residential development strategy · 4.1 existing population and population growth 20 4.2 age...

B L U E M O U N T A I N S C I T Y C O U N C I L

( w i t h S t r a t e g y H u n t e r c o n s u l t a n t )

R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S T R A T E G Y

2 0 1 0

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page ii

DISCLAIMER

Any representation, statement, opinion and advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the basis that Blue Mountains City Council and Strategy Hunter, their agents and employees are not liable to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement, or advice referred to above.

Printed by Blue Mountains City Council

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page iii

Blue Mountains City Council

Residential Development Strategy

2010

Corporate and Community Group, Blue Mountains City Council

with Strategy Hunter Consultants

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page iv

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page v

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES 2

1.1 Purpose and structure of this Report 2

1.2 Local Setting 2

1.3 Background: 1996 and 2002 Residential Development Strategies 3

PART 2 POLICY CONTEXT 4

2.1 State Policies 4

2.1.1 Metropolitan Strategies 4

2.1.2 Metropolitan Development Program 6

2.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development 7

2.1.4 State Environmental Planning Policy Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability (2004) 8

2.1.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) 8

2.1.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 8

2.1.7 SEPP No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development 9

2.1.8 SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 9

2.1.9 SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 10

2.1.10 Ministerial directions under S.117 10

2.1.11 Conclusion 12

2.2 LOCAL POLICIES 12

2.2.1 Local Environmental Plans 12

2.2.2 LEP 2005- Background 13

PART 3 CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT 15

3.1 The Natural Environment 15

3.2 Bushfire Risk 17

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page vi

3.3 Retention of Town Character 17

3.4 Services and Infrastructure 18

PART 4 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 20

4.1 Existing Population and Population Growth 20

4.2 Age Structure 22

4.3 Net migration to and from the Blue Mountains 31

4.4 Population Projections 32

4.5 Household Structure 35

4.6 Spatial Distribution of Population 39

4.7 Home Ownership 39

4.8 Income 40

4.9 Cultural Diversity 44

4.10 Conclusion 44

PART 5 EXISTING HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 46

5.1 Housing Profile 46

5.4.1 Dwelling stock 46

5.4.2 Location of alternative housing 49

5.4.1 Vacant housing 49

5.4.2 Development approvals (construction certificates) 50

5.4.3 Spatial Distribution of Approval and Connections 52

5.4.4 Distribution of new development by land use zone 57

5.2 Housing Costs 60

5.3 Public Housing 63

5.4 Housing Stress & Affordability 64

5.4.1 Calculating housing stress 64

5.4.2 Income and measuring Housing Stress 65

5.4.3 Simple measures of housing stress and affordability 66

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page vii

5.5 Conclusion 69

PART 6 HOUSING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES 70

6.1 Existing Dwelling Stock and Housing Need 70

6.2 Demand for alternative Housing 72

PART 7 LEP 2005 – HOUSING OUTCOMES 73

7.1 Land Use Structure 73

7.2 Village Hierarchy 74

7.3 Residential Land Supply 76

7.4 Land and dwelling demand 81

7.5 Alternative Housing Supply 83

7.6 Village Housing sites 85

7.7 Accessible housing and its relationship with alternative housing 103

7.8 Population and its relationship with dwelling production and occupancy 104

7.9 Conclusion 104

REFERENCES 106

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page viii

Tables Table 1: Additional Dwelling Targets North Western Subregional Strategy 2004‐2031 ............... 5

Table 2: Employment Capacity Targets North Western Subregion .............................................. 5

Table 3: Projected production of dwellings by area type MDP 2010 ............................................ 6

Table 4: Projected production of dwellings by year MDP 2010 .................................................... 6

Table 5: Dwelling production for selected transit nodes MDP 2008 ............................................ 7

Table 6 Area Planning in the Blue Mountains ............................................................................. 20

Table 7: Population Change by Town 1981–2006 in the Blue Mountains .................................. 21

Table 8: Age structure by suburb* .............................................................................................. 24

Table 9: Planning Area Age Profiles ............................................................................................. 25

Table 10 Distribution of People Aged over 55 ............................................................................ 29

Table 11: Top 10 LGAs ranked by net gain to Blue Mountains LGA between 2001 and 2006 .... 31

Table 12: Top 10 LGAs ranked by net loss by Blue Mountains LGA between 2001 and 2006 .... 31

Table 13: Persons per household, 2006 ...................................................................................... 36

Table 14: Lone Person Households & Average Household sizes in the Blue Mountains ............ 37

Table 15: Household and Family changes 1996‐2006 ................................................................. 37

Table 16: Number of Households by Tenure 1996‐2006 ............................................................ 40

Table 17: Dwelling Type by Suburb and Planning Area 2006 ...................................................... 47

Table 18: Proportion and number of unoccupied dwellings ....................................................... 50

Table 19: Construction Certificate Approvals for new residential development ........................ 50

Table 20: Net new water connections for residential development .......................................... 51

Table 21: Construction Certificate approvals for all dwellings by Planning Area* ..................... 52

Table 22: Net new residential water connections by Planning Area .......................................... 53

Table 23: Net new water connections by Planning Area and Dwelling Type .............................. 54

Table 24: Net new water connections to single dwellings by suburb ......................................... 56

Table 25: Net new water connections to multi unit dwellings by suburb .................................. 56

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page ix

Table 26: Net new water connections to all dwellings by suburb .............................................. 57

Table 27: Summary of net new water connections to all dwellings by dwelling type ................ 57

Table 28: Construction Certificate approvals by year by zone .................................................... 59

Table 29: Median Sales Price by Year 1997‐2008 ....................................................................... 60

Table 30: Median Weekly Rent 1994‐2008 ................................................................................. 61

Table 31: Income ranges adopted Centre for Affordable Housing and SEPP 70 ........................ 66

Table 32: Proportion of mortgagees in repayment stress .......................................................... 67

Table 33: Proportion of private renters in rental stress .............................................................. 68

Table 34: Potential supply of Vacant Serviced Residential Land under LEP 2005 (2002 analysis) ............................................................................................................................................ 76

Table 35: Potential supply of developed serviced land under LEP 2005 (2002 analysis)............ 78

Table 36: Residential land stock available under LEP 2005, following subdivision (2005 analysis) ............................................................................................................................................ 79

Table 40: 2002 projections of Residential Land Supply Over Time ............................................. 81

Table 41: Construction Certificate approvals by Planning Area by Year ..................................... 81

Table 42: Net Water Connections by Planning Area by Year ...................................................... 82

Table 43: Potential yield and actual development of alternative housing under LEP 2005 ....... 84

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page x

Figures

Figure 1: Blue Mountains LGA in a regional context ..................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Proportion of Population by Planning Area ................................................................. 21

Figure 3: Blue Mountains Population Profiles 1996 and 2006 .................................................... 22

Figure 4: Sydney Statistical District Population Profile 2006 ...................................................... 23

Figure 5: Planning Area Age Profile graphs ................................................................................. 26

Figure 6: Population Change by Age Group, 1996‐2006 ............................................................. 27

Figure 7: Net migration to the Blue Mountains 1991, 2001, 2006 ............................................. 28

Figure 8: Age profiles, highlighting 55+ groups ........................................................................... 30

Figure 9: Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................... 33

Figure 10: Projected Population Change by Age Group .............................................................. 34

Figure 11: Projected Population Change by Age Group, 2001‐2031........................................... 34

Figure 12: Cumulative projected population change 2001‐2031 ................................................ 34

Figure 13: Percentage of population aged 55 and over .............................................................. 35

Figure 14: Comparative Household Structure ‐ Sydney and Blue Mountains ............................. 35

Figure 15: Forecast numbers of household types to 2021 .......................................................... 38

Figure 16: Forecast change in household types to 2021 ............................................................. 38

Figure 17: Distribution of Population across the Blue Mountains Towns and Villages .............. 39

Figure 18: Housing Tenure Trends 1996‐2006 ............................................................................ 40

Figure 19: Weekly Household Income ........................................................................................ 41

Figure 20: Income quartiles Blue Mountains 1996‐2006 ............................................................ 41

Figure 21: Household Income Quartiles Blue Mountains 1996‐2006 ......................................... 42

Figure 22: Annual Income Variables ............................................................................................ 42

Figure 23: Household Income Quartiles Blue Mountains 2006 .................................................. 43

Figure 24: Proportion of household types in alternative dwellings (ABS 2006) ......................... 49

Figure 25: Alternative Housing Types as a Proportion of Existing Dwellings in Blue Mountains .... Source: ABS 2006 ................................................................................................................ 49

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page xi

Figure 26: Net new water supply connections by dwelling type ................................................ 52

Figure 27: New net residential water connections by Planning Area ......................................... 53

Figure 28: Net new water connections by Planning Area and dwelling type ............................. 55

Figure 29: Housing Construction certificate approvals by year and by zone .............................. 58

Figure 30: Median Sales Price‐ all dwellings ............................................................................... 61

Figure 31: Median weekly rents‐ all dwellings ............................................................................ 62

Figure 32: Median weekly rents by dwelling type ...................................................................... 62

Figure 33: Concentric model of urban development in the Blue Mountains ............................. 73

Figure 34: Major local and district service centres in the Blue Mountains ................................. 75

Acronyms

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

CPI Consumer Price Index

DUAP Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

DoP Department of Planning

EMP 2 Environmental Management Plan No. 2

GMR Greater Metropolitan Region (Sydney)

GWS Greater Western Sydney

id. Informed Decisions

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area

MDH Multi‐Dwelling Housing

MDP Metropolitan Development Program

MUH Multi Unit Housing

NESB Non‐English Speaking Background

RDS Residential Development Strategy

SD Statistical Division

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SLA Statistical Local Area

SREP Sydney Regional Environmental Plan

WSROC Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

Blue Mountains City Council (with Strategy Hunter Consultants) Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2002 Residential Development Strategy (RDS) was developed to provide a basis for the residential provisions of what would become the 2005 Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The 2002 RDS was developed following extensive research and community consultation.

This Review of the 2002 RDS aims to update the strategy by considering changes in State Government planning policy, the 2001 and 2006 Census results, information on development approvals and trends and a range of recent reports and information.

It is concluded that the general objectives and policies of the 2002 RDS are sound.

However, it has not been sufficiently successful in improving the supply of alternative housing and in addressing the mismatch between housing stock and the needs of the community. The production of alternative housing is at a very low level.

Median house prices and rents are less than for the Sydney Statistical District. However, over the past 10 years, the Blue Mountains house price has increased more than in the Sydney statistical district. On the other hand, increases in rents have not been by as much as in Sydney.

The production of housing in the Blue Mountains is not sufficient to offset the decline in household sizes due to ageing and other changes in household structure. If housing production rates do not increase, the population of the Blue Mountains will decline.

