Devil in the detail — Local Paddo

Contemporary images by Trent van der Jagt

In late February, astute observers of real estate in the eastern suburbs noticed an interesting ‘for sale’ sign go up on Underwood St, Paddington. Rather than the typical board advertising the sale of a terrace or an apartment, this one contained the details of quite the real estate parcel.

“[This] is a hidden gem of astonishing scale,” the sign read. “Tightly held by advertising icon John Singleton since 1976, the 1452sq m parcel of land currently houses 24 tenancies over three levels. With E1 zoning, it is poised to be reimagined for commercial and/or residential purposes.”

“And I thought, ‘Well, here it starts’,” says an industry insider, who saw the sign. “This is the beginning of what’s to come.”

The advertising material might sound innocuous, but the property — its technical address is 52 Victoria St, as it runs between Victoria and the busier Underwood St — may well become the first hyper-local battleground in the looming developer assault on Sydney’s beloved heritage neighbourhoods.

It seems no coincidence the $30m block is hitting the market just as the Minns government is about to enact new planning laws that will change the way development is carried out across Sydney and NSW. (See the editor’s note — at the bottom of this story).

Harris St Paddington 1966. Image: City of Sydney

Under the changes to be introduced in June, NSW will be hit with a deluge of development, including what the government describes as the "missing middle" of housing — that is, housing that’s midway between high-rise apartments and free-standing houses.

The planning changes will weaken local council barriers to medium-rise development and shift the balance in favour of developers over heritage advocates and local government planning authorities. In Paddington, the reforms effectively mean the suburb is now open for the construction of six-to-eight-storey apartment blocks, on or next to heritage sites.

“[Under these reforms] I fear that the right to develop to four, six or eight storeys, depending on location, will trump the heritage controls that make demolition difficult,” says architect and Paddington Society committee member Linda Gosling. “And this would lead to the demolition of terrace houses.”

The reforms have not so much sent alarm bells ringing across the city and the state than sparked a full-scale war of words between councils and the government.

“The NSW government’s plans risk destroying the beautiful character of our area,” says Woollahra Mayor Richard Shields. “The plans also place an unrealistic and unjustified burden on Woollahra.”

City of Sydney, a council usually pro-development, has likewise strongly rejected the proposal, contesting that not only will the reforms fail to address Australia’s housing shortage, they may actually make it worse.

“If the NSW government introduces this policy in the City of Sydney (area), it will lead to conflict and appeals and slow down the delivery of housing and lead to poor urban outcomes for communities,” City of Sydney argues. “Attention to natural hazards, infrastructure planning and good design are absent in this proposal.”

In modelling how the changes could affect heritage areas, City describes a worst-case scenario in which tall buildings would “overshadow neighbours, compromise heritage values, lead to more cars, more bins and less trees and cause issues with separation and privacy”. It would be a “chaotic outcome” that could “inflate land values”.

The National Trust has gone a step further, describing the situation facing NSW as worse than it was even in the 1960s when developers caused irreparable damage to the city’s urban environment, bulldozing glorious 19th-century buildings, terraces and cottages and replacing them with Brutalist high-rises, office blocks and car parks (themselves now being torn down). During this time, the priceless heritage buildings of The Rocks were only saved when builders and unions refused to carry out demolition orders.

“The current housing reforms put forward by the NSW government are the biggest threat to the heritage of NSW that has ever been proposed,” the National Trust says.

“The reforms will have a dramatic and permanent effect on the heritage of NSW ... and will have an unparalleled negative impact on the planning system of NSW — including impacts to heritage. If the proposals go ahead, previous plans to destroy The Rocks will pale into insignificance with the scale of heritage destruction that will be legitimised across NSW.”

For many with an interest in the local character and heritage of Paddington, realising the scale of the potential destruction was a slow burn. Indeed, when the Minns government announced in early December that under its Transport Oriented Development Program, it would rezone the land around metro and railway stations to provide an additional 45,000 homes across Sydney by 2027, many in the eastern suburbs breathed a sigh of relief. Of the 25 Sydney suburbs listed to take the burden of this intensive and sudden development, none was in the eastern suburbs.

