NEW HOUSING PLAN TO PUT MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALMOST ANYWHERE IN NSW

 

Townhouses on the Pacific Highway in Hornsby.

January 14, 2017 ·

In response Hornsby Mayor Steve Russell – known for his pro development approach – said it would “affect the suburban nature of every street in the shire”.

AT CAAN we have had difficulty finding the minimum lot sizes for the different medium density developments in the Planning NSW documents. We had a recollection but in view of our inability to find the specific lot sizes for these developments it raises concerns about the proposed infiltration of medium density; it blunts any debate about it!

Hearsay works in their favour; puts off opposition.

COULD this be why so little is being said about it? The facts aren’t clear …

LUCKILY we came across this article from the Hornsby Advocate, and it reveals:

Minimum size lots proposed for complying development to townhouses, villas, etc:

-2 dwellings on a 400m2 lot
-3-4 dwellings on a 500m2 lot
-3-10 dwellings on a 600m2 lot

THOSE in the know are obviously salivating with the one most attractive to them being the 600 m2 site; there’s plenty around; they will go for the 10 to max out their profit.

THEN we came across the submission from STEP to Planning NSW and this reveals:

“The proposals would also lead to an effective blanket rezoning to medium density, with minor exceptions, of virtually all single dwelling, low density residential R2 land with a street frontage of 12.5 m or more and a minimum lot size of 400 m2.

The suite of medium density complying development types cover dual occupancies, manor houses (2 up, 2 down) and townhouses/ terraces depending on land size. For example 3 to 10 dwellings could be built in a terrace or townhouse type configuration on land with a minimum size of 600 m2.”

That it:

-will remove residents rights to object
-residents in R2 (low density) zones will suddenly find medium density development happening next door that they thought was not permissible under the existing zoning laws
-breaking down communities; with the loss of leafy treescapes; increased water runoff; loss of amenity; more congestion

BUT it appears that Planning NSW and the NSW Government want one size fits all!

Read more from STEP:
http://www.step.org.au/index.php/item/87-expansion-of-medium-density-housing

 

New housing plan to put medium-density developments on residential lots almost anywhere in NSW

A “ONE size fits all” approach to new housing may see up to 10 dwellings built on a single lot almost anywhere in NSW.

The changes, outlined in a NSW Government discussion paper to “fast-track delivery of housing options”, were described as “an absolute disaster” by Hornsby councillors last week.

The paper proposes medium-density housing be approved under the complying development process.

Complying development is a planning and construction approval issued by councils or private certifiers when a set of controls and requirements are met.

Hornsby Mayor Steve Russell said it would “affect the suburban nature of every street in the shire”.

“I don’t see any merit in this at all,” Cr Russell said.

Cr Nick Berman was pushing for townhouse development in the Hornsby Shire in 2013, but he does not agree with the new planning paper.

Councillor Antony Anisse said units are an “inappropriate product” for many people and medium density housing should be encouraged to fill the gap in Sydney’s housing shortage.

There are not enough incentives for this type of development at the moment, he said. However this proposal is “unacceptable currently”.

Pennant Hills Civic Trust president Andrew Wilson said the trust was concerned it would lead to “further ad-hoc, higgledy-piggledy, messily unplanned, unstructured, unstrategic development”. “We like people having a democratic right to object to a DA,” he said.

Hornsby councillor Robert Browne said it effectively rezoned NSW to a “one size fits all” regime with “the potential to change the whole character of our suburbs”.

Lots as small as 200m are being proposed, meaning many trees that characterise residential areas will “eventually disappear”, Cr Browne said.

The intent is to implement the plan and this was just the first round, he said.

The paper is open for comment until March 1 at: planspolicies.planning.nsw.gov.au.

A townhouse in Cecil Rd, Hornsby.

FAST-TRACKING DEVELOPMENT

■ 29 per cent of NSW 2013-14 development approvals were complying developments

■ Average 18 days to approve, compared to 70 days for a DA

Minimum size lots proposed for complying development to townhouses, villas, etc:

2 dwellings on a 400m2 lot

3-4 dwellings on a 500m2 lot

3-10 dwellings on a 600m2 lot

 

SOURCE:  https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-hills/new-housing-plan-to-put-mediumdensity-developments-on-residential-lots-almost-anywhere-in-nsw/news-story/a5568610188d6cd584b2ee5c5c78c79f

 

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

 

DOWNSIZING & MORE ABOUT THE PROHIBITIVE COSTS OF DOWNSIZING BESIDES STAMP DUTY!

Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home.

 

DOWNSIZING & MORE ABOUT THE PROHIBITIVE COSTS OF DOWNSIZING BESIDES STAMP DUTY!

CAAN … on further thoughts about “How to Encourage Seniors to Downsize” … we recommend you think about these!

How to encourage seniors to downsize

The article said itself ‘downsizing’ is not driven or avoided by:

-stamp duty
-loss of benefits

It is about needing a more suitable residence, that the family home is too much to look after due to:

-ageing/health issues
-costs
-relationship changes
-loss of partner

Most stay as long as possible, yes it is an emotional issue, something it seems these

ADVOCATES OF SQUEEZING OUT OWNERS OF DETACHED DWELLINGS in desirable areas are incapable of understanding.

The keenness that a cabal of interest groups have in promoting downsizing, and a broad based LAND TAX is alarming. Why has this emerged?

Could it be:

-they believe it demonstrates they are up to the task, showing government and others they are literally on the money, they have got the ideas

Or:

-are they desperate to come up with ideas that will funnel more housing into the grasp of developers

However:

-owing to compulsory superannuation more retirees are ‘self funded’, they don’t qualify for any government pension so the loss of benefits is irrelevant

MORE COSTS are involved in selling and buying (besides stamp duty) than acknowledged, and they are a real disincentive to relocating, just think about the costs of:

.inspections
.agents fees
.legal fees
.removalists
.fixing up the home for selling
.even small changes to the new home
.increased transport costs
.having the cash on hand to pay utility costs, insurance, levies and so on…

What about the fact that to downsize it will mean:

-moving away from the location enjoyed for sometime, and
-given the cost of metropolitan living it is unlikely not much money will be left in the coffers of those downsizing; there’s not going to be that lump of cash to be put into SUPER!

These ideas need to be called out for what they are … if they look like pig, smell like a pig and feel like a pig well then they must be a …

WE suggest perhaps this Think Tank are peddling a myth, or worse still they are building a belief that they want to be true … and if they bang hard enough some – especially those with the levers in their hands – might then allow it to happen, never mind the consequences!

WHAT FORCING SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE REALLY MEANS ….

-opening up another avenue for developers to landbank, demolish and redevelop to sell more “new homes” to foreign buyers … because the supply cannot meet the foreign demand!

SOME FACTS …

-that the Housing Affordability Crisis locking out a whole Cohort of Aus tralian First Home Buyers is due to LNP Government policies, it would seem have been written by the Developer Lobby!

-the 100% sell off of “new homes” to foreign buyers (FIRB ruling change)

-our suburbs have been rezoned for “Higher Density” both high-rise and medium density

-the inflated value of homes is due to the influx of black foreign money in our real estate

VIEW CAAN Facts Sheet for how the Housing Affordability Crisis was contrived!

 

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

HOW TO ENCOURAGE SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE

 

HOW TO ENCOURAGE SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE …

An Analysis of the Report of the Grattan Institute “Why Australians Don’t Downsize … ” May 2017

Conclusion: “If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.”

CAAN:

-by enforcing the AML Legislation for the Real Estate Sector (the second tranche)

.to eliminate money laundering in Australian Real Estate
.to eliminate the Proxy onshore foreign buyer’s agent laundering the black cash and avoiding the higher stamp duty, fees and charges

-remove the 50/100% sell off of “new homes” to overseas buyers (FIRB rule changes)
.giving preference to foreign buyers particularly in China over a whole Cohort of Australian First Home Buyers

-put a stop to VISA manipulation on buying Australian real estate they gain a Residency Visa

.stop with the Guardianship Visa, Student Visas and Investor Stream

VIEW: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/05/encourage-seniors-downsize/

Macro Business By Guest in Australian budget
May 8, 2017

Encouraging senior Australians to downsize their homes is one of the more popular ideas

Options for housing affordability: the good, the bad and the cosmetic

To make housing more affordable. The trouble is, incentives for downsizing would hit the budget, but make little difference to housing affordability.

It sounds good: new incentives would encourage seniors to move to housing that better suits their needs, while freeing up equity for their retirement and larger homes for younger families.

But the reality is different. Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home and neighbourhood and don’t want to downsize.

When people do downsize, financial incentives are generally not the big things on their minds. And so most of the budget’s financial incentives will go to those who were going to downsize anyway.

Financial barriers to downsizing

There are three financial hurdles to downsizing. Downsizers risk losing some or all of their Age Pension, because the family home is exempt from the pension assets test, but any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not.