The population structure of the Blue Mountains is becoming more aged. Young families and children are decreasing in number and as a proportion of the community. This will impact on the village and town centres of the LGA because aged people spend less. The villages will begin to suffer stagnation and decline. The nature of the village and town centres is a unique characteristic of the Blue Mountains and they should be supported. Well designed alternative housing around these town centres will provide much needed smaller dwellings and will free up housing stock for young families.

The 2002 RDS estimates of land supply for detached housing appear to be optimistic because they overestimate the likely supply of lots from the subdivision of existing developed land. However the LEP 1991 residential lands were not considered by the 2002 RDS despite these lands continuing to supply around 30 per cent of lots for new housing. The potential contribution of the LEP 1991 lands needs to be assessed through environmental analysis and incorporated into the overall residential lot estimates.

The NSW Department of Planning Development Program projects dwelling production for the period from 2007/8 to 2011/12 to be at the rate of 1290 over 5 years or an average of 258 per year. This projection is well in excess of the current production of averaging at 150 dwellings per year. On the basis of current production rates and past trends, this projection is overly optimistic and should be revised to more realistic levels.


PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES

1.1 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The purpose of this report is to provide an update and review of Council’s 2002 Residential Development Strategy (RDS).

The document is presented in seven parts. Following on from this part, which outlines the local setting and the principles of the RDS, an overview of relevant State Government planning policies and strategies is provided (Part 2). These strategies set an overall framework that encourages higher density housing in urban centres, in order to achieve the consolidation of urban development and relieve development pressure in non‐urban and environmentally sensitive areas. The Blue Mountains is located within the Sydney Metropolitan Area for State planning purposes, and is subject to the same general planning policy settings as the rest of Sydney.

Focus is then directed to the physical constraints within the Blue Mountains (Part 3). The Local Government Area (LGA) is characterised by dispersed residential areas that are lacking in the provision of key services and infrastructure, as well as environmental attributes that serve to constrain development. The increased recognition of these factors provides conditions that are incompatible with increasing or even maintaining the level of higher density residential development that is permissible under existing planning instruments.

Part 4 considers the characteristics of the population within the Blue Mountains, before assessing existing housing characteristics (Part 5) and investigating housing needs and preferences in Part 6. Discussions in these parts form the basis for a review of the residential strategy as applied through Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2005, as discussed in Part 7. This strategy was been developed to provide an appropriate range of dwelling types to meet the existing and projected future demand of the Blue Mountains population.

The aims of the RDS is to take environmental, economic and social factors into account, and seeks to manage the environmental impacts of development whilst enabling suitable housing options to be made available to the population. The RDS provides the basis for a Council response to the housing needs and preferences of the Blue Mountains community, following from the practical experience of applying the LEP 1991 and 2005, as well as by considering the directions described by the State Government in the Metropolitan Development Strategy (MDS) and Metropolitan Development Program (MDP).

1.2 LOCAL SETTING

The City of Blue Mountains is situated on the Great Dividing Range at the outer western fringe of the Sydney Region. Figure 1 shows the geographic context of the LGA. The LGA comprises 1,436 square kilometres in area and is traversed by one major rail and road corridor, comprising the Western Railway Line and Great Western Highway.

The Blue Mountains is a dissected sandstone plateau, which rises from approximately 15 metres elevation at the Nepean River to 1,030 metres at Mount Victoria. The geology and soils of the Blue Mountains have resulted in landforms and vegetation that have significance beyond the region for their representation of ecological processes, habitat value and biological diversity. The Greater Blue Mountains Area has World Heritage listing in recognition of this significance. Approximately 69 per cent of the LGA comprises Blue Mountains National Park, which is reflected in the description of the


Blue Mountains as “The City within a World Heritage National Park”. The LGA is also located within the Hawkesbury‐Nepean catchment, necessitating careful management of drainage and water resources to prevent pollution.

Figure 1: Blue Mountains LGA in a regional context

The settlement pattern of the Blue Mountains has been shaped by the natural topography of the area and the major transport corridor that services western New South Wales. Residents in the LGA have settled in twenty‐six towns and villages located along nearly one hundred kilometres of curving ridgeline, running from Lapstone in the east to Mount Victoria and Bell in the west and Mount Irvine in the north. The historical subdivision pattern in the Mountains has resulted in residential development in areas with limited physical infrastructure and social support services. Residential development is often located in sensitive natural environments and subject to high to extreme levels of bushfire threat.

The estimated resident population for the Blue Mountains in 2007 was 76,065 (ABS, 2007). The projected future population of the Blue Mountains differs considerably depending on the source used, for example, by 2021 the population of the Blue Mountains is projected to reach 84,423 according to ABS (2007), or 77,926 according to Informed Decisions (id.) (2010). The reason for this variation is the extent to which past growth rates and other local factors are used as an indicator of future growth. Growth is dependent upon the market demand, the capacity of infrastructure and services to facilitate growth, the choices that are made in the type of development undertaken, and the type and extent of residential development permissible in the planning instruments applying in the Blue Mountains. As will be discussed in Part 4 of this report, growth rates in the Blue Mountains have slowed over the past 5‐10 years, largely as a result of local factors. As a result, the future number of residents is likely to be at the low end of the currently available projections.

1.3 BACKGROUND: 1996 AND 2002 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

This report is an update of the 2002 RDS, which in turn built on the aims and principles of the RDS prepared by Council in 1996. One of the functions of the 1996 RDS was to gain an exemption from State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53 (SEPP 53), Metropolitan Residential Development. This


exemption was received from the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in September 1997, on the basis that the strategy would be implemented through a LEP.

At that time, Council had prepared a set of local environmental studies known as Environmental Management Plan No. 2 (EMP 2) and was well advanced in finalising Draft LEP 1997, which was based on the EMP 2 documents. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning endorsed this draft plan for exhibition, and the plan went on exhibition in October 1997. In response to its exhibition, a public hearing into the draft plan was held. This provided recommendations that gave rise to the review of Draft LEP 1997 and further studies and field investigation to refine zone application. These studies are presented in EMP 2002 including the RDS 2002, which ultimately provided the basis for the LEP 2005.

PART 2 POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 STATE POLICIES

2.1.1 Metropolitan Strategies

Metropolitan Strategies released by the Department of Planning consistently reinforce a theme of containing urban expansion so that residential development is more sustainable and coincides with people’s needs for a greater variety of housing as well as better access to employment and services. A range of policies support the Metropolitan Strategy and reinforce an objective ensuring that future housing form provides a choice of dwelling types, promotes affordability and has good access to jobs and services.

The State Government’s planning strategy for the Sydney City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future (hereafter called the “Metropolitan Strategy” in this report), was released in 2005, and identifies policies and actions to be implemented by State and local governments. It has a number of aims, and the following are of particularly relevance to the Blue Mountains: to strength and grow a series of “strong cities within the Metropolitan area “(eg. Penrith and Parramatta); create more jobs in Western Sydney; and contain Sydney’s urban footprint. Ensuring housing choice and diversity as well as maintaining housing affordability are also major objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy.

The Minister for Planning has announced that the Metropolitan Strategy will be reviewed during 2010, with an increased emphasis on centres and major transport corridors.

At a more detailed level, the Metropolitan Strategy is complemented by the Draft North West Subregional Strategy. The Draft Strategy covers Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury, and Penrith Local Government Areas. It is understood that the Department of Planning will be seeking to finalise Draft North West Regional Strategy by the end of 2010.

The Draft Strategy has only a few references to the Blue Mountains because it focuses its attention on the significant growth areas in the Sydney Basin. However it does acknowledge “the greater Blue Mountains area covers seven National Parks and a conservation area bisected by urban development and a transport corridor. It will be important to ensure that urban development and tourism do not adversely impact on the conservation values of the World Heritage area”.

Of particularly interest in the Draft Strategy is the proposed major expansion of the Penrith City Centre. The number and diversity of employment opportunities offered in Penrith are expanding rapidly, and the Draft Strategy reinforces this trend.


This will have two effects on the Blue Mountains. Firstly, existing residents will be able to access an improved range of services, education opportunities and jobs in close proximity. Secondly, the Blue Mountains, particularly the lower mountains, will become increasingly attractive as a residential location for those working in Penrith and the other growth centres of Western Sydney.

The Draft Strategy contains two tables showing targets for dwelling and employment growth to 2031. The tables translate into an average net increase for the Blue Mountains of just under 260 dwellings per year, and 233 additional jobs per year to 2031. This is in excess of current dwelling production, as will be discussed in Section 5.15 in this Report.

Table 1: Additional Dwelling Targets North Western Subregional Strategy 2004‐2031

Local Government Area Additional Dwellings to 2031

Baulkham Hills 21500

Blacktown 21500

Blue Mountains 7000

Hawkesbury 5000

Penrith 25000

North West Growth Centre 60000

Total 140000

Source: Draft North West Subregional Strategy, DoP, 2007

Table 2: Employment Capacity Targets North Western Subregion

Local Government Area 2001 2031 Growth

Baulkham Hills 53000 100000 47000

Blacktown 83000 128000 45000

Blue Mountains 19000 26000 7000

Hawkesbury 24000 27000 3000

Penrith 58000 86000 28000

Total 237000 367000 130000

Source: Draft North West Subregional Strategy, DoP, 2007

In the absence of any large urban release areas on the urban fringe, most of the growth in dwellings in the Blue Mountains would presumably be by redevelopment and infill, and the narrative of the Draft Strategy indicates this. Similarly, employment growth would be increased employment in existing centres and the existing light industrial areas. The Draft Strategy acknowledges the limited


vacant land in most of the Blue Mountains employment areas, and the environmental constraints in their expansion. It provides little detail as to how the employment target will be achieved.

2.1.2 Metropolitan Development Program

At a more detailed level, the State Government’s Metropolitan Development Program (MDP) monitors the production of housing and land for housing, in covers major infill sites as well as greenfield land releases. The MDP 2008/09 Report released in 2010 contains the 10 year supply forecast for 2008/09 ‐ 2017/18.

Of particular relevance to the Blue Mountains is section 7.11 of the MDS Report, which provides information in the North West of the Metropolitan area, which includes the Blue Mountains LGA.

The tables below, from the MDS, shows the production of dwellings in the past and the projected production by area type (“infill”, release area” etc.) (Table 3) and by year (Table 4). In the tables the last 6‐10 years is defined as 1998/99‐ 2002/03; the last 5 years is 2003/04 – 2007/08; Short Term is 2008/09‐ 2012/13, and Medium Term is 2013/14‐ 2017/18.

