. Don’t want rows of townhouses, or small lots as you enter town, would ruin the
town.
Other councils can do it. Ballina, Tweed, Gold Coast faster at decision making.
Developers
West Byron - Developer 5 August 2015
Still in development stages
Has been rezoned
DA in stages. First stage is in now, which is all the shared infrastructure and earthworks.
Second stage will be each individual owner putting in next stage of developments.
There are five land owners, individuals, companies and families.
Stuart is the Development Manager – used to be a town planner, now own business helping
manage development from purchase all the way through to market strategy etc.
Who will buy? Promoting the idea to owners that the first month should be for local market
only, give long term renters etc an opportunity to buy a block, before goes on the market to
others.
450sqm blocks might be affordable for local single mothers etc. so would be good to give
them an opportunity
Worked out on 450sqm in R2 and 200sqm in R3 but won’t be that in the end.
There will be a range from 450-550sqm, 550-650sqm, 650-800sqm.
800sqm wealthy
Investors? Would rather see younger people buy them, 450sqm blocks might see that
happen if on the market for around $290,000.
Older people? Trying to suggest to owners that some should be available as senior
designed housing. Accessible. According to NSW Senior Living SEP, reduced garden,
smaller dwellings. Older people looking for 300-350sqm block, 2.5-3bed format.
Project home builders. They take around 30% of the profit. Simple designed homes,
designed to be $800-900/sqm. Designed to maximise profit.
Limit should remain at 2 storeys, in keeping with Byron Bay style.
Wants a diversity of building styles at West Byron, some diversity of lots, trying to think
strategically about lots sizes with owners, to influence housing product.
There is B1 Commercial Neighbourhood zoned land, so expecting café, bars, restaurant,
groceries, newsagent etc, All of that would be two storey as well.
There is industrial land as well, so opportunity for jobs and employment, and help with
diversity of economy.
Community response? They hate their guts, 30 years and limited development which has
Page 10 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
pushed up house prices to median of $950,000. Some support amongst older generation 50-
60 years who’ve been in Byron Bay for a while, because they want families to be able to live
in the town.
Byron Bay has reached its development potential. It is a high demand location along with
Ballina and Brunswick Head, but there are opportunities in the townships and hinterland.
Byron Bay has reached development potential because? West Byron has been ready for
development since 1988, and still not delivered.
Time it takes for DAs to be processed is nightmare, but not Byron specific, across NSW.
Culture of council is an issue, every four years a new culture, green council going in next.
Too slow – partially due to the Council making all decisions who have no experience, rather
than leaving it to staff. Council tends to crush development down.
Land is so expensive, developers make money on the buy, not on the sell. So it’s about
buying cheaper land, holding it, then having the capital investment to get it to market.
Risks are high in Byron Shire for developers. Financiers asking about sovereign risk.
Related to Shire Council – delays in getting it approved, appeals going to court, occurring
ongoing costs. There are building contractors to build, so mainly about council, state
agencies also slow.
Infrastructure contributions around $42,000/lot.
Infill development? Infrastructure, sewer, stormwater, 60-70 years old in Byron, double
population will require infrastructure investment. Developers won’t pay it.
Supports the idea of smaller blocks close to shops/services. Talking to site owners about it.
People happier with smaller blocks because they can work to shops etc. socialize.
We’re so affluent, want to buy everything and put it in our backyards, do families really need
a theatre room. Would prefer to go out and engage with the community.
Same with older people. Retirement villages or just appropriate dwellings in residential
estates. When older don’t won’t to be stuck with a bunch of old people, wants to engage with
young people, see children playing in the park etc.
So that a fairly big cultural change required? There is a market for that type of thing, just
whether lots/houses are built that way. Owners need to think three steps ahead when
releasing lots and lot sizes, thinking about diversity of house styles, and types, older people,
smaller blocks close to centre, what to do with corner blocks because they have some
additional options – 2 up, 3 down but look like large house.
What happens with first release affects perceptions and success of next release of lots.
Need a collaborative approach. Council needs regular forums between developers and
Council.
One of the detractors of the West Byron development has a pile of money, and did a
subdivision with lots selling for $500,000.
It’s not about the current population, it’s about the future population. Not locking up land,
give people opportunity to get and buy a property.
Bayview Land Development Pty Ltd 12 August 2015
Industrial, beachfront urban subdivision
20 years in the Byron Shire Council area
Why are the way they are?
Overriding effort – very green Council, 3 terms, 9 years,
General policy
Repeatedly minimum expansion and development
Page 11 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Last settler syndrome
Legacy Councillors – how did they do this? LEP, Constraints mapping “bogus”, sensitive
environment – coastal, environment, habitat, bushfire, agriculture.
New Council inherited debt, infrastructure, major assets for treatment
Very tight urban footprint – limiting land supply
Bangalow, Mullumbimby, Byron Bay development – cease all development that would add
any load to sewerage works, 10-12 years
Unlawful caretakers residents in Byron industry
On site sewerage treatments works
2008 – Mullumbimby still has capacity in sewerage, 100+ initial lots Bayview
Ocean Shore – own separate sewerage plant.
Priority List
Deferred matters of the LEP
Standard LEP (General LEP for all)
EI Environmental zone (natural parks only)
Wetland, coastal, koala habitat, scenic escarpment, landslide, flood prone, habitat, -
attempted to include in other “E” zones
State saying no?