Downsizers also have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy. For a senior purchasing the median-priced home in Sydney that’s now A$32,000. Finally earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not.

The Turnbull government has flagged the possibility of financial incentives in next week’s federal budget for superannuants and pensioners to downsize their home.

One proposal would exempt downsizers from the A$1.6 million cap on super balances eligible for tax-free earnings in retirement, or from the A$100,000 annual cap on post-tax contributions. But this would benefit only the very wealthiest retirees – just 60,000 retirees have super fund balances exceeding A$1.6 million.

More seniors would benefit from a proposal to exempt them from stamp duty when purchasing a smaller home. And many would benefit from a Property Council proposal to quarantine some portion of the proceeds from the pension assets test for up to a decade.

The trouble with all these proposals is that they would hit the budget – because everyone who downsized would get the benefits – but they would not encourage many more seniors to downsize.

Staying – or downsizing – is seldom about the money

Research shows that for two-thirds of older Australians, the desire to “age in place” is the most important reason for not selling the family home. Often they stay put because they can’t find suitable housing in the same local area.

In established suburbs where many seniors live, there are relatively few smaller dwellings because planning laws restrict subdivision. And even if the new house is next door, there’s an emotional cost to leaving a long-standing home, and to packing and moving.

And so, few older Australians downsize their home. According to the Productivity Commission, about 20% aged 60 or over have sold their home and purchased a less expensive one since turning 50. Another 15% have “strong intentions” to do so in the future.

When older Australians do downsize, their decision is dominated by non-financial considerations, such as a preference for a different style of house and living, a concern that it is getting too hard to maintain the house and garden, or the loss of a partner.

These emotional factors typically dwarf financial considerations. According to surveys, no more than 15% of downsizers are motivated by financial gain. Stamp duty costs were a barrier for only about 5% of those thinking of downsizing. Only 1% of seniors listed the impact on their pension as their main reason for not downsizing.

There are better and cheaper ways to encourage seniors to downsize
If governments do want to use financial incentives to encourage downsizing, budget sticks would be cheaper and fairer than budget carrots. Even if they have little effect on downsizing rates, at least they would contribute to much-needed budget repair and economic growth.

The federal government should include the value of the family home above some threshold – such as A$500,000 – in the Age Pension assets test. This would encourage a few more seniors to downsize. More importantly, it would make pension arrangements fairer, and contribute up to A$7 billion a year to the budget.

Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold. The federal government would then recover the cost from the proceeds of the sale. If well designed, this scheme would have almost no effect on retirees – instead it would primarily reduce inheritances.

State governments should abolish stamp duties on property, and replace them with a general property tax, as the ACT Government is doing. This would encourage downsizing, although only at the margins.

But the real policy justification is that it would help working age households to take a better job that’s only accessible by moving house, and so improve economic growth. It’s a big prize: a national shift from stamp duties to broad-based property taxes could add up to A$9 billion a year to the economy.

In short, the downsizing debate is a prime example of how governments prefer politically easy options with cosmetic appeal, but little real effect, on housing affordability. If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.

Article by Brendan Coates and John Daley from the Grattan Institute

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

DOWNSIZING AND WHY AUSTRALIANS DON’T DO IT, AND THE LIMITS TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO!

 

DOWNSIZING AND WHY AUSTRALIANS DON’T DO IT, AND THE LIMITS TO WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN DO!

MAY 2017

THIS opinion piece reflects the sort of LNP philosophy that leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth!

Recommending taxing elderly people to force them out of their homes that they worked 40 or more years to pay for!

Targeting them as “Asset Rich” is this in an attempt to create resentment from Millennials locked out of home ownership through sinister LNP Government policies?

For example “budget sticks” rather than carrots!

“The Federal Government should include the value of the family home above some threshold — such as $500,000 — in the age pension assets test” … the price of a one bedroom unit in Sydney …

“Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold.”

AND THIS ONE!

” … primarily reduce inheritances” this following the LNP locking out a whole Cohort of Australians from home ownership

KEYPOINTS:

-downsizers risk losing some or all of their age pension; though the family home is exempt from the pension assets test any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not

-downsizers have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy; at May 2017 equates to $32,000 for the median-priced home in Sydney

-earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not

Downsizing: Why Australians don’t do it, and the limits to what the Government can do!