Table 3: Projected production of dwellings by area type MDP 2010

LGA

Last 6-10 years Last 5 years Short Term

Infill Transit Nodes

Release Area

Rural Subtotal Infill Transit Nodes

Release Area

Rural Subtotal Infill Transit Nodes

Release Area

Rural Subtotal

Blacktown 1,185 1,105 8,556 222 11,068 1,053 1,440 3,914 99 6,506 800 2,165 6,589 50 9,604

Blue Mountains 522 284 0 457 1,263 300 376 0 156 832 590 430 0 250 1,270

Hawkesbury 502 114 0 201 817 201 145 0 96 442 535 150 0 630 1,315

Penrith 1,485 548 2,474 24 4,531 1,277 306 416 105 2,104 1,655 345 1,970 165 4,135

The Hills Shire 2,101 495 8,438 118 11,152 1,573 521 2,644 75 4,813 1,270 1,010 3,962 25 6,267

North W Total 5,795 2,546 19,468 1,022 28,831 4,404 2,788 6,974 531 14,697 4,850 4,100 12,521 1,120 22,591

Source: Department of Planning, MDP, 2008

Table 4: Projected production of dwellings by year MDP 2010

LGA

Last 5 Years Short Term Medium

Term Last 6 Years

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Total 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 Total

Blacktown 11,068 1,362 1,397 1,282 1,245 1,220 6,506 1,819 1,486 2,059 2,046 2,194 9,604 8,084

Blue Mountains 1,263 205 194 121 180 132 832 180 190 290 290 320 1,270 1,050

Hawkesbury 817 141 87 58 108 48 442 167 287 287 287 287 1,315 1,453

Penrith 4,531 400 441 334 317 612 2,104 585 588 817 992 1,153 4,135 6,130

The Hills Shire 11,152 1,344 1,081 981 517 890 4,813 1,028 950 1,214 1,666 1,409 6,267 6,460

North West Total 28,831 3,410 3,200 2,778 2,407 2,902 14,697 3,779 3,501 4,667 5,281 5,383 22,591 23,159

Source: Department of Planning MDP. 2008


The content of the above tables will be assessed in Section 5.15 and Section 7 of this Report, relative to other statistical information. However, in general terms it reflects the average future dwelling production target of the Metropolitan Strategy of 260 additional dwellings per year in the LGA, on the basis of an increasing rate of production of dwellings per year. The targeted production for2010/11 is almost 75% greater than the average yearly dwelling production for the 5 years to 2008/09, a considerable increase.

It is not clear what the reference in Table 3 to the production of “rural’ lots refers to however it probably mistakenly refers to residential lands in the LEP 1991 – in particular the Residential Bushland Conservation and Bushland Conservation Zones.

The table below shows dwelling production for selected transit nodes in the Blue Mountains. The implications of the projected dwelling production in these centres will be assessed Section 7 of this report.

Table 5: Dwelling production for selected transit nodes MDP 2008

LGA Transit Nodes Last 6-10 Years Last 5 Years Short Term Medium Term

Blue Mountains Blaxland 34 53 25 25

Bullaburra 0 19 25 25

Hazelbrook 0 59 30 30

Katoomba 40 35 115 100

Leura 32 86 25 25

Springwood 85 46 50 50

Wentworth Falls 40 18 20 20

Source: Department of Planning MDP. 2010

2.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development

State Environmental Planning Policy Number 53 (SEPP 53) commenced in September 1997, and is a State Government policy aiming to broaden the choice of dwelling types and their locations in the housing market. The SEPP promotes development that makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and aims to reduce the consumption of land on the urban fringe for housing and associated urban development. The SEPP encourages local councils to establish residential development strategies to achieve these aims. Where a council does not adopt a residential development strategy, the controls outlined in SEPP 53 apply to that LGA.

Where SEPP 53 applies, it allows the development of integrated housing, dual occupancies and multi‐unit housing with development consent. SEPP 53 establishes development standards to control such developments, specifically limiting floor space ratios and setting minimum allotment sizes. Part 5 of the SEPP outlines design guidelines, which require a consent authority to consider certain design aspects before granting consent to a development to which SEPP 53 applies. Considerations include the surrounding streetscape, the visual bulk of the proposal, and a site analysis that is to be submitted with the development application. SEPP 53 is essentially a tool to allow consolidated residential development in existing urban areas, and to restrict residential development on the fringe of urban areas.

Blue Mountains Local Government Area has been exempt from the SEPP on the grounds of the 2002 RDS which sought to apply the aims of the SEPP in a way compatible with the environmental


attributes of the Blue Mountains. This report updates the 2002 RDS, and in accordance with SEPP 53, aims to provide increased housing choice in the Blue Mountains, and to locate the highest residential densities in existing urban centres, maximising the use of existing infrastructure and protecting sensitive areas from the effects of urban development.

2.1.4 State Environmental Planning Policy Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability (2004)

This State Environmental Planning Policy has evolved and undergone several name changes since its first gazettal in 1982 as State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5. However, over this time the major aim of the SEPP has not changed, namely to increase the availability and diversity of accommodation for older people and people with a disability. The SEPP allows higher density residential development proposals for seniors and people with a disability to override local planning controls that would prevent such development. It establishes controls to ensure that housing for older people or people with a disability is provided according to defined urban design principles, and attempts to ensure that development provides access to appropriate support services.

Council considered the generalised application of SEPP 5 within the Blue Mountains would result in the inappropriate development of urban and fringe land. Council received exemption from SEPP 5 and its successors, on the basis that the LEP 2005 made suitable provision for this form of housing, by way of introducing ‘accessible housing’. Accessible housing is a similar concept to that promoted by the SEPP, albeit with locally responsive development controls and defined areas within which such housing can be developed.

Blue Mountains’ exemption to the provisions of the SEPP and its successors concluded in December 2008, and the LGA is now subject to the provisions of the current SEPP.

The implications of this are that housing that meets the requirements of the SEPP can be approved within a wide range of residential areas of the LGA. This permits such housing to be potentially developed over a much wider spatial area than was permitted under the LEP 2005 by the “accessible housing” provisions.

2.1.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

SEPP 32 aims to promote urban consolidation, through the redevelopment of under‐utilised land in urban centres for multi‐unit housing. The intended impacts of the SEPP are to reduce the take‐up of land on the urban fringe for residential development, and increase the availability and diversity of residential development in urban centres. The SEPP is to facilitate the redevelopment for multi unit housing of ‘urban land which is no longer required for the purpose for which it is currently zoned or used. The SEPP is intended for use for regional significant sites. The Minister becomes the consent authority of any sites so declared. The SEPP is not frequently used. SEPP 32 applies to the Blue Mountains.

2.1.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Basix applies to all residential developments in NSW with an estimated cost of works of $50,000 or more. It requires new residential development proposals to meet certain minimum energy and water efficiency criteria before they can be approved. It applies to the Blue Mountains. However, it should be noted that BASIX is not “one size fits all” but has a range of consistently applied criteria designed


to suit the climatic and other circumstances of the region/locality in which the proposed development is located.

2.1.7 SEPP No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

SEPP 65 is applies to residential flat buildings of three stories or more, and containing four or more self contained dwellings. The SEPP aims to improve the design and amenity of new residential flat buildings and those undergoing substantial redevelopment or conversion from another use.

The SEPP requires all new environmental planning instruments, development control plans and master plans are required to include provisions to achieve the design quality principles of the SEPP, and have regard to the accompanying residential design code.

The SEPP also provides for the Minister to establish design review panels for LGAs or regions. The design review panel would have the function of reviewing any development applications which fall under the provisions of the SEPP, consistent with the design principles, etc. of the SEPP.

The SEPP applies to the Blue Mountains, however given the scale and nature of development in the LGA, it would not apply to many developments. Notwithstanding this, the SEPP and the accompanying design guide contain many principles and guidelines which are suitable for smaller scale development in an adapted form.

2.1.8 SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

This SEPP provides the framework for an introduction of a series of “standard” State development guidelines or Codes which allow minor development to occur without the need for a development application. It provides for two forms of development‐ “exempt” development which does not require any form of approval, and “complying” development which requires a proposed development to have a complying development certificate (CDC) issued prior by the Council, or an accredited certifier prior to the development commencing.

The initial Codes for complying development apply to detached single and two storey detached dwelling houses on lots greater than 450 square metres, as well as a range of alterations and additions. A Commercial and Industrial Code has also been introduced.

In its current form, the applicability of the SEPP to the Blue Mountains is quite limited because much of the LGA is affected by one or more matters which exclude land from the provisions of the SEPP (variously applying to exempt and complying development‐ check detail for each case), including bush fire prone land, heritage conservation areas, an item or land on the State Heritage Register, unsewered lands to which the Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No1 applies, and environmentally sensitive land (as defined in the SEPP) and excluded land identified by an environmental planning instrument (as defined in the SEPP).

In local government areas where the SEPP applies (which includes the Blue Mountains, even though large areas of the LGA are effectively excluded from its application by the provisions of the SEPP), the SEPP prohibits alternative exempt and complying arrangements. As a result, the Blue Mountains community is less able to take advantage of the ability of the SEPP to simplify development approvals and reduce development costs, than prior to the SEPP’s introduction.


2.1.9 SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP seeks to increase the supply of affordable rental housing.

If certain criteria are met, the SEPP allows villa and townhouse development up to 8.5m in height in all residential zones in the Sydney Region (which includes the Blue Mountains), and where residential flat buildings are permissible it allows an additional 20% floor space ratio bonus. To qualify for consideration under the SEPP development must comprise at least 50% affordable rental housing for at least 10 years, and meet certain design standards. Affordable rental housing is defined as where the tenant has a gross income of not more than 20% of the median income of the Sydney Statistical Division and pays no more than 30% of that gross income in rent. Housing that meets the criteria for the Australian Government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme also meets the basic affordability criteria of the SEPP.

The development site must be within 800m of a railway station or 400m of a regular schedule bus stop. It does not apply to areas identified as “a scenic protection area” in an environmental planning instrument unless buildings of 8.5m or more are permitted in that area.

The SEPP also allows granny flats that meet specified design standards in all residential zones. A Granny flat is defined as a self‐contained extension of the family home that:

(a) is established in conjunction with a house and is either within the house, or attached to the house, or separate from the house; and

(b) is on the same lot of land as the principal house and is not on a separate lot, in a strata plan or in a community title scheme.

Further provisions of the SEPP permit boarding houses that meet specified design standards to be approved in all residential zones, as well as facilitate the approval of group homes in certain zones. Provisions also exist for the retention of existing affordable housing which is defined as low rental dwellings, and extends the provisions of the now repealed SEPP 10 (Retention of Affordable Rental Housing). This may have implications for some of the older rental housing and residential boarding houses in the Blue Mountains, particularly in Katoomba where they are concentrated.

The SEPP also provides for social housing providers (government and non government) to be able to undertake medium density development subject to certain conditions within 800 m of a railway station in the Sydney Region (including the Blue Mountains) when this is not permissible under the LEP or IDO. In addition, the SEPP enables the Department of Housing to undertake lower scale medium density development of up to 20 dwellings without development consent in any zone where the development is otherwise permissible, subject to certain conditions.