Other E zones are called “deferred matter” (“DM”) quarantined from the scheme, revert to
previous 1988 LEP rights
Broad “rural” zone resolve that
Proposed E2 high conservation – do nothing
Rezoning proposal – Tallowood Ridge, just about all used up, “only show in town”
Rural land LEP, R5 8,000m2 minimum lot size
Road infrastructure exists but not utilized
Old zone IC2 2000sqm too small
1 acre minimum to treat on-site sewerage, house, pool
Concessional lots subdivision – family subdivision - Instead call it rural subdivision
Bottom price for urban lot - $400,000 Byron, $380,000 Mullumbimby, $380-400,000
Brunswick Heads, $300-320,000 Ocean Shore, $325,000 Bangalow
Myocum vast area 100 acre parcels, not farming, running cattle, avoid land tax and extra $
Inland will be affordable
Mullumbimby – goes under water in extreme flood, Brunswick River goes through town.
Tallowood – edge of the floodplain, 1% event, 0.5 site.
Development everything outside flood prone
Byron
Other development – urban
Infrastructure charges – access/infrastructure roads
Expensive
15-25%
Not a disincentive to developers
NSW Public Works subsidised, water and sewerage treatment works, s90 legislation,
determine own development contributions
Page 12 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Aging infrastructure, no money, high development contributions?!?!
DCP – limit the number of homes
Proposed bypass – “Furfy” of no value, divert the traffic
West Byron – max yield, max price!
What’s the alternative?
Zone development and bring a percentage of stock at a set price…
Lower - standards for/measure what is affordable
Lower - affordable housing panel.
Climate change impacts – major impact on infrastructure expenses and also the impact on
existing land and future residential.
Ewingsdale – perfect for expansion of Byron Bay community
Community pressure from Environmental Progress Association.
650-850sqm residential lots
Council connect
Now 8,000sqm lots
Bottom end, proper roundabout, Coney Lane expansion.
400sqm – can’t fit a Metricon home
No buyers – product versus lifestyle – 800sqm for duplex, 2 detached dwellings,
450sqm slow sales
Ocean Shores
Sewerage plant all ticked, water okay, roads..
Balanced Systems 11 August 2015
Housing Products:
Wide range of applicants
In the urban and rural areas, primarily locals doing granny flats and dual occupancies
Also assists with increased settlement development – there is a lack of land supply for this
development in urban areas (difficult market)
Assisting with West Byron development and exploring different housing products:
- Huge demand for one and two bedroom units/houses
- Working on new product, being 200m2 blocks with individual homes (high sustainability
housing)
Multiple occupancies and eco hamlets are also common in Byron
- The multiple occupancy trend allows for family farm situation
- Allows multiple generations to live on a farm, often increases productivity of farms
- Satisfies housing supply for locals
- State Policy 15 allows for this situation on most rural land
- Byron Shire Council limited it to 60 properties and specified those permitted to do this,
which have now all been developed
- This is no longer an option and needs to be reviewed
- Community title in rural areas is also another option, similar in physical form to multiple
occupancies
Council have not done housing strategies within recent years, which has resulted in a lot of
illegal housing that is not regulated
Page 13 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Land supply is a real issue (biggest issue) and is pushing housing prices up
Council removal of need for infrastructure contributions for granny flats has been very
successful in encouraging this housing product, but there has a been a big price to pay for
rate payers. Understand that this is under review at the moment and suggest that a happy
medium needs to be reached to reduce impacts on rate payers
The starved land supply in Byron over the past 20 years has resulted in Byron missing out
on two decades of housing evolution.
Developers are not familiar with new products (build what they know) and locals and
developers alike are stuck in a 20 year old concept of developing. They are not aware of
new models that would suit Byron
New LEP has a minimum lot size of 600m2, seen as a small lot. This is an example of Byron
missing out on housing evolution over time.
Height restrictions are another example of missing out on the housing evolution. Need to
discuss and go out and see what works well in Byron and be consistent in approach instead
of changing it all the time.
Housing Demand and Prices:
Small households not being catered for
Huge demand for one and two bedroom products, as a result of large population over 50 and
between 18 and 30
Very common for people to buy houses and split them into two or three illegal flats
A lot of people would be happier with smaller lots, i.e. 200m2 lots, housing principals of wider
verges, high quality landscaping, more on street parking, to improve attractiveness
If this was raised at a public meeting, unlikely to be supported. This is because the people
who protest these ideas are those with large houses and land that are not in need of
affordable housing products
Illegal landlords largely driving demand for housing products (split houses) and Council
needs to acknowledge this
The housing crisis is so acute because of people coming in and letting dwellings that are
then not available for locals
Issue is compounded, as Council is both starving land supply and ignoring illegal letting
Issue of people buying large farms, building trophy houses and ceasing farming activities,
which is affecting land availability
Secondary dwellings are meeting needs for affordable housing in some locations, whilst
being used mainly for holiday letting in others (2/10 secondary dwellings in Ocean Shores
and Mullumbimby used for holiday letting, opposite situation in Byron, mix in Bangelow)
Aged Housing:
Most over 50’s want to live together and do not want to live in conventional aged housing
models
Crafted ‘intentional neighbourhoods’ model:
- Group buys a super lot (capable of 15 standard lots) that is accessible and serviced
- Together with a designer, contract to design and build the types of housing they want,
speaking in the language of bedrooms and having discount by using one builder and
developer
- This is a situation where the community becomes the developer, producing purpose
built homes, where they can live with the people they want to live with and in the
Page 14 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
location they want
- Often have theme that is the focus, i.e. yoga, so they build a yoga study as part of the
development
Tree/Sea Changers:
Having a huge impact on house prices
Recommendations:
Need to remedy starved land supply – if land was available, more housing would be
provided
Lack of evolution in housing products and so Council needs to coach developers on product
types
Inherent sustainable development focus
Reduce lot sizes in some areas – particularly in existing rural residential areas
- Estates on Lagoon Drive and Lance Drive are examples of estates where yield could
easily be doubled
- Key issue in Byron is the NIMBY attitude towards subdividing