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-05/housing-why-australians-dont-downsize-and-what-the-govt-can-do/8500170?pfmredir=sm

OPINION THE CONVERSATION BY BRENDAN COATES AND JOHN DALEY, GRATTAN INSTITUTE

FRI 5 MAY 2017

A house for sale seen in Canberra

PHOTO Decisions about downsizing are often driven by emotional, not financial, considerations.

AAP: LUKAS COCH

Encouraging senior Australians to downsize their homes is one of the more popular ideas to make housing more affordable.

The trouble is, incentives for downsizing would hit the budget, but make little difference to housing affordability.

It sounds good: new incentives would encourage seniors to move to housing that better suits their needs, while freeing up equity for their retirement and larger homes for younger families.

But the reality is different.

Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home and neighbourhood and don’t want to downsize.

When people do downsize, financial incentives are generally not the big things on their minds.

And so most of the budget’s financial incentives will go to those who were going to downsize anyway.

Financial barriers to downsizing
There are three financial hurdles to downsizing.

Downsizers risk losing some or all of their age pension, because the family home is exempt from the pension assets test, but any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not.

Downsizers also have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy.

For a senior purchasing the median-priced home in Sydney, that’s now $32,000.

Selling the family home

Gerry and Rosemary Franklin made the tough decision to move into retirement accommodation after living in their family home for almost half a century.
Finally, earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not.

The Turnbull Government has flagged the possibility of financial incentives in next week’s federal budget for superannuants and pensioners to downsize their home.

One proposal would exempt downsizers from the $1.6 million cap on super balances eligible for tax-free earnings in retirement, or from the $100,000 annual cap on post-tax contributions.

But this would benefit only the very wealthiest retirees — just 60,000 retirees have super fund balances exceeding $1.6 million.

More seniors would benefit from a proposal to exempt them from stamp duty when purchasing a smaller home.

And many would benefit from a Property Council proposal to quarantine some portion of the proceeds from the pension assets test for up to a decade.

The trouble with all these proposals is that they would hit the budget — because everyone who downsized would get the benefits — but they would not encourage many more seniors to downsize.

Staying — or downsizing — seldom about the money
Research shows that for two-thirds of older Australians, the desire to “age in place” is the most important reason for not selling the family home.

Often they stay put because they can’t find suitable housing in the same local area.

In established suburbs where many seniors live, there are relatively few smaller dwellings because planning laws restrict subdivision.

And even if the new house is next door, there’s an emotional cost to leaving a long-standing home, and to packing and moving.

And so, few older Australians downsize their home.

According to the Productivity Commission, about 20 per cent of people aged 60 or over have sold their home and purchased a less expensive one since turning 50.

Another 15 per cent have “strong intentions” to do so in the future.

When older Australians do downsize, their decision is dominated by non-financial considerations, such as a preference for a different style of house and living, a concern that it is getting too hard to maintain the house and garden, or the loss of a partner.

These emotional factors typically dwarf financial considerations. According to surveys, no more than 15 per cent of downsizers are motivated by financial gain.

Stamp duty costs were a barrier for only about 5 per cent of those thinking of downsizing.

Only 1 per cent of seniors listed the impact on their pension as their main reason for not downsizing.

Better and cheaper ways to encourage downsizing
If governments do want to use financial incentives to encourage downsizing, budget sticks would be cheaper and fairer than budget carrots.

Even if they have little effect on downsizing rates, at least they would contribute to much-needed budget repair and economic growth.

The Federal Government should include the value of the family home above some threshold — such as $500,000 — in the age pension assets test.

This would encourage a few more seniors to downsize.

More importantly, it would make pension arrangements fairer, and contribute up to $7 billion a year to the budget.

Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold.

The Federal Government would then recover the cost from the proceeds of the sale.

If well designed, this scheme would have almost no effect on retirees — instead it would primarily reduce inheritances.

State governments should abolish stamp duties on property, and replace them with a general property tax, as the ACT Government is doing.

This would encourage downsizing, although only at the margins.

But the real policy justification is that it would help working age households to take a better job that’s only accessible by moving house, and so improve economic growth.

It’s a big prize: a national shift from stamp duties to broad-based property taxes could add up to $9 billion a year to the economy.

In short, the downsizing debate is a prime example of how governments prefer politically easy options with cosmetic appeal, but little real effect, on housing affordability.

If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.

Brendan Coates is a fellow at the Grattan Institute.

John Daley is CEO of the Grattan Institute.

Originally published in The Conversation:

https://theconversation.com/why-older-australians-dont-downsize-and-the-limits-to-what-the-government-can-do-about-it-76931

CAAN FACEBOOK:
https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:
https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/