Provided a proposed development meets the requirements of Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, a much wider range of residential development can take place throughout the residential zones of the Blue Mountains, as a result of the SEPP. It is not clear as to the extent that the development industry and housing investors will have interest in developing this form of housing in the Blue Mountains.

2.1.10 Ministerial directions under S.117

A number of directions made under Section 117 of the environmental Planning and Assessment Act affect residential development in the Blue Mountains.

Direction 1.2 Rural Zones states that a planning proposal must:

• not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone.


• not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village).

Direction 3.1 Residential Zones states that within an existing or proposed residential zone, a planning proposal must include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will:

• broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and • make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and • reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban

fringe, and • be of good design;

And that a planning proposal must

• contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and

• not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land.

Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport aims to improve the relationship between housing, jobs and services, and to reduce travel demand, particularly private motor vehicles.

When a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will create, alter or remove a zone or a provision relating to urban land, including land zoned for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes, the planning proposal must locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of:

(a) Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and (b) The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy (DUAP 2001).

Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection aims to reduce the risk from bushfire hazards. It is of particular relevance to the Blue Mountains, much of which is bushfire prone. Under this direction a planning proposal must have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, and introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas. It also includes a range of specific measures that must be taken in relation to asset protection zones (APZ), water availability, access and hazard reduction. Direction 4.4 can significantly limit the extent and nature of residential development in bushfire prone areas.

Direction 5.2 Sydney Water Catchments aims to protect the water quality within the catchments for Sydney’s Water supply. Pursuant to this Direction:

(a) new development within the hydrological catchment must have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality, and

(b) new development within the hydrological catchment must not compromise the achievement of the water quality objectives set out in the Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No.1, and

(c) future land use in the hydrological catchment should be matched to land and water capability, and

(d) the ecological values of land within a Special Area that is: (i) reserved as national park, nature reserve or state recreation area under the National

Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or (ii) declared as a wilderness area under the Wilderness Act 1987, or (iii) owned or under the care control and management of the Sydney Catchment

Authority, should be maintained.


A considerable part of the Blue Mountains LGA lies within the catchment for Sydney’s water supply, and accordingly Direction 5.2 has a major influence on the nature and quality of residential development, and may in some cases lead to residential development being prohibited or unviable.

Direction 7.1 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy requires planning proposals to be consistent with the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy “City of Cities”

2.1.11 Conclusion

These State Government policies establish a consistent theme of consolidating urban growth and providing housing choice. Density is to be increased in urban areas characterised by good access to employment and commercial centres, and where there is adequate infrastructure capacity or efficient means to provide such infrastructure. Such urban development is directed to decreasing growth pressures on the urban fringe and protecting environmentally sensitive land. Accordingly, the Blue Mountains LGA does not satisfy the criteria as an area with a major role to play in accommodating Sydney’s population growth.

Notwithstanding this, the impact of the Metropolitan Strategy and other State government policies in supporting the growth of Penrith as a “regional city” as well as employment growth in Western Sydney generally, will place increasing pressure on the Lower Blue Mountains as a residence for workers based in locations such as Penrith.

A number of State policies, such as the SEPP Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability and the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) have increased the extent to which higher density and other housing forms can be potentially developed within the residential zones of the Blue Mountains beyond those envisaged in the LEP 1991 and 2005.

The draft North West Subregional Strategy and the Metropolitan Development Strategy specify dwelling production targets for the Blue Mountains. It is likely that the State Government will increasingly require Councils to report on, and to deliver, these targets. These production targets are significantly higher than the actual dwelling production in the Blue Mountains, as discussed in Section 5.1.4.

If the Blue Mountains is to maintain its unique character it will need to articulate a case to the State Government for partial or full exemption or variation in some aspects of these policies, and/or develop local responses which preferentially direct infill development to localities where positive benefits can be achieved for the local community.

The following sections will outline some of the housing challenges facing the Blue Mountains, assess the State Government’s housing targets and LEP 2005 against actual development trends in the LGA, and suggest some future directions for residential strategy.

2.2 LOCAL POLICIES

2.2.1 Local Environmental Plans

A Local Environmental Plan (LEP) is a regulatory tool that controls the location and form of development within an LGA. Within the Blue Mountains there are two principal planning instruments: LEP 2005 and LEP 1991. LEP 2005 applies to the urban areas of the LGA, generally in proximity to the transport corridor, with LEP 1991 applying to the balance of the City, which includes


some urban fringe areas and the bushland interface with the National Park, and LEP 4 applying to a limited number of sites.

Local Environmental Plan No. 4 originally applied to the entire LGA. However, LEPs 1991 and 2005 have replaced over most of the LGA, and LEP 4 now applies to limited areas of land in a number of locations.

LEP 2005 was the outcome of a comprehensive process involving research, extensive community consultation and a Commission of Inquiry. It aims to manage development in a way which meets community needs and expectations, as well as Council’s responsibility in protecting key environmental and cultural assets within the Blue Mountains.

The State Government has subsequently introduced a Standard Local Environmental Plan in 2006. All Councils are now required to convert their LEPs to the format and basic content of the Standard LEP. As part of this process it is proposed to update LEPs 4 and 1991, and to merge LEPs 1991 and 2005 into a single LEP. This is in response to the State Government directing Councils to produce a single LEP for their LGA.

Recent changes to Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, pursuant to which LEPs are made, have introduced amendments to the process of making LEPs. However, these changes ‐ the so‐called “Gateway Process” – will not change the land use implications of LEPs.

2.2.2 LEP 2005 Background

LEP 2005 was developed to replace LEP 4 and was based on a comprehensive range of investigations which were incorporated into Environmental Management Plan 2 (EMP 2). The public exhibition of a Draft LEP in 1997 generated a high level of public interest, with 937 public submissions being made. In response, a public hearing was conducted by Commissioner Dr Mark Carleton into Draft LEP 1997, where a further 311 submissions were received.

The report delivered on the public hearing in December 1998 concluded that although the EMP 2 documents were a firm basis for the Draft LEP 1997, further investigation into zone application, character retention and environmental protection measures in the Draft LEP was required to meet the stated principles within EMP 2, which included:

• Promote the village and township atmosphere of the Blue Mountains and restrict ribbon development;

• Protect and promote significant heritage features and protect residential amenity; • Consolidate development within the vicinity of existing commercial centres and public

transport nodes; and • Protect and enhance environmental features.

The public hearing into the Draft LEP 1997 identified that 28 per cent of all submissions received following public exhibition of Draft LEP 1997 objected to the application of a proposed Multi‐Unit Housing (MUH) zone. The Commissioner generally concurred with Council’s position in relation to the need to provide for multi unit housing around existing urban centres, in line with State government policies. However, the following qualifiers and recommendations were made (Carleton, 1998):

• Council should undertake adequate justification and environmental review at the site specific level for the application of MUH zones.

• Council should undertake a review in order to ascertain whether Draft LEP 1997 satisfies requirements for the provision and type of MUH, particularly in relation to the provision of affordable housing and consistency with the requirements of SEPP 9 – Group Homes.


• The size of MUH zones at Katoomba should be increased, while those in Leura, particularly on environmentally sensitive sites, should be decreased.

• The Commissioner questioned whether quality design outcomes would be delivered on site. This issue was of particular concern in relation to heritage conservation areas and heritage items. Council should introduce site specific DCPs with detailed site design guidelines, to ensure that quality design outcomes would be delivered on site, particularly in heritage conservation areas and proximate to heritage items.

• A review of the application of MUH zones in Glenbrook should be undertaken. • In the context of discussions relating to the proposed zoning of Residential Investigation

lands with a constrained environmental capacity, no area with slopes greater than 20 per cent should be zoned MUH, and watercourses should be protected with a buffer area.

• A population threshold should be determined for the Blue Mountains, based on the environmental capacities of the land and infrastructure constraints. It was noted that increased population levels have negative environmental impacts unless appropriate controls are in place to mitigate these impacts.

In response to the Commissioner’s recommendations Council undertook a complete review of Draft LEP 1997 involving extensive information gathering, research and analysis, background studies and the development of new technology to identify and protect key values in the City, as detailed in EMP 2002. This review included, but was not limited to the following:

Base environmental information and mapping for slopes, soils and erosion capability, escarpments, bushfire hazard, catchment analysis, watercourses, riparian zones and significant vegetation communities;

• Watercourse buffer study; • Detailed heritage register and mapping; • Detailed character studies and mapping; and • Servicing and infrastructure mapping.

The Draft LEP 2002 limited growth within the Blue Mountains, by excluding lands that do not have the capacity to support further development, in view of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The provisions of Draft LEP 2002 evolved into LEP 2005, which is the planning instrument applying today to most of the urban areas of the Blue Mountains. LEPs 4 and 1991 apply to the balance of the LGA.

In LEP 2005 a place‐based approach was adopted for the core villages across the LGA, providing site‐ specific provisions to those areas where multi‐dwelling housing could occur. This approach was informed by consultation workshops with the community, which gave rise to statements of desired future character, and provides detailed design guidelines for the development of this land.


PART 3 CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT

3.1 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Blue Mountains comprises an outstanding natural environment, the value of which has been recognised through its inclusion on the World Heritage List. The NSW Government is endeavouring to protect the natural environment of the Blue Mountains through a range of environmental planning instruments that both direct and mirror Council’s planning activities. These include the Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 (now a deemed SEPP) – Hawkesbury‐Nepean River (SREP 20, now a deemed SEPP) Both of these instruments have introduced strategies and controls to maintain, and where possible improve, the health, integrity and diversity of the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River catchment. This catchment includes the majority of the City of Blue Mountains within its boundary. SREP 20 also nominates a number of sub‐catchments within the City of the Blue Mountains as Conservation Area Sub‐Catchments, which have been identified as being particularly sensitive.

LEP 1991 is based on a less rigorous approach to environmental constraints than LEP 2005. Nonetheless LEP 1991 incorporates a range of environmental controls, through the provisions of specific land use zones, and a number of development criteria that specify no adverse environmental impacts should result from development.

LEP 2005 furthers these initiatives by identifying significant elements of the natural environment that require protection. These include but are not limited to:

• Watercourses and their associated buffer areas: Protecting watercourse corridors and their associated buffers is a priority in moderating the impact of development related disturbance. Development adjacent to watercourses can cause sedimentation and erosion, alterations to surface water run‐off, weed encroachment and habitat reduction.

• Locally significant flora and fauna habitats and immediate buffer areas: A 60 metre wide buffer area has been applied to identified and validated significant vegetation and habitats within LEP 2005. Revision of the mapping of flora and fauna habitats was conducted as part of the review of Draft LEP 1997, and has included data from a city‐wide vegetation mapping project.

• Steeply sloping land: Slopes greater than 20 per cent have been identified to ensure that any future development is site responsive and mitigates impacts of erosion and sedimentation, thus protecting downstream water quality.

• Water supply catchments: In water supply catchments, future development needs to occur in a manner that protects water quality, particularly in relation to issues of site disturbance and effluent disposal.