- Need to go to an estate, consult with owners, run tours and presentations and say that
you will only proceed with the planning controls to allow subdivision if community is in
favour
Need to deal with planning legacies with the community – they need to be brought on side
and consultation is the best opportunity to deal with a range of cross-issues
Planners North 4 August 2015
Application Types:
Mostly small scale developments in terms of the number of dwellings being applied for
Typically secondary dwellings, dual occupancies, dwelling houses and units
90% of applications for small scale developments, a six unit development application is
considered a big application
Predominantly two storey products, with two or three bedrooms per unit
Live/work development currently working on in Bayshore Drive (a number of these exist but
are unlawful)
Pretty standard building designs, nothing pushing the boundaries
Applicant Details:
Mainly mum and dad clients
GFC eliminated a lot of serious developers in the area, with very few left
A few cashed up miners who are able to develop with little to no support from the banks are
also playing in this field
Drivers of Dwelling Types:
Real estate agents giving advice to mum and dad clients above improving value of land and
sale prospects
Know products that will sell, easy approval, don’t push designs too far, don’t believe that
development in other areas responding to demographics (smaller units, higher density) will
work in Byron - ‘not for us’
Demand:
Demand in the extremes: there is a demand for large houses (mansions) in good locations
for wealthy people and there is a large demand at the end of the spectrum for smaller
Page 15 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
housing products that allow people to utilize the benefits of the location (it is not about the
dwelling, more about the location)
A lot of people are living in substandard dwellings because they like the location but cannot
afford to purchase a dwelling that meets basic living standards
Effects of Ageing Population on Dwelling Demand and Products
Secondary dwellings and dual occupancies provide some accommodation for this
There is a lot of good stock in Byron, in terms of large amounts of land, which is wasted, as it
is owned and occupied by older residents that are not interested in developing as it is too
hard. There is a lot of underutilized floor space in great areas because of this.
There needs to be a process where older residents are assisted to develop or allowed to
rent out space within their house/property, without being punished for it or being subject to a
process that is too hard, so that they can more efficiently use the space that they have.
Effects of Tree/Sea Changers on Housing Prices
Minimal effect. Sea changers are not that common in Byron and only result in modest growth
to house prices. They are having a much larger impact in other areas in NSW such as Port
Macquarie.
Impacts of Holiday Letting on Housing Availability
Having a large impact on amenity and availability of housing, it is like a plague
Same product as permanent residential is being sort
Whole range of price markets being sort after, same as residential; both really expensive
large properties down to renting out someone’s garage
Contribution of Secondary Dwellings to Affordable Rental Stock
Large impact on housing affordability
Council contributions to encouraging the establishment of secondary dwellings has been too
good in some ways
Impression is that Council want to pull back on facilitating this as much in the future
Recommendations for More Diverse/Affordable Housing Products
Agrees with all of the prompts (costs, easier approval process, etc.) but these are pretty
standard
Byron is perfectly placed for a ‘funky’ manufactured home park
- People are able to own their dwelling but lease the land and pay a contribution to use
communal facilities
- At the moment, one builder will supply all of the products in a manufactured home
park. There is the opportunity in Byron for a range of wilder, ‘groovier’ homes to be set
up, such as shipping containers, yurts, etc.
- There are a lot of people living in bad situations at the moment and this would offer
them a fantastic function and opportunity
Barriers to manufacture home park model:
- Byron is viewed as being a traditionally hard place to get an approval (this is a
perception only)
- There is the opinion that if you ‘stick to the vanilla’ you will get an approval without any
issues
- Senior staff at Council and Councilors need to drive the process of letting the public
know what they will accept and put examples out there of innovative designs and
Page 16 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
products that would be supported
- Planning staff are nice, but they do not currently present as a group that get out there
and promote this ideal
RVI Planning 13 August 2015
Applicants/Developers
Both mum and dad and developers, depending on the types of dwellings
Mum and dads more single dwellings
Developers smaller scale multiple dwellings, not very common though (not a lot happening in
this space)
Most common developments single dwellings, secondary dwellings and dual occupancies
(granny flats)
Products in Demand
Changing at the moment
Five years ago would have said large homes, house and land packages
Now, seeing a change towards smaller homes (depending on the area in terms of demand
scale)
Seeing more granny flats and secondary dwellings happening
Large homes are still being built though
Most homes being built by occupiers, more custom built not a packaged product
No one seems to want to challenge the norm too much – small lot is taken to be 600m2, two
to three bedroom house is considered small
Few small studio products out there
Drivers
Smaller scale developers doing what they perceive the market wants, based on advice from
real estate agents and valuers, informed by what is selling at premium
Homes are driven by cashed up (full pockets) owners from Sydney or Melbourne that have
grand ideas of their ideal home
Impacts of Tree/Sea Changers
Increase in house prices
Before sewer moratorium, STP struggling to meet demand
Council used moratorium to stop new development that would increase load on sewerage
network – ‘shutting down Byron Bay’
House prices went up, families that have lived there a long time were able to sell their land to
sea/tree changers who had the cash and this has brought about large change in
demographics and socio-economics of the area
Impacts of Ageing Population
Should change the range of products on offer but whether or not it does is a good question
People may be forced into retirement homes
Not going to be a huge impact on Byron housing product (suspect)
Believes that most older people would prefer a smaller, more affordable dwelling so that they
can stay in their area, rather than moving to a retirement village
Believes that families should be building adaptable homes and should be encouraged to
build a literal granny flat so that their family can age in place and have family support close
by
Page 17 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
This is a good option that doesn’t seem to be utilized at the moment
Impacts of Holiday Letting on House Prices and Availability
Holiday letting is definitely driving house prices up