Under the reforms, areas within 400m of identified stations would be subject to rezoning to receive high-rise towers. NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Paul Scully, said at the time the east had been “spared” because “there are parts of Sydney’s east that are currently limited in additional growth because of limited sewer and water infrastructure. Edgecliff, as just one example, is one of those.”

However, there were more changes to come, with the minister in January announcing additional proposals under a different name, this one entitled, ‘Explanation of Intended Effect: Changes to create more low- and mid-rise housing’. These changes would see all “well-located areas” of Sydney — those within 800m of a train station (such as Edgecliff) or a town centre (such as Paddington) required to squeeze in more mid-rise developments.

Paddington can expect to be overshadowed by more ugly towers going forward

“We need more choice of different types of homes in well-located areas within walking distance from transport and close to shops and services,” the government says on its website. “We need more low- and mid-rise housing to fill the gap between detached homes and high-rise apartment buildings to suit people’s changing lifestyle needs.

“We’re proposing changes to the planning rules so we can help encourage the delivery of a range of different housing types. Our reforms will look at a range of opportunities to unlock supply of low-rise housing like terraces and dual occupancies and mid-rise housing of up to six storeys in well-located areas. Reforms will contribute to more housing diversity and affordability as well as creating thriving local communities.”

The NSW government, chasing a $1billion incentive from the federal government under its National Housing Accord — providing the state contributes to the national demand to build 1.2 million new homes in five years — had not in fact quarantined the east from reform. As Waverley Council puts it: “Despite [Scully’s] statement, these areas [and train stations] have been included”.

In its submission addressing the proposals, Waverley offers a brutal assessment of the planning changes.

“The one-size fits all approach being taken by the state government ... does not take into account whatsoever local conditions and the place in which the development may occur. Council believes that place is important and that place matters in planning. The broad-scale and indiscriminate up-zonings proposed by these reforms will not deliver place-based outcomes and optimal infrastructure coordination.”

For councils, including Waverley, Woollahra and City of Sydney, a large part of the problem is that hastily imposed new developments and the people they bring are not being met with additional resources.

“Unlike traditional strategic plan-making, the proposed reforms do not balance trade-offs and there is no detailed infrastructure planning and development contributions framework in place to fund this infrastructure,” Waverley argues.

“Strategic plans coordinate land use and infrastructure growth to ensure that infrastructure investment is efficient and optimised, particularly transport infrastructure, but also health and education facilities as well as recreation and parklands.”

In other words, the east’s already overstretched hospitals, parks, beaches, sports facilities, schools, medical centres and roads are about to become even more stretched.

As well, Waverley argues, “Heritage places ... are a non-renewable resource that contribute to sense of place. They enrich local environments and support jobs and investment through heritage trades and tourism. Waverley retains a highly prized and high-density identity thanks to its heritage character.

"People want to live in the local government area because its heritage housing stock is characterful and high-quality. The push for rapid change and planning reform ignores the fact that the most densely populated suburbs are also often heritage conservation areas.”

Woollahra Council offers a similar view, arguing the reforms are not based on evidence, undermine years of council planning and don’t even guarantee an increase in housing supply.

Paddington ward councillor Harriet Price says the reforms are set to undermine 50 years of careful council planning which has helped preserve the area’s unique character.

“Paddington is a prized heritage conservation area and recognised as one of the largest concentrations of intact Victorian terrace housing in the world,” she says. “The currently exhibited low- and mid-rise housing reforms pose a real threat to its treasured and hard-fought heritage status.”

Price says that Paddington, and the wider Woollahra area, is already vastly more populated than other areas of Sydney.

“[At present] 91.3% of dwellings in Paddington are already medium or high density, compared to 46% in Greater Sydney. As well, 93.5% of dwellings in Edgecliff and 93.4% of dwellings in Darling Point are already medium or high density. Woollahra Municipal Council is already one of NSW’s densest LGAs.

“The proposed reforms do not address how the additional infrastructure required by additional density would be funded — think road and intersection upgrades (the nightmare that is New McLean St), parking, schools, public open space and recreational needs and so on,” Price says.