• Conservation Area Sub‐Catchments: Conservation Area Sub‐Catchments have been identified in SREP 20. In addition, Council has identified part of the Middle Nepean Catchment for inclusion as a Conservation Area Sub‐Catchment, recognising that this catchment has similar characteristics to the other Conservation Area Sub‐Catchments and requires similar measures to protect its environmental values.

• Areas adjoining the escarpments: In the Blue Mountains, escarpment areas are sensitive natural environments as well as being visually significant natural features.

In response to these environmental constraints a range of environmental management measures and provisions have been incorporated into LEP 2005. These include:


• Environmental Protection Zones: The Environmental Protection – General and Environmental Protection – Open Space zones have been applied as the primary measure to identify limits to urban growth in the Draft LEP area and to protect environmentally significant features.

• Environmental Provisions: Environmental management provisions have been introduced that must be considered for all development in the Blue Mountains. These relate to issues such as the consideration of environmental impact, protection of habitat for native flora and fauna, protection of vegetation, management of weeds, stormwater management, site disturbance and erosion control, provision of services and sustainable resource management.

• Scheduled vegetation: A detailed schedule of locally significant and protected flora and fauna habitats.

• Protected Areas: The application of Protected Areas is shown on the LEP 2005 Maps. These Protected Areas introduce objectives and development standards that are targeted for particular environmentally sensitive lands. Provisions are introduced that restrict the subdivision of land unless reticulated sewer is provided in a similar manner to LEP 1991.

These protected areas build on the recommendations of Commissioner Carleton and include the following:

• Slope Constraint Area: applies to all lands that have a slope greater than 20 per cent. The accuracy of the mapping of these areas has been significantly enhanced through the digital terrain model that was generated through aerial laser scanning.

• Vegetation Constraint Area: applies to land where significant vegetation communities have been identified as part of a city‐wide native vegetation mapping project. Provisions applying to these areas require the assessment and protection of these communities as part of the development assessment process.

• Ecological Buffer Area: applies to buffers surrounding watercourse corridors, locally significant flora and fauna habitats and the National Park. Variable buffers for each watercourse have been modelled, tested and applied based on the specific characteristics of each catchment such as soils, slope, vegetation cover and proximity to the watercourse to produce a variable buffer width.

• Escarpment Area: applies to areas adjoining escarpments and requires that any development has no adverse impact on the ecological or scenic values of the escarpment by retaining vegetation, being sympathetic to the existing landform, and minimising visibility.

• Water Supply Catchment: applies to all inner catchments of drinking water supplies in the Blue Mountains (located at Blackheath/Medlow Bath, Katoomba and Woodford) as well as to the outer catchment of the Warragamba Dam that has been included following consultation with the Sydney Catchment Authority.

• Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor: applies to areas identified under SREP 20, and identifies corridors of regional and State significance. These areas are protected against any development which would compromise the visual integrity of the area.

The adoption of these provisions within LEP 2005 has assisted in defining an urban footprint and limiting the expansion of residential development into bushland areas. This has an impact on the supply of land for residential development, by limiting additional development to areas where it has least impact on the natural and built environment of the Blue Mountains.

LEP 2005 makes provision for the acquisition of certain land of high conservation significance, where these lands contribute to open space provision. The acquisition of these lands is required, in the main, to protect water quality and biodiversity in Sydney’s drinking water supply catchments and in the National Park.


LEP 1991 is being reviewed using a similar approach and principles of environmental management to those used in the development of LEP 2005.

3.2 BUSHFIRE RISK

Past bushfire history indicates that the Blue Mountains is a special risk area in New South Wales. Ridgeline development in some of the lower density and sprawling settlements within the Mid and Lower Blue Mountains are particularly exposed to bushfire risk. However, there are substantial urban areas in Blackheath, Katoomba, Leura, Wentworth Falls, Blaxland and Glenbrook where urban settlement occurs on more level ground, away from ridge‐tops, which affords some protection from fire. The remainder of the settled areas generally occur in a sprawling pattern along ridge‐lines, with an extensive urban/bushland interface, where there is a considerable degree of exposure to bushfire attack.

The Blue Mountains Bushfire Risk Management Plan (Blue Mountains Bushfire Risk Management Committee, 2000) has identified that there are a number of urban areas with extreme bushfire risk. These areas have limited access, a history of exposure and are within 100 metres of the urban/bushland interface. Without proper management, these areas have a high probability of exposure to bushfire attack. Increasing residential densities within these areas is problematic.

There are a number of urban areas that have moderate risk. Such areas have better access and some management measures in place, such as perimeter roads and siting and design that alleviate the level of risk. However, management measures must be ongoing. All urban and residential areas within the Blue Mountains face some level of bushfire risk, and this operates as a primary factor both in zone application and development assessment.

Part of the management of bushfire risk in the Blue Mountains is to ensure that exposure to risk for new development is minimised, and that appropriate densities for residential development are reflective of the level of risk in these areas. Development in exposed, outlying and ridge‐top areas will place greater numbers of people and property at risk. Although it is recognised that in some limited instances higher density or cluster developments may provide for integrated and targeted responses to the risk posed by bushfire, generally development is restricted to low intensities in areas subject to extreme and high bushfire risk to minimise exposure.

As previously mentioned, Section 117 Direction 4.4 requires new development proposals to have regard to the publication “Planning for Bushfire Protection” and to include a range of specific measures to reduce and manage bushfire risk.

3.3 RETENTION OF TOWN CHARACTER

The character and streetscape attributes of towns and villages are a distinctive feature of the Blue Mountains. Much of the tourism of visitation to the Mountains is related to the character of the townships and the activities that occur within them. The protection of town character is therefore important both for its inherent value to local communities and for its contribution to the local economy.

A detailed character study was undertaken as part of the development of LEP 2005. Based on the findings of this study, a range of measures were incorporated in LEP 2005 to protect important elements of character. These include:

• Specific objectives for the protection of character;


• The application of the Living Conservation zone to areas of important and vulnerable character that are characterised by visually significant streetscapes, dominant landscape settings and traditional gardens;

• The application of the Living Bushland Conservation zone that, in addition to protecting areas of environmental sensitivity, promotes the retention of residential bushland character;

• The identification of Period Housing Areas on the Draft LEP zoning maps, providing for the protection of pre‐1946 housing stock including Victorian, Edwardian, Federation, Inter‐war or Art Deco building styles. New development is required to complement the traditional streetscape character of these areas and promote sympathetic design for renovation or infill development;

• The application of the Protected Area – Escarpment Area, which incorporates additional development controls for height and built form in visually prominent escarpment areas; and

• Both general and precinct‐specific controls on the design of housing in Village zones, site coverage, building height and retention of vegetation.

3.4 SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The settlement pattern within the Blue Mountains is generally linear, having developed along a central road and rail corridor. The linearity of development makes it difficult for Council and other government and community agencies to adequately service community support infrastructure across the LGA. In response to this situation, Council has targeted certain district centres for the provision of key services and facilities. Primary townships have therefore been identified within each of the Planning Areas, in which the provision of key services and facilities will be concentrated. There are also a number of smaller townships that provide limited services and facilities.

The location of increased housing densities has been restricted to the primary service centres. It is considered that an important strategy to make development more sustainable is to promote and encourage growth around these centres. This permits further development of publicly provided community services within these towns and reinforces the existing retail hierarchy.

The provision of water and sewerage infrastructure in the Blue Mountains is an underlying consideration to planning for future development. The dispersed nature of settlement makes it difficult to recover costs of infrastructure provision, and the sensitivity of the environment, much of it being within water supply or conservation area sub‐catchments, means that it is vital that effluent disposal and urban runoff are managed effectively.

In 1996 the NSW Government announced a scheme to provide reticulated sewerage to the unsewered areas of the Blue Mountains. Stage 1 provided reticulated sewerage to the urban areas of Hazelbrook, Wentworth Falls, Leura and Katoomba. Stage 2 has been completed, and provides reticulated sewer to Medlow Bath, Blackheath and Mount Victoria. The completion of these two stages will mean the cessation of effluent discharges to drinking water catchments and other streams located in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

While Stages 1 and 2 generally provided sewer to the areas zoned urban under the LEP 2005, over 1,000 residential lots zoned under the LEP 1991 were not included. According to the Blue Mountains Sewerage Strategy (BMCC, 2008) many of these lots are zoned Bushland Conservation or Residential Bushland Conservation and are located adjacent to existing villages. The Blue Mountains Sewerage Strategy proposes an Action Plan to extend the reticulated sewer to urban areas that are still unserviced, as well as to allow flexibility in on‐site sewerage management where a range of performance criteria can be met in less environmentally sensitive areas. However, this is a long term strategy and this RDS has been conducted on the understanding of the existing sewered areas.


As discussed later in the RDS, lots in the LEP 1991 Residential Bushland Conservation and Bushland Conservation zones are providing almost 30 per cent of the new housing sites each year The provision of adequate infrastructure is therefore essential to the continuing supply of this land for new housing (within environmental constraints).

The supply of new residential land that is capable of development is rapidly running out in the Blue Mountains. The future extension of reticulated sewer (Action 1 of the Blue Mountains Sewerage Strategy 2008) and investigations of the potential for a more flexible approach to on site sewerage management (Action 2 of the Blue Mountains Sewerage Strategy 2008) offer the potential to increase the amount of land effectively available for residential development. However, the supply of new residential land will still remain constrained, and there will be a growing dependence on infill and redevelopment to provide for the housing needs of the community.

The capacity of water reservoirs also represents a constraint to development in certain villages, particularly in the area from Bullaburra to Woodford where the lack of water pressure can be a problem in peak seasons.


PART 4 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Housing need in the Blue Mountains can be gauged firstly through an analysis of the key demographic characteristics of households within the LGA. Demographic characteristics that are examined below are population size, geographical and age distribution, income levels, household size and structure, and cultural diversity. The demographic composition of the community influences their demand for various housing forms, and related services and facilities to cater to their needs.

This report adopts Council’s five study areas developed for community planning purposes, in order to target local area planning requirements for the provision of services and facilities. These “Areas” are also used in the demographic analysis within this report.

Table 6 Area Planning in the Blue Mountains

Area Towns

Area 1 Blackheath (Service Centre), Mount Victoria, Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine, Mount Tomah, Bell

Area 2 Wentworth Falls, Leura, Katoomba (Service Centre), Medlow Bath

Area 3 Bullaburra, Lawson (Service Centre), Hazelbrook, Woodford, Linden

Area 4 Valley Heights, Winmalee, Yellow Rock, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood (Service Centre), Faulconbridge

Area 5 Lapstone, Glenbrook, Mt Riverview, Blaxland (Service Centre), Warrimoo

4.1 EXISTING POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH

The population of the Blue Mountains was 76066 in 2006. This is slightly lower than the 2001 population of 77021. (ABS Estimated Resident Population)

Table 7 shows the changes in population of each of the suburbs and Planning Areas. This table shows the “place of usual residence” adjusted census count.