Knows of a developer from Melbourne buying old housing stock in Byron, pulling it down,
building three or four units and holiday letting it all
This is a product that would suit locals but is offer to holiday makers instead
Scattered throughout permanent residential areas
Availability and Uses of Secondary Dwellings
Mixture of permanent residential (renting) and holiday letting
Rental market is quite expensive in Byron, regardless of the product
Where smaller units are available, often a high number of people sharing them (not
uncommon for three bedroom house to have seven or eight people living in it)
Garages converted into bedrooms and rented out
Single rooms in dwellings being rented out
Holiday letting takes away some accommodation for locals, but the biggest issue is that
there is a constantly high demand outstripping supply
Social/Affordable Housing
Don’t really know of many, few run by the State
Has been involved in Habitat development (edge of industrial estate that encourages live
work scenario)
High number of people living and working in areas in industrial estates (questionable
legalities)
Big demand for those in the creative industries, young people running small businesses, to
operate out of their place of residents (too expensive to rent two places and often limited
space in home to run a business, so live/work areas very popular)
Recommendations
DCP needs to be amended to:
- Reduce minimum lot size
- Encourage and facilitate secondary dwellings
- Worth exploring idea of a precinct where you are not permitted to build a single
dwelling only – mandatory secondary dwelling as well
- Facilitate diversity
- Planning controls can only go so far and are limited by the market, but need to get out
of the way of the market for when it is ready
It is difficult to get applications through when they don’t tick the box
- The more we head towards a tick the box and templates system, the harder it is to get
different products through
- Anything that is different has a longer and slower ride through Council, largely because
it is different
- No one really seems to ask if it is different and better or different and worse (this
should affect the decision making process)
- The Habitat development took 5 years to be approved
Principle should be that if it is fundamentally a good development, get out of its way. The
Page 18 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
planning system at the moment is preventing this from happening.
Council need to look back to the Place Making planning system. This was a process where
different precincts were investigated and clear decisions were made about what
development was supported in these areas. This would then simplify the application process.
Anstey Homes 4 August 2015
Who are people buying? Variety of people, mostly owner occupiers, middle aged
couples/families, some young people but generally not first home buyers, professionals now
retirees (lots of money so can afford to buy home).
What are they buying? 3-4 bedroom, study, single story, 250sqm, 2 bathroom, double
garage. Main size of blocks: Tweed Shire 500-750sqm, but Byron Shire mostly larger rural
residential blocks. Less new lots being brought to market in Byron Shire.
Smaller lots/smaller dwellings? Some people looking to down size, for cheaper to build,
less maintenance etc. Some older people looking for smaller houses, but others are looking
to have room for extended family to stay.
What spec homes do you build? Mainly display homes, larger, fancier looking, larger
dwellings for resale value. Some duplex but depends on blocks of land.
How do you decide what to build? Maximum density allowed by Council, block size,
Council is restrictive, Byron hard to deal with compared to Tweed/Lismore. Why? Anti-
development, environmentally concerned/green, culture in Council, no multi-storey
development, trying to maintain quirkiness I suppose. Not enough land released, subdivision
restrictions (rules and regulation, environmental impacts, road blocks). Lismore Shire
Council more supportive of development – some people develop outside the Shire for that
reason.
Costs? Doesn’t think Council costs are more than other areas, not prohibitive.
More about process. Ballina – online, 50 days. Byron Bay – turnaround time is longer, a
year.
EDQ 14 August 2015
The trick to reducing house prices is the reduction in either land size or house size or
ultimately, both (two fundamentals)
Smallest housing product on offer at Fitzgibbon Chase is 45m2 (this is their smallest product
and probably won’t go this small again)
Also have 50-54m2 products on offer and have a display home this size currently
Common products are 120, 150, 180, 250 and 310m2 (larger products achieve 70-80% site
cover, single homes). These products roll out the door, particularly 250 and 310m2.
Laneways allow for more diverse products
Can only do what they do because of lot sizes
Density of 58 dwellings per hectare in some areas in Fitzgibbon, with a maximum height of
two storeys
Have prepared plans to show how smaller lots can be developed and still have room for
extras, such as sheds, caravans, etc.
It is important to have a good relationship with the builder, as this is often a first for them too.
Offer a product that is $221,000 where young people can buy close to public transport and in
their local area
ULDA focus on key workers – use of the NRAS scheme (income based and purchase price)
Housing guide is currently under review. Other guides show principles for development. Pre-
2012 affordable housing guide.
Page 19 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Change thinking, trick is that these are buildings/apartments on the ground, with no
community title. Community title business model affects cash flow for builders so the
standard freehold works best. Body corporate fees also increase prices.
House prices are lower because the land size is lower.
Building small buildings is expensive.
Developments do not comply with the minimum lot size requirements under QDC. There is a
combination of legislation that allows EDQ to do what it does, in short timeframes (40
business days) and with their own set of rules.
Consideration needs to be given to engineering standards – placement of infrastructure,
road pavement widths, services. What is really required, rather than what is standard
practice. Makes a huge difference to the development potential of a site, particularly lot
widths.
Alternative service providers are another option – provide localized STP at lower cost, more
affordable, often for sites as small as 3,000m2.
EDQ runs self-certification process for engineers, reduces holding costs for development by
up to 6 months.
When offering diversity, the ‘slum’ tag for affordable housing disappears.
There is a difference between affordable and social housing and this needs to be made
really clear. Affordable housing fills the gap for those that don’t quality for social housing.
My Place was a ballot system where people that met certain criteria and were eligible were
selected for lots. Might help to ensure that investors who purchase these properties still rent
them out at affordable rates.
There is also a difference between affordable houses to purchase and to rent.
Market forces determine how much a house sells/rents for, depending on size of the product.