Woollahra Mayor Richard Shields agrees, saying three-quarters of the properties in the Woollahra municipality already qualify as medium-density.

“The Woollahra LGA has a population density 2.5 times higher than Blacktown. Paddington itself has a very high population density, at 7698 people per sq km (combined density for City of Sydney and Woollahra Council), which rises to 8519 people per sq km for the Woollahra Council side of Paddington alone,” Shields says.

“Additional housing should be supported by infrastructure like new schools, hospitals, better public transport and crucially, sewerage. Our local roads are already choked and we have just one railway station (Edgecliff) servicing our entire LGA.”

A spokesperson for City of Sydney says the state government’s plans “are being rushed in a one-size-fits-all approach that invites a series of unintended consequences” including creating “neighbourhoods with poor amenity and infrastructure”.

“Narrow streets in parts of Paddington means development could not achieve current amenity and servicing requirements at the heights and densities proposed. (And the) plans have not outlined how heritage items will be managed under these proposed changes. This approach may work for some areas, but a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work in the centre of the city.”

*

For the government’s part, it argues that “housing supply and heritage values are not mutually exclusive. They can and do coexist currently across Sydney, and these reforms will maintain that.”

Responding to a series of questions put to Scully by Local Paddo, his spokesperson claims heritage will continue to be a consideration in planning laws.

“Paddington is an example of density done well,” the spokesperson says. “It already has a mix of low- and mid-rise housing, which the government is trying to promote in other well-located parts of the city.

“The proposed planning reforms would only permit low- and mid-rise housing up to six storeys. No high-rise development is proposed for Paddington under these reforms. Council remains the consent authority for most development in the area.”

According to the spokesperson, projects will continue to be subject to “a merit-based assessment” and “relevant heritage controls will apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the new development standards”.

“The reforms are not proposing to make changes to local councils’ development control plans, and are not proposing to make changes to heritage listings or heritage conservation areas outlined in councils’ local environmental plans.

“The development applications for these types of housing will continue to be lodged with and assessed by councils, and will have to reflect the heritage significance and character of the area. Councils are well placed to assess applications for the impact of proposals in heritage conservation areas and often encourage new development to occur in those areas where it is contributing to the heritage value of those locations.”

Asked specifically if Paddington’s terraces would be protected from demolition, the spokesperson did not answer.

“There are some problems with what they have said,” says Gosling. “For starters, permitting mid-rise housing up to six storeys is problematic in a two-storey small-lot (terraces) housing zone, as the new housing height will overwhelm the old.

“Note, too, that if the new housing has 15% affordable housing in it then eight storeys are allowed and developers will try for the max, of course. In merit-based assessment and in the Land and Environment Court, the councils and court will have to give most weight to a State Environmental Planning Policy, where these reforms will sit.”

Gosling adds that under the proposals, councils will no longer be able to refuse a mid-rise development application on the basis of it being six stories (or more).

“While they can refuse it on the basis of impacting heritage significance to an unacceptable extent, there are very likely to be legal challenges to this.”

This returns to City of Sydney’s argument that the reforms will result in an upswing of developments heading to the courts, which in turn will have “poor outcomes for communities and cause delays in development approvals and delivery of housing”. The proposal, it argues, “contains obvious technical flaws such as the mismatch between height in storeys and floor space ratio that will prevent it from achieving its stated aims quickly, while potentially inflating land values”.

Gosling argues that part of the problem will be that councils will be under extreme pressure to increase housing supply.

“The issue for us is that while the reforms are trying to get more housing out there, there is a real danger that applying them wholesale like they are will mean collateral damage to heritage areas such as ours, which will never be recovered,” she says.

“This may be a bit of catastrophising on the Paddington Society’s part. But, if so, it’s shared by many councils and the National Trust. We fear that the state has listened to developers, to YIMBYs (‘yes in my back yard’ advocates) and to some narrow-viewed economists and have not considered the value of our existing built environment.

“The best we can hope for is some exclusions for heritage areas and a reducing of some of these reform standards.”

Editor’s note — in early March 52 Victoria St, Paddington was sold to tech entrepreneur Annie Cannon-Brookes for $32 million. Her intention for the property are as yet unstated.