The five Planning areas either experienced minimal growth, or decline. Planning Area 1 experienced the greatest percentage growth of 2.9% over the 5 years to 2006, however in numerical terms it grew by only 152 residents. Planning Area 4 grew by 0.8% or 166 residents, and Planning Area 3 by 0.7% or 77 residents. The population of Planning Area 5 decreased by 1.7% or 258 residents, and Planning Area 2 decreased by 0.4% or 70 residents.

The population of Planning Areas 1, 2 and 5 plateaued in 1996, whilst Planning Areas 3 and 4 plateaued in 2001.

Of the suburbs (“townships”) Faulconbridge experienced the greatest percentage growth from 2001 to 2006 of 11.7% or 453 residents, followed by Yellowrock/Hawkesbury Heights which grew by 7.9% or 104 residents, and Springwood by 5.8% or 453 residents. Bell


Table 7: Population Change by Town 1981–2006 in the Blue Mountains

Township 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006No. %

Planning Area 1Bell (including Mounts) 187 172 167 303 203 0.3%Mount Victoria 607 600 906 900 868 867 1.2% ‐1 ‐0.1%Blackheath 3 027 3 599 3 757 4 119 4047 4117 5.6% 70 1.7%Megalong Valley 68 148 112 163 169 0.2%Subtotal 3 609 4 519 4 942 5 485 5329 5481 7.4% 152 2.9%Planning Area 2Medlow Bath 270 340 376 448 492 494 0.7% 2 0.4%Katoomba 7 322 7 812 8 297 8 544 8505 8167 11.0% ‐338 ‐4.0%Leura 3 078 3 368 3 622 3 777 4505 4420 6.0% ‐85 ‐1.9%Wentworth Falls 3 542 4 447 4 998 5 379 5439 5592 7.6% 153 2.8%Subtotal 14 212 15 967 17 292 18 148 18224 18154 24.5% ‐70 ‐0.4%Planning Area 3Bullaburra 703 873 938 1,018 1090 1208 1.6% 118 10.8%Lawson 1 837 2 081 2 234 2 250 2799 2354 3.2% ‐445 ‐15.9%Hazelbrook 2 657 3 567 4 133 4 333 4538 4383 5.9% ‐155 ‐3.4%Woodford/Linden 1 167 1 474 1 979 2 182 2320 2384 3.2% 64 2.8%Subtotal 6 433 7 959 9 284 9 783 10518 10595 14.3% 77 0.7%Planning Area 4Faulconbridge 2 636 3 027 3 394 3 793 3879 4332 5.8% 453 11.7%Springwood 5 844 6 439 6 829 7 112 7760 8210 11.1% 450 5.8%Winmalee 5 030 6 131 6 883 7 323 6317 6345 8.6% 28 0.4%Yellow Rock/ Hwksbry Hts 172 505 946 1 143 1313 1417 1.9% 104 7.9%Valley Heights 1 015 1 178 1 186 1 175 1347 1337 1.8% ‐10 ‐0.7%Subtotal 14 712 17 280 19 238 20 546 21434 21600 29.2% 166 0.8%Planning Area 5Warrimoo 1 958 2 016 2 208 2 180 2258 2285 3.1% 27 1.2%Blaxland 5 862 6 502 6 878 7 041 7016 6953 9.4% ‐63 ‐0.9%Mount Riverview 3 367 3 406 3 408 3 245 3096 2993 4.0% ‐103 ‐3.3%Glenbrook 4 315 4 553 5 088 5 059 5027 5138 6.9% 111 2.2%Lapstone 1 203 1 225 1 113 1 019 894 854 1.2% ‐40 ‐4.5%Subtotal 16 695 17 702 18 695 18 544 18529 18218 24.6% ‐311 ‐1.7%TOTAL 55 661 63 427 69 452 72 506 74323 74065 100.0% ‐258 ‐0.3%

Growth 2001‐2006% of BMs Population

Source: Residential Development Strategy (RDS) 2002, ABS 1996, 2001, 2006, id. 2007

Note: The total shown for each of the Planning Areas in the above table is not the same as the total of each of the suburbs shown because of nature of suburb aggregations used by Informed Decisions (id.) who have produced some demographic analysis for Council and because of other adjustments.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of population within the Blue Mountains. Despite its large spatial area, Planning Area 1 (Blackheath and further west) has only 7% of the LGAs population, whilst Planning Areas 2, 4, and 5 have around a quarter of the LGAs population. The two eastern most Planning Areas( east of Faulconbridge ‐ Planning Areas 4 and 5) contain over half of the LGA’s population.

Between 2001 and 2006 Faulconbridge and Springwood were the suburbs with the greatest increase in population numbers, followed by Wentworth Falls, Bullaburra, Yellow Rock/ Hawkesbury Heights and Glenbrook. The suburbs with the greatest decrease in population numbers were Katoomba, Lawson, Hazelbrook and Mount Riverview. Population increases generally correspond with new subdivision activity, followed by development and family growth. While population decreases have generally been caused by resident families moving through the “lifecycle”, and the resulting decrease in the average number of people living in each house.

Figure 2: Proportion of Population by Planning Area


Source ABS 2006, id. 2007

4.2 AGE STRUCTURE

Population projections for the Blue Mountains LGA produced by ID. indicate that the proportion of people within the over 55 years age bracket is set to increase considerably, estimating that 33 per cent of the population will be in the over 55 years age bracket in 2017. This is a significant increase from 1996 where 20.2 per cent of the population were in this age bracket. The Blue Mountains continues to be a popular retirement area, and while housing prices have dramatically increased in recent years, prices are still lower than many areas in Sydney (ABS, 1996). However, most of the growth of the older age groups is due to the ageing of existing residents rather than incoming migrants from other localities.

Figure 3: Blue Mountains Population Profiles 1996 and 2006

Source: ABS 2006

The above population profiles show the distribution of various age groups as a proportion of the LGA’s population. The graph to the left shows the profile in 1996, and the graph to the right shows the profile in 2006. The horizontal bars to the left of the central axis in each graph show the proportion of males, whilst those to the right show females.

The population profile of the Blue Mountains is ageing. It can be seen that relative to 1996, in 2006 the older age groups comprise a relatively greater proportion of the population than younger age groups. In particular, the large “bulge” of people from 35‐49 years of age evident in 1996, has now shifted to the 40‐59 year old age group.


Furthermore, the proportion of younger childbearing age groups from 20‐39 have decreased significantly, which shows a narrowing of the population graph at that point. The reduction in the size of this group in turn leads to a reduction in the proportion of youth and children.

Because the population of the Blue Mountains is not growing in size, a reduction in the proportion of any age group means that the number of people in that age group is also decreasing. This is in contrast to the Sydney metropolitan area, NSW or Australia as a whole, where the growth of population is such that the reduction in the proportion of any age group still usually means an increase in the number in that group. Furthermore, the population profile of these areas is not as “aged” as the Blue Mountains, as is demonstrated by the more pyramidal shape of the graph of the population profile of Sydney with larger proportions of younger age groups, as shown below.

Figure 4: Sydney Statistical District Population Profile 2006

Source: ABS 2006

In simple terms, there are more aged people and less young people in the Blue Mountains than in the Sydney metropolitan area. This has profound implications for the demand for, and viability of, services, the size and nature of the workforce, and the size and nature of expenditure on goods and services.

There are a range of factors contributing to this trend, including the limited supply of land for housing, the relatively limited access to employment and educational opportunities, and limited access to certain services, all of which may discourage prospective residents, or lead to the relocation of existing younger residents. Residents aged between 20 and 34 tend to leave the Blue Mountains to pursue tertiary study or employment opportunities, moving closer to Sydney and other areas with a wider employment base. The lack of suitable housing options for young people within the Blue Mountains may also be a factor. Frequently, once younger people have relocated, they do not move back to the Blue Mountains.

Table 8 shows the age structure of the Blue Mountains population by suburb, based on the 2006 census. In many cases the number of people in a specific age group within a suburb or Planning Area is relatively low. This means that services which specifically cater for the needs of this age group may need to be designed to operate across a number of suburbs or Planning Districts, and that flexible service models need to be considered which enable effective and viable service delivery to meet the communities’ needs.


Table 8: Age structure by suburb*

Age

0‐4 years

5‐9 years

10‐14 years

15‐19 years

20‐29 years

30‐39 years

40‐55 years

55‐65 years

65‐75 years

75‐85 years

85+ years Total

Planning Area 1Mount Wilson 4 9 13 7 3 18 51 57 34 17 8 221Mount Victoria 57 58 58 48 67 121 179 115 76 44 6 829Blackheath 243 230 251 220 333 488 998 672 441 240 62 4178Megalong 11 17 12 10 13 15 46 25 14 3 0 166SUBTOTAL 315 314 334 285 416 642 1274 869 565 304 76 5394

Planning Area 2Medlow Bath 14 20 42 24 36 61 137 55 46 21 6 462Katoomba 500 498 473 452 805 1077 1793 960 575 358 127 7618Leura 220 237 223 272 385 417 1012 666 483 321 148 4384Wentworth Fa l ls 334 352 353 335 371 634 1267 871 601 399 135 5652SUBTOTAL 1068 1107 1091 1083 1597 2189 4209 2552 1705 1099 416 18116

Planning Area 3Bul laburra 85 97 88 64 88 184 321 155 87 57 9 1235Lawson 173 186 183 180 201 349 602 251 143 123 36 2427Hazelbrook 340 330 360 295 439 662 1045 511 275 157 36 4450Woodford/Linden 172 186 208 174 180 344 636 273 133 73 9 2388SUBTOTAL 770 799 839 713 908 1539 2604 1190 638 410 90 10500

Planning Area 4Faulconbridge tota l 284 285 364 368 456 572 1053 521 240 157 30 4330Springwood 477 539 526 571 858 948 1809 948 554 601 371 8202Winmalee 430 489 566 534 661 799 1498 753 347 201 65 6343Yel low 116 145 137 117 155 224 357 114 27 19 3 1414Val ley Heights 72 85 100 103 132 198 309 203 71 54 10 1337SUBTOTAL 1379 1543 1693 1693 2262 2741 5026 2539 1239 1032 479 21626

Planning Area 4Warrimoo 161 179 171 173 291 356 512 254 98 71 22 2288Blaxland 414 447 520 611 882 832 1686 864 430 200 69 6955Mount Riverview 173 197 229 235 332 364 682 485 179 81 34 2991Glenbrook 362 390 423 426 508 673 1262 577 313 152 52 5138Lapstone 49 57 43 51 89 105 187 151 89 36 3 860SUBTOTAL 1159 1270 1386 1496 2102 2330 4329 2331 1109 540 180 18232

Blue Mountains Nat. Pk 13 15 15 24 28 22 45 22 0 9 3 196

LGA TOTAL 4704 5048 5358 5294 7313 9463 17487 9503 5256 3394 1244 74064 *The figures in this table may differ from those used elsewhere in this document, due to random perturbation. This is a process by which the ABS randomly distorts figures to protect the privacy of residents in small towns.