Urban Growth NSW – focus on Sydney and Newcastle. Was primarily traditional
development and then became involved in joint ventures. Would provide land for developers,
primarily in the outer regions of Sydney. Focus is now on Brownfield sites and higher density
development.
Byron need to identify their target market, in terms of income bands, demographics (key
workers, single people, elderly, etc.)
Byron also need a framework – what is the timing they are targeting? For EDQ, they are
required to have a planning framework in place within 12 months of an area being declared.
Planning schemes often have different timeframes and requirements and this might not be
possible. If Byron do not have the legislation to support this, need people to champion the
project and push things along. Need relaxation of lot sizes and setbacks.
Terminology needs to be changed – use the phrase diversity and innovation, rather than
affordability and ‘slums.’ It is all about the phrasing.
Aged care/retirement villages
Cape Byron Estate, Over 55s Estate 5 August 2015
66 units for 55+
Caretaker on site 9am-2pm, no nursing or any care provided, will assist with small tasks
such as changing lightbulbs, helping with air conditioning etc.
Some residents quite a bit older than 55, up to 94 years of age at the moment, can stay for
as long as they like as long as support services can meet their needs
Some local residents, often people retiring from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, people with
Page 20 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
family in the area, one couple from Perth, travelled around, thought it would be good to retire
in Byron Bay.
Few rentals, but most are owner occupier, not many come up on the market.
Often only change hands when someone passes away, sometimes the children rent them
out, with a view to live their later in their life.
Affordable, selling for around $395,000, two bedroom duplex style, fairly large though.
There is a shop on the premises and well located
$800/quarter for management, plus Council rates.
Demand?
Yes, waiting list of 5-6 to buy and 5-6 to rent, real estate agents might have people on lists
too.
Why are they so popular? Affordability?
No, I don’t think affordability is the main driver
Peaceful, quiet location, hidden away, well located, walk to the beach.
The 55+ probably keeps a lid on the prices, if it was for anyone, could probably fetch an
additional $100,000.
People like being able to locked up, and head off overseas, also safe/more secure.
There are some other strata units in the area, but don’t think they are over 55s, so would
have more rentals, families, might be noisier etc.
These are normal strata, so can be financed with a normal bank loan too, not like a
retirement village (?)
Accessibility
They weren’t set up for home care, not accessible features
There is a service that will come assess accessibility features and install.
Smaller dwellings? Alternatives for older people?
People will take what they can get.
Some people with a big nice house in Sydney might not want to go into something smaller
Not a lot of similar offerings in the area
What can council do?
Incentives to build, but sometimes the developer will keep that extra profit for themselves
rather than offering final product at a discount
A developer could go in and build something like this, sell off the plan, just need a developer
who wants to do that.
Can’t expand this estate.
Land in the area is expensive, which makes it difficult to buy land, develop it, and bring it to
market at an affordable price.
Could go further out of town, advice there would be to offer a free mini bus
Being out of town, especially if they have to give up their license, will be isolating.
An estate owned, free mini bus into town twice a day would be required.
A heated pool is also important for older people – for physiotherapy and low impact exercise.
Page 21 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
The new hospital doesn’t have a heated pool so would be good to get a second heated pool
in the area.
The only heated pool is at this complex, and get requests and people from outside the estate
using the pool for physiotherapy sessions.
Feros Village 4 August 2015
Bangalow – higher care, 64 beds.
Byron Bay – smaller facility, 40 beds, mostly low care
Waiting lists, demand always fluctuating so hard to say, moderate demand for additional
places but not high.
Parliamentary Inquiry at the moment about requiring residential aged care facilities to
provide a 24 hour registered staff member.
24 hour nurse not currently provided at Byron Bay, but is provided at Bangalow.
Would mean that the service at Byron Bay would have to close because not financially
viable. “Wouldn’t be able to sustain service at Byron Bay.”
Similar situation to many other providers – it’s standalone, mostly low care provided, 50 beds
or less.
Prompted: Could Byron Bay centre expand to be able to afford a 24 hour nurse?
Would that be an option?
Land zoning means centre physically couldn’t expand. Some vacant land around, but
environmental zoning means physically expanding wouldn’t be possible.
Nursing positions already difficult to fill – around 100 days to fill an RN position. Do you
know why this is? Aged care in general, stigma, low care, not clinical setting, mostly social
interaction etc, means less desirable nursing role.
Is cost of accommodation an issue for staff?
Cost of accommodation always going to be an issue because of low pay, weekend work and
penalty rates are an issue too.
More of an issue in Byron Bay. In Byron Bay, some staff have left because difficulty finding
accommodation.
Accommodation not necessarily an issue with attracting more staff though, quite a bit of
interest for carers, but higher turnover.
Staff accommodation at Bungalow less of an issue, core of long term staff up there.
But many don’t live in the Byron Shire area - live in Lismore. Why? Not really sure, maybe
not accommodation related, but maybe because some do the course in Ballina – Certificate
of Aged Care, go to other areas for placements.
Home care – Would different dwellings or development patterns assist? Technology
would be the main improvement, video conferencing to do a check in with people. A lot of
kilometres involved.
Residents: Some residents from other areas, from Sydney, from Queensland, relocating to
be close to families. Why not have older parents living in secondary dwellings, is
availability of that housing an issue? Don’t know.
In Byron Bay, we do have some admissions from people living in cars/caravan parks.
Page 22 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Their health deteriorates because of quality of living conditions.
Move into aged care to get general care. Home care would probably meet their care needs.
But living conditions contributed to needing to be in aged care.