Source: ABS 2006

The differences in the population age profile for each Planning District are shown in Table 9. The Table and the accompanying Figure 5 illustrate their age profiles for 2001, 2006, and the LGA as a whole. There are significant differences in the age profile and the nature of change in the age profile over time in each of the Planning Areas, and relative to the LGA as a whole.

Generally, the Planning Areas have an increasing aged population profile from east to west across the LGA. Only Planning Areas 3, 4 and 5 show a younger profile than Blue Mountains as a whole. However, even these Planning Areas show a more aged population profile in 2006 than in 2001. As discussed earlier, in the context of the LGA overall, of particular concern is the reduction in the proportion of people aged from the low 20s to the low 40s in all Planning Areas. This group comprises much of the workforce and contains the main child bearing age groups. It also is a major consumer of goods and services, helping support the many small village centres that comprise the Blue Mountains.


All Planning Area population profiles also exhibit a significant increase in the proportion of people aged over 50 years of age. Much of this “aged” population is at the younger end of the “seniors” spectrum and is likely to not only continue in residency in the LGA, but also increase in numbers. This has major implications for housing needs and the need for services in the LGA. It is discussed further, Part 6 of this report. Figure 8 shows a more detailed breakdown of the age categories within the “seniors” age group

Table 9: Planning Area Age Profiles

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

0 to 4 337 6.1% 1070 5.9% 774 7.3% 1381 6.4% 1169 6.4% 4711 6.4% 270819 6.6%

5 to 11 440 8.0% 1537 8.5% 1162 10.9% 2170 10.0% 1776 9.8% 7106 9.6% 373038 9.1%

12 to 17 399 7.3% 1343 7.4% 966 9.1% 2157 10.0% 1823 10.0% 6688 9.0% 324783 7.9%

18 to 24 311 5.7% 1249 6.9% 713 6.7% 1892 8.8% 1690 9.3% 5874 7.9% 406282 9.9%

25 to 34 513 9.4% 1702 9.4% 1215 11.4% 2257 10.5% 2005 11.0% 7666 10.4% 629580 15.3%

35 to 49 1232 22.5% 3984 22.0% 2578 24.3% 4791 22.2% 4035 22.2% 16692 22.5% 924840 22.5%

50 to 59 877 16.0% 2873 15.8% 1560 14.7% 3177 14.7% 2852 15.7% 11361 15.3% 501738 12.2%

60 to 69 717 13.1% 2078 11.5% 846 8.0% 1684 7.8% 1684 9.2% 6992 9.4% 322196 7.8%

70 to 84 580 10.6% 1918 10.6% 722 6.8% 1594 7.4% 1000 5.5% 5730 7.7% 299841 7.3%

85 and over 76 1.4% 388 2.1% 77 0.7% 489 2.3% 174 1.0% 1245 1.7% 66069 1.6%

Total (100%) 5483 100% 18141 100% 10613 100% 21593 100% 18208 100% 74065 100% 4119186 100%

Total Sydney SSD

Planning Area 1

Planning Area 2

Planning Area 3

Planning Area 4

Planning Area 5

Total Blue Mountains


Figure 5: Planning Area Age Profile graphs

Source: ABS 2001,2006

Source ABS census


Figure 6: Population Change by Age Group, 1996‐2006

Source: ABS census, 1996, 2001, 2006

Figure 6 shows the numerical change in age cohorts over the years 1996 to 2006 (ABS census). The impact of the population growth in previous decades is evident in the age group 50‐60 years old, many of whom would have moved to the Blue Mountains in their family formation stage, when they were younger. This population “bulge” is now moving into their retirement years leading to a rapid rise in the “aged” over 55 years category. The continuing loss of younger age groups up to 50 years of age, is also evident, notwithstanding the 35‐54 year old age group being the only age group showing a net gain in migration to the Blue Mountains (the level of net migration being insufficient to offset the reduction of size of the 35‐54 year old age group due to the ageing of the existing population).

Figure 7 shows net migration to the Blue Mountains. The net inflow of the 0‐4 year old age group corresponds to the net inflow of the 25‐39 year old age group, which is in the main family formation and childbearing age group. The net inflow of this age group has decreased over time probably as a result of the decreasing supply of land for new housing. The net outflow of the 10‐24 year old age groups is due to these age groups needing education, employment and seeking the “bright lights” of the big city. The net outflow of this group has increased over each intercensal period since 1991, which is a considerable concern. All age groups from 45‐49 years of age and above (inclusive) experienced a net outflow from 2001‐to 2006. Previous intercensal periods had shown a small inflow in the 55‐59 year old “early retirement” age group, however this has now reversed to become a net outflow. It would appear the attraction of the Blue Mountains as a retirement destination has waned, in preference to warmer coastal locations. It may also be that there is insufficient supply of desired housing types and formats (eg. medium density housing and retirement “resorts”) to attract this group to the Blue Mountains, in contrast to the wide variety available in many coastal retirement locations.

The origin and destination of net migration is discussed in Section 4.3.


Figure 7: Net migration to the Blue Mountains 1991, 2001, 2006

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

No

of p

erso

ns

Age group

1991-19961996-20012001-2006

Source: id. 2009

Figure 8 below shows the age profile of the Blue Mountains and each of the Planning Areas highlighting the groups aged 55 years or over. The detailed knowledge of this age group is important because it has implications for the provision of housing, as well as of support services.

The figure shows that around 25% of the Blue Mountains population is over 55 years of age. However, the proportion of residents over 55 in each of the Planning Areas differs significantly, from 22% in Planning Area 3, to 33% and 34% in Planning Areas 1 and 2 respectively.

The proportion of residents over 75 years of age (the age at which access to community support services becomes much more important) also differs, from 4% and 5% in Planning Areas 5 and 3 respectively, up to 7 and 8% of the population in Planning Areas 1 and 2 respectively.

Whilst Planning Area 2 benefits by having the service centre of Katoomba, Planning Area 1 alsohas a smaller and more dispersed population. Accordingly, housing and community support responses to the aged in Planning Area 1 would need to be tailored accordingly.

It should be noted that the number of aged does not correspond to the proportion of aged in each area because of the different population sizes of the Planning Areas. The highest number of residents aged 55 and over is Planning Area 2 (5772), followed by Planning Area 4 (5289), Planning Area 5 (4160), Planning Area 3(2328), and Planning Area 1 (1814) with the least. This pattern is the same for the 55‐65, 65‐75, 75‐85 and 85+ age groups.


Table 10 Distribution of People Aged over 55

Planning Area Number of People Aged over 55

1 18142 57723 23284 52895 4160

Source ABS 2006

The 55‐65 age group are preparing for retirement and progressively leaving the workforce. They are generally in good health and may be looking for a smaller dwelling. The 65‐75 year old age group have largely left the workforce and are making more use of community support services. The 75‐85 year old age group are using community support services to a much greater extent, including “buying in” services such as grocery delivery. Increasingly this group would be seeking more appropriate accessible housing as their mobility declines. The group over 85 years of age may have lost their partner and be living alone, they would have high requirement for community support services and may need supported accommodation.

In general, the older the age group beyond age 55, the more likely that they require increasingly intensive community support services and that they would seek smaller, accessible housing. As this age group moves into smaller dwellings, this can free up housing stock for families. Government policy focuses on assisting people to stay in their own homes, and aged people are remaining healthy and mobile at an older age. It is important that suitable housing choice is available for this increasingly numerous age group.


Figure 8: Age profiles, highlighting 55+ groups

Legend

Source: ABS 2006 census

55+ years

55+ years

55+ years

55+ years

55+ years

55+ years


4.3 NET MIGRATION TO AND FROM THE BLUE MOUNTAINS

Table 11 shows that western Sydney provided the largest sources of net migration to the Blue Mountains between 2001 and 2006. Typically, these are probably first home owner or upgrade home buyers seeking the lower housing costs and lifestyle of the Blue Mountains. Some may be renters seeking the lower rents of the Blue Mountains. In both cases, they probably are employed within western Sydney and are still within “reasonable” commuting range of work.

Table 11: Top 10 LGAs ranked by net gain to Blue Mountains LGA between 2001 and 2006

In Out Net

Penrith (C) 2,284 1,607 677

Blacktown (C) 556 253 303

Hawkesbury (C) 351 205 146

Fairfield (C) 152 37 115

Parramatta (C) 352 241 111

Holroyd (C) 202 95 107

Bankstown (C) 136 32 104

Hornsby (A) 254 151 103

Sutherland Shire (A)

208 106 102

Ryde (C) 196 106 90

Source: id., 2009 quoting Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2006, unpublished data.

The largest destinations of net migration from the Blue Mountains are very different to the sources of in migration. Table 12 shows that net out migration tends to be to the central west of NSW and a range of non metropolitan coastal locations in NSW and south eastern Queensland. The central west may offer a wider range of employment opportunities without having to experience the congestion and higher costs of Sydney. In some cases it may offer lower cost housing than the Blue Mountains, and some anecdotal evidence is that this is a key factor amongst more disadvantaged and older age groups. Those seeking a warmer climate and coastal lifestyle would be attracted to the coastal locations, particularly retirees.

Table 12: Top 10 LGAs ranked by net loss by Blue Mountains LGA between 2001 and 2006

In Out Net Lithgow (C) 206 673 ‐467 Bathurst Regional (A) 89 349 ‐260 Gold Coast (C) 63 239 ‐176 Shoalhaven (C) 93 232 ‐139 Mid‐Western Regional (A)

46 181 ‐135

Brisbane (C) 106 240 ‐134 Wollongong (C) 86 215 ‐129 Hastings (A) 32 156 ‐124 Gosford (C) 103 213 ‐110 Greater Taree (C) 32 138 ‐106

Source: id.., 2009 quoting Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2006, unpublished data.


4.4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Over the last 50 years the Blue Mountains experienced an initial period of population growth, which progressively slowed to the point that over most of the last decade the population has stabilised.

A notable influx of residents is evident between 1954 and 1986, when the population increased almost threefold, from 22,245 to 63,779. This was mainly due to the population shift from Sydney to the outer suburbs after World War II, partly facilitated through the improved access provided by private motor vehicles. After experiencing a more rapid growth phase from around 1971 to 1991, the population growth rate has rapidly reduced to the extent that the number of residents plateaued at just over 74,000 in 2001.