Social and Affordable Housing Providers/Commentators:
Haven Home Safe 14 August 2015
Reason for Work:
Offer an integrated homelessness and housing program
One of the richest countries in the world, with such a large homeless population – it is
stupide and clearly the wrong use of our resources
Offers transition to housing, brings social benefits to the wider community, including stability
and reducing the generational cycle of homelessness
Range of Products:
Includes houses and units and everything in between
Depends on the location and what is available
In higher price areas, maximize footprint with units
In lower price areas, prefer building individual homes or smaller scale medium density
development
Have established over 1,000 homes in past five to six years
Mix 14 storey apartment buildings to individual homes
More and more one and two bedroom products, as private sector is saturated with three and
four bedroom products
One bedroom units are uneconomic, as it costs the same to build a two bedroom unit, where
you can house more people
Seen incredibly poorly designed one bedroom units in the inner city areas by the private
sector. Targeting student housing (suitable) but not suitable for people that need social
housing, as they spend a vast amount of time at home and need space to live. Smaller
spaces can contribute negatively to other issues being experienced by those needing social
housing, i.e. mental health issues. The balance between livable space and cost is important.
Funding Mechanisms:
Affordable rental housing needs subsidy on the way in, throughout the process and on the
way out
Private sector cannot meet demand in the bottom third of the income bracket (rental market)
Inputs are the same as any development, it is the output that differs. Rent is offered at a
suboptimal rate and Council need to realise that affordable housing providers need to be
treated differently to normal developers. Extra costs to develop these products cannot be
recouped though rental or house prices.
Subsidy at the beginning of a product comes from the State and Federal governments, up to
75% of costs. This can be given in the form of dollars, land or old housing products (for
renewal). The remainder of funds comes from own debt, resources or philanthropic
assistance.
Funding during the process is provided by Federal rent assistance for individual tenants.
Subsidy on the way out in the form of harvesting capital and turning this over, NRAS.
Believes that days of cash from the government are long gone and won’t be seen again in
our lifetime.
Page 23 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
State Housing Authority originally owned 5-6% of all housing stock in the rental market.
Recent years, this has fallen to 2-3%. This withdrawal from the market is the reason why
affordable rental housing is an issue. The re-targeting of allocations to cater for those most
in need means that the state are surreptitiously disadvantaging the rest of the population that
require some form of assistance but are not the most in need. NGOs are then required to
cater for this demand. The state needs to ease pressure on the private sector, not this
‘downshift of responsibility.’ This type of housing also compartmentalizes and concentrates
disadvantage. Good affordable housing provides a mix of tenure, type and demographics.
Recommendations:
No Council in Australia is capable of directly investing in this space
Reserves of land could be allocated to this type of housing
Need to support affordable housing in policy:
- Make concessions in terms of higher density, less parking spaces, lenience for
communal space
- More creative views towards development and registered non-government affordable
housing providers
- Reduced or no infrastructure contributions
- No rates
- Drop operating costs (development costs), give higher leverage to affordable housing
providers so that they can provide more services/developments
- Inclusionary zoning (precision and care needs to be applied)
- Need to establish these developments in appropriate locations. All for mixing up
development, but don’t put affordable housing in expensive locations where residents
cannot afford to use services or shop
Victorian ‘The Strategy for Housing Lower Income Earners, Victoria’ (2003/2004)
- Brilliant document
- Understood the difference between public and private and those in the middle
- Set up a framework and funding model for housing low income earners
- Did not have ongoing investment
Registered providers system means that the State cannot bully providers into establishing
certain products.
Innovative ideas depend on catchment/jurisdiction, weighting/tax system
US: local government gives land to public housing providers. Strong level of ownership over
homeless. In Portland, all sales tax from properties is put back into a funding pool for
affordable housing.
Canada: strong level of municipal housing (authorities are the providers).
UK: no longer municipal role, but there are massive companies over there operating in this
space. Enjoy a privileged.
Could transfer title to public housing providers to put in the pipeline for affordable housing,
create new products, jobs and economic stimulus. This would look bad in terms of budget,
as land over valued at present.
University of NSW 11 August 2015
Provision of Social Housing in NSW:
State government is responsible for about 80%
Community housing providers are responsible for remaining 20%
Page 24 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Main providers in Byron are On Track and North Coast Community Housing
Most community housing providers, particularly in Byron, are responsible for managing
public housing that is owned by the State government (built decades ago), only own limited
stock themselves
Community housing providers also undertake small developments, know of three done
recently by North Coast Community Housing, primarily a mix of social housing (deeply
subsidized housing products) and affordable housing (below market products that are
subsidized, but not to the same extent as social housing)
Areas Most in Need:
Cannot speak geographically, but demographically, it is typical vulnerable people (elderly,
those outside of the job market, sick, disabled) identified as a core group in need on a
national scale, as well as those specific to Byron, being anyone that needs a foothold to get
into the market, being key workers and the working poor
The housing market is not influenced by the level of earning of those working in the area
(most situated employment is lower income bracket)
Housing price in Byron is affected by those outside of the area that either buy into Byron to
retire or have a holiday house, or invest and rent the property out
House prices are similar to capital cities and this is not an uncommon situation for resort
towns
Tools to Support or Encourage Affordable/Social Housing:
State government has not given local governments sufficient powers to operate in this area,
and not all local governments want to
Affordable Housing SEPP 2009 includes tools that local governments can use to support
and encourage this type of housing
Rolled back in 2011, but still includes some good recommendations, such as exemptions for
affordable housing (in relation to car parking spaces, etc.) as well as density bonuses
Some councils choose to be involved in this space, Lismore is a great example of this
(identified current measures and proposed actions to encourage and support this type of
housing are recent presentation to Northern Rivers)
Need to advocate for the State government to give local governments more authority to do
more
One example is giving local governments powers to set mandatory targets for developments
above a certain size to include affordable housing components
This has been done in bits and pieces, but never in a big way, as it has been done in the US
and UK
Impediments to Providing Affordable/Social Housing:
The way this housing product has been built and managed, particularly by clustering, in the
past makes it difficult to make a case for its expansion, as a result of the stigma associated
with it
Financial regimes means that housing isn’t kept in good order
There is an unshakable commitment to a target for subsidizing products, so much so that
you need to be a very high need individual to get a placement
Main impediment is the twin tension between low incomes/people on benefits and an inflated
housing market
This needs to be dealt with at a federal level (relates to incentives in the tax system)
Page 25 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Byron Housing Needs Report – Consultation Records
Presentation slides on financing social/affordable housing provided for further research
(includes references)
Recommendations:
Planning system is the best method for Council to address the provision of social and
affordable housing
Voluntary agreements also work and the State would argue that this is sufficient
Some local governments have succeeded in this area
Voluntary agreements are more likely to work when local governments contribute to the
development in some way, i.e. land.
Gap Between Demand and Provision:
There is a massive gap at both the National and Byron local level between demand and
supply of social and affordable housing
This gap is only increasing
Recommend contacting John McKenna (CEO) from North Coast Community Housing and
Paula Newman (Strategic Planning Coordinator) from Lismore City Council
Attachment C Pilot Group Workshop Notes
1
Residential Strategy Focus Group Workshop Housing Needs (16 Nov 2015)
ATTENDEES: Rob Van Iersel, Stephen Connelly, Rob Doolan, Alex Caras, Natalie Hancock, Sharyn
French, Greg Smith, Ian McIntosh and Liza Valks
SUMMARY NOTES General comments on the use of LEP and DCP as a form of regulation
LEP
Preference for key regulations to be kept in the LEP as it sets the bottom line (ie. has statutory force)
for development standards
DCP
DCP function only as ‘guidelines’
Development assessment process
The approval process tends to support development applications that replicate more of the
simple, generic, ‘tried and tested’ and easy to assess housing products (eg. ‘complying
development’) need to look at ways to encourage innovative DAs that fall ‘outside the
box’ and meet a housing need
It was suggested that some DA planners are too focused on achieving the exact DCP
provisions, even in the face of a poorer outcome
Water and sewer are a large part of the development cost – is there scope to review the
equation for contributions
Approach to Implementing Proposed Changes
Consultant planners strongly suggested that the most important change required is to
deliver more release areas in places that are readily developable (ie. not needing too much
fill etc.)
Make any regulatory changes slowly and work with current regulations. Suggested the first
changes could be density targets and minimum lot size provisions; do not remove FSRs
Support for an approach that recognises each community is different - may need 2 levels
generic provisions that suitably apply Shire wide and more locationally specific provisions
reflective on an area’s individual community and character
Important that in delivering the message Council is open for business that the ‘green and
sustainability’ narrative is not lost in the message – Foster a language that works both for
developers delivering diversity and the community wanting to be sustainable - suggest find
community champions who could help convey the message
2
Density Targets
General support for density targets to be introduced as a regulatory tool established at the
LEP level
Precinct/Locality based approach required
Has to work closely with lot size provisions
Has to work closely with lot size provisions. Some thought lot sizes could/should be removed
if a density target applied ie. Density targets could work with floor space ratios to avoid the
need for minimum lot size regulations
Suited to greenfield sites (noting however current greenfield sites are largely already
subdivision approved except for West Byron)
Requires better integration between PLANNING ENGINEERING FINANCE
Need to be careful that the density target is not used to calculate future land release
requirements. The amount of land release needs to be adjusted for, inter alia, market
diversity, site constraints not discernible at a strategic planning level, lag in take up, house
vacancies and amount of housing being used for non-residential purposes
Would be more difficult to apply to infill areas and would need to have greater flexibility in
any DCP design outcomes to overcome pre-existing urban conditions such as street width,
lot shapes and car parking availability
Could be used for larger infill sites and set at 20- 25 dwelling /ha
Greenfield more appropriate to 15 dwellings/ha or less – do not see any higher figure
achievable
Support the idea of master planning for infill locations to give clearer direction
Raised that it was thought that Tweed Shire uses the concept of master planning in certain
release areas
Building Heights
Important to note that it is the use of metres not storeys and 3 storeys is achievable in a 9m
height limit on certain sites.
Need to be aware the ‘language’ however often centres on the number of storeys
There was no real support for changes in maximum building heights, in residential areas
Subdivision
Questioned the need for minimum lot sizes if have density targets and fsr
Support for the West Byron approach of having minimum threshold lots sizes where the
dwelling and land have to have an integrated design and where there is to be more than one
small lot in a row.
Subdivision provision to be applied across the Shire, noting the smaller lots should be
encouraged in the more central/serviced areas e.g. near shops than isolated sites.
Where lots are to be smaller the off site design provisions are equally important such as
streetscape, urban spaces and street layout
3
Floor space ratios
Support for the continued use of FSR in the LEP as it provides certainty, security and keeps
development in proportion
Floor space ratios work well with height limits to maintain the character
B4 Mixed Use Zone in Tweed Street, Brunswick Heads, has limited development potential
due to 0.4:1 FSR being too low – needs to be investigated as part of next housekeeping LEP
amendments or new Residential Strategy.
Where should infill occur?
Concern was expressed that parts of Byron and Suffolk Park may be at capacity and care has
be taken in adjusting regulations that have an unintentional outcomes of eroding the
liveability of an area
Residential Supply influences (in addition to those identified in draft housing report)
Holiday letting
Wealthy (absentee) owning homes but not uses as their primary residence
Increase use of dwellings for business purposes beyond the ‘home-based business’ scale
perhaps due to the cost/availability/ accessibility of commercial space
The Byron industrial space is rapidly transitioning from industrial to residential uses,
particularly land west of Bayshore Drive.
Other points raised
Contributions are linked to numbers of bedrooms and as currently set favours dwellings with
more bedrooms than less – therefore could be acting as a disincentive to smaller housing
Definition of shop top is limiting as housing component cannot occur behind the
retail/commercial premises
Car parking requirements are sometimes an issue for shop top and this could be reviewed
Any changes/relaxations to car parking need to bear in mind the end user to avoid the car
parking inadequacy being a future problem for the resident’s e.g. . would the housing attract
a large number of individuals each with their own car
Scope exists for the provision of manufactured housing estates as a new housing product in
Byron Shire, where the land/a site is rented and the person owns their mobile home.
Developer contributions need to be reviewed in light of how modern boarding houses are
being developed.
Council land on western side of Bayshore Drive, Byron Bay has potential to be a live /work
product redevelopment opportunity - and used as case example
In seeking to meet the need for dwellings for locals the concept of an intentional community
with a caveat that the residents must be local is being considered in an urban setting
Attachment D Dwelling Mix Projections
Page 1 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Dwelling mix projections
Purpose
Dwelling mix projections are useful in understanding the future housing needs of a population,
and the mix of new dwellings needed in order to achieve it.
Methodology
Propensities for each household type (couples, couples with children, one parent families, other
family types, multi-family households, lone person households and group households) to live in
particular dwelling types from census data 2011 were used as a base for the analysis. These
propensities were applied to household type projections for the Byron Shire Council from the
New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment to 2031.The resulting dwelling mix
breakdown was then applied to the Byron Shire Council dwelling targets as noted in the Issues
Paper. We assumed that all new dwellings in the rural area would be separate houses, and
therefore a number of separate houses were excluded from the projected figures in order to
understand the urban dwelling mix.
Three scenarios were developed to project future dwelling mix:
No change in household/dwelling propensities – in this scenario, the current propensities
for each household type to live in particular dwelling types continues into the future.
Low change in household/dwelling propensities – in this scenario, the propensities for each
household type to live in particular dwelling types shift towards smaller dwelling types.
High change in household/dwelling propensities – in this scenario, the propensities for
each household type to live in particular dwelling types shift towards smaller dwelling types
at a higher rate than in the low change scenario.
For the low and high change scenarios, the propensities of couples, one parent families and
lone person households to live in separate houses were decreased. It was assumed that for
Byron Shire, the shift would likely be towards semi-detached dwellings rather than attached
dwellings. The specific change assumptions are shown below:
Dwelling Preference No Change Low Change High Change
Separate House = -2% -6%
Semi-detached = 1% 4%
Attached = 1% 2%
The effect of these assumptions on the future propensities to live in particular dwelling types is
shown below:
Scenario No Change Low Change High Change
Household Type Couple One parent family
Lone person
Couple One parent family
Lone person
Couple One parent family
Lone person
Separate House 86.8% 81.4% 69.0% 84.8% 79.4% 67.0% 80.8% 75.4% 63.0%
Semi-detached 7.6% 10.4% 12.4% 8.6% 11.4% 13.4% 11.6% 14.4% 16.4%
Attached 3.3% 6.2% 10.9% 4.3% 7.2% 11.9% 5.3% 8.2% 12.9%
Page 2 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
The assumptions used in the model are usually informed by stakeholder consultation, analysis
of mobility, changes in preferences in the past, changes in preferences in other comparable
locations, the level of housing affordability, and the needs of disadvantaged groups – for
example, the number of people on the public housing register and feedback from social housing
providers. However, in this case the assumptions were not based on any specific methodology
or data. Rather, the assumptions were chosen to identify an achievable target range given the
level of local population growth and development activity.
Results
Even as the no change scenario assumes future propensities remain the same as they were in
2011, changing household types over this period mean that 76% of new dwellings in the urban
areas would need to be separate houses, and 24% would need to be other dwelling types to
2031 (see the table below). This is compared to the current mix of dwellings in the Byron Shire
at 2011 where 82% of dwellings were separate houses, and 18% were a mix of detached,
attached, and other dwelling types.
The low change scenario suggests that 71% of new dwellings would need to be separate
houses, and 29% would need to be other dwelling types if preferences changed. The high
change scenario suggests that 53% of new dwellings would need to be separate houses, and
47% would need to be other dwelling types if preferences changed.
Year Current Mix: 2011
Mix of New Dwellings to 2031
Scenario - No Change Low Change High Change
Separate House 82% 76% 69% 53%
Semi-detached 9% 11% 15% 27%
Attached 5% 7% 11% 15%
We think that small lot houses may offer similar advantages to the local community as semi-
detached and attached dwelling types in terms of diversity and affordability. Therefore the
results have been simplified.
Year Current Mix: 2011
Mix of New Dwellings to 2031
Scenario - No Change Low Change High Change
Traditional house on larger lot 82%1 76% 69% 53%
Everything else: Small lot house, townhouse, unit, shop top apartment etc.
18% 24% 29% 47%
Note 1: It was assumed that most of the houses in the region are currently traditional sized houses and
lots, and therefore they have been grouped in this category.
Conclusion
There are some significant housing affordability issues in the urban areas of Byron Shire, and
we understand that there would be a preference for smaller houses, and detached and attached
dwellings (especially if they were more affordable, well design and well located). The difficulty is
making assumptions about specific future dwelling preferences using current propensity data.
Page 3 | Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants
Given housing affordability issues identified in the Issues Report, it could be argued that the low
change scenario is the minimum goal to be achieved by 2031.
It is important to note that this higher proportion of smaller lots, semi-detached and attached
properties should not be only targeted through new greenfield development which would then
have a substantially different feel to other locations. High density development also is best
located near facilities and services, and these are near the centre of towns. The mix of
dwellings suggested above will need to be balance throughout the urban areas of the region,
including new greenfield development and infill development.