As projections of the number of residents in the Blue Mountains are produced they have generally projected lower future numbers of residents than had projections produced earlier. Figure 9 shows the variation in the projections which have been produced since 2002. The 2002 Residential Development Strategy estimated that by 2021 the Blue Mountains population would reach 84,600, however by 2004 id. projected a lower population of 78,521 residents, and in 2010 id. projected that the 2021 population would be 77,926. As each ABS census is undertaken, it confirms the validity of the lower estimates. The main variation in the projections would appear to result from a lower than expected rate of development of infill and “accessible” housing than was assumed when the projections were produced.

The DoP (2009) population projection for 2021 is 81, 200. A comparison of the 2005 and 2010 DoP population projections shows that up to 2016 the DoP 2010 projections are lower than their 2005 projections. Beyond 2016, the DoP 2005 and 2010 projections are similar.

Up to 2016 the DoP 2010 projections are only slightly higher than id.’s. Beyond 20016 the projections dverse, with DoP’s projections significantly higher than id.’s.

id.’s projections are usually more finely tuned to the local circumstances than those of the Department of Planning and may be more accurate as a result.

The dwindling availability of undeveloped land for detached housing, combined with a limited supply and a limited take up of sites for medium density redevelopment in the Blue Mountains has resulted in no growth occurring in recent years. If current trends continue, the population is likely to decline into the future. This is due to a mixture of limited housing development, limited employment opportunities in the LGA, a rapidly ageing population, and declining numbers of people in the child bearing age group.


Figure 9: Projected Population Growth

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1947

1954

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

Residential DevelopmentStrategy 2002id 2004

DoP 2005 projections

ABS Census

id 2010

DoP 2010 projections

Source: derived from ABS, DoP, id., NSW Health for various census years

The land use zones and permissible development densities under the 1991 and 2005 LEPs tend to constrain growth because they limit urban expansion and land supply. This is in response to the environmental qualities of the area, the character of certain residential areas, and community preferences. However, it should be noted that whilst opportunities exist for the development of more seniors housing (“accessible housing”) and medium density development near the village centres, these opportunities have not been realised as much as might be expected. This issue is discussed in Section 7 of this report. The reasons for this are worthy of further investigation, because the issue is critical to the ongoing vibrancy of the Blue Mountains communities.

Figures 10, 11 and 12 illustrate the projected change in the population structure to 2031. Both figures contain the same information presented in different ways in order to better show trends (Figure 10) and numerical change over each 5 year period(Figure 11), and cumulative change from 2001 to 2011, 2021 and 2031 (Figure 12). Projecting ahead to 2031, the 55 years and older age group is the only age group that will increase in number in the Blue Mountains.

Figure 12 shows the dramatic cumulative decrease in the age groups up to 55 years old, and the even more significant increase in the age groups older than 55 years. Figure 11 shows that this trend is expected to slow from 2021 onwards, with all age groups under 55 years old showing small increases in number. While this indicates a slowing of the ageing trend, in 2031 the population of the Blue Mountains will have a significantly more aged population profile than it does today.

More recent projections estimate a lower population for a given year


Figure 10: Projected Population Change by Age Group Figure 11: Projected Population Change by Age Group, 2001‐2031

Figure 12: Cumulative projected population change 2001‐2031

Source: ABS 2006, id. 2010


Figure 13 further illustrates the disproportionate increase in the population aged 55 and over, relative to other age groups in the population. No matter what source is used for the population projections the same trend in evident. By 2031 it is estimated that those over 55 will comprise just over 33 per cent of the total Blue Mountains population. Currently, 26 per cent of the Blue Mountains population is older than 55 years, higher than the proportion in this age cohort for WSROC (20.0 per cent), and that of the Sydney SD (22.5 per cent) Figure 13: Percentage of population aged 55 and over

Source: ABS 1996, 2001, 2006, id. 2009

Even if the proportion of older people reaches a plateau in the future of the population, and the population grows at the moderate levels, the high proportion of aged people will have a significant impact on the need for certain types of housing and social services in the Blue Mountains.

4.5 HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

The pattern of household structures emerging in the 2006 Census for the Blue Mountains considered as a whole varies in some respects to that of the Sydney SD. The main differences are that the Blue Mountains has a slightly greater proportion of couples without children, a slightly greater proportion of couples with children, and a slightly greater proportion of lone person households. However, as Figure 13 illustrates there are considerable differences between Planning Areas within the LGA.

Figure 14: Comparative Household Structure ‐ Sydney and Blue Mountains Source: ABS 2006


Planning Areas 1 and 2 (the Upper Mountains) have a lower proportion of couples with children, and a higher proportion of couples without children, than the other Planning Areas. Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3 also have a higher proportion of one parent families. The Upper and Mid Mountains generally have higher proportions of lone person households.

The average household size in the Blue Mountains is 2.5 people, a decrease from 2.7 people per household in 1996. Average household size also varies according to dwelling type, as illustrated in Table 13, below. This varies between towns, as shown in Table 14, below.

This compares to an average household size of 2.7 for the Sydney SD and 3.0 for WSROC. Overall, households in the Blue Mountains are slightly smaller than those in Sydney and much smaller than those in WSROC.

In the Blue Mountains, smaller household sizes are even evident amongst “alternative” housing types (i.e. dwellings other than detached houses), in so far as the average size of households living in semi detached dwellings and flats in the LGA is much smaller than that for the Sydney SD and WSROC. In the Blue Mountains an average 1.6 persons live in semi detached dwellings and 1.4 live in flats. In contrast, WSROC has an average 2.4 persons living in semi detached dwellings and 2.0 in flats, while the Sydney SD has an average 2.4 persons living in semi detached dwellings and 1.9 in flats. The reason for this is possibly that in the Sydney SD and WSROC “alternative” housing is often occupied by younger families with children as well as younger adults sharing a dwelling, whereas in the Blue Mountains it is more likely to be occupied by older couple or a single older person.

Table 13: Persons per household, 2006

Location Separate Houses

Semi‐Detached

Flats Average

Blue Mountains

2.6 1.6 1.4 2.5

WSROC 2.9 2.4 2.0 2.9

Sydney SD 3.0 2.4 1.9 2.7

Source: ABS, 2006, id. 2007

Those towns with the smallest household sizes are Katoomba, Leura, Blackheath and Mount Victoria, with an average of 2.2 people per household (a decrease from 2.5 people per household in 1996); between 30.7 and 35.0 per cent of the households in these towns are lone person households (an increase from 27 and 33 per cent in 1996).

In most villages, particularly Springwood, Lawson, Wentworth Falls, Leura and Blackheath, a considerable proportion of the lone person households comprise people over 65 years of age. These people will increasingly require support services as they age, and this has major implications for the provision of community services throughout the LGA.

Table 14 shows that the Lower Mountains townships of Winmalee, Blaxland and Glenbrook have comparatively large households with averages just below three people per household. These suburbs also have a comparatively small proportion of lone person households, comprising 16.5 per cent of the population in Winmalee (up from 14.2 per cent in 1996), 18.4 per cent in Blaxland (up from 15.5 per cent in 1996) and 18.0 per cent in Glenbrook (up from 15.9 per cent in 1996). Despite these townships having lower proportions of lone person households than other townships, their proportion of lone person households is increasingly rapidly.


Table 14: Lone Person Households & Average Household sizes in the Blue Mountains

Township

Lone Person Households 2006 Average Household Size

% Households % Comprising

Persons aged >65 years

1996 2006

Mount Victoria 31.5 34.8 2.5 2.2

Blackheath 31.9 37.0 2.5 2.2

Katoomba 35.9 31.6 2.5 2.2

Leura 30.7 45.6 2.8 2.2

Wentworth Falls 27.2 46.0 2.6 2.3

Lawson 27.11 37.7 2.6 2.5

Hazelbrook 23.12 37.4 2.7 2.6

Springwood 26.0 53.0 2.8 2.5

Winmalee 16.5 42.5 3.1 2.9

Blaxland 18.4 45.5 2.9 2.8

Glenbrook 18.0 38.9 3.0 2.9

Blue Mountains LGA 24.2 40.1 2.7 2.6 1 a decrease from 29.6 in 1996 2 a decrease from 23.8 in 1996 Source: ABS, 1996, 2006

Couples without dependants in the Blue Mountains LGA have also increased from 33.4 per cent of households in 1996 to 37.0 per cent in 2006 (Table 15). A corresponding decrease can be seen in the number and proportion of couples with children, from 51.2 per cent of households in 1996 to 46.6 per cent in 2006. This has occurred in the Blue Mountains to a much greater extent than in the Sydney SD or WSROC overall. This is because the rapid population growth of the Blue Mountains from the early 1970’s to the early 1990’s has been replaced by much slower growth (fewer young families are moving into the area and the existing population is growing older) whereas the Sydney SD and WSROC has continued to experience relatively high levels of urban development and household growth.

The impact of the increasing proportion of couples without children and lone person households is the major cause of the decline in average household size (or dwelling occupancy rate) over the ten years from 1996‐2006, as shown in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 15: Household and Family changes 1996‐2006

1996 2006 TREND

Blue Mountains

(%)

WSROC

(%) Sydney SD

(%) Blue

Mountains (%) WSROC (%)

Sydney SD (%)

Blue Mountains

Couple family with children

51.2 56.0 51.6 46.4 53.2 49.3

Couple without children

33.4. 26.8 31.6 37.0 27.7 33.2

One parent family

14.4 15.7 14.7 15.5 17.4 15.6

Other family 1.0 1.6 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.9

Group household 3.2 2.8 4.5 2.7 2.4 3.9

Lone person household

22.5 16.2 21.5 24.3 17.7 21.8

Source: ABS 1996, 2006, id. 12007


Figure 15 and 16 show the projected changes in the number of the main household types to 2021. The rate of change in household types is expected to be greater over 2006‐2016 than over 2016‐2021. AS noted previously, this is because of the “wave” of the residents who settled in the Blue Mountains during its growth phase up to the 1990’s are progressively becoming members of the older age groups over 2006‐2016. The projections indicate that the change in household types will reflect a continuation of existing trends, namely an increase in couples without children, a decrease in couples with children, and an increase in lone person households. The number of lone parent families with dependents is unlikely to change significantly.

Given that existing trends in household types are likely to continue in the future, the average household size will continue to decline. This means that the existing stock of dwellings will contain less people, and that new dwellings will need to be constructed to maintain the LGA’s population at existing levels, let alone provide for an increase in population. This is a major challenge for the Blue Mountains because of the constraints on new housing development and the growing service needs of an ageing population.

Figure 15: Forecast numbers of household types to 2021

Source: id., ABS 2006

Figure 16: Forecast change in household types to 2021

Source: id., ABS 2006


4.6 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION

Population within the Blue Mountains is concentrated in the Lower Mountains, with 54 per cent of the population living east of Linden. The major service centres and most other settlements of the Blue Mountains are located along the Great Western Highway and railway line. The major exception to this is the urban development of Winmalee and surrounds, which extends along a ridgeline in a northerly direction from Springwood. The largest service centres are Katoomba and Springwood. Secondary service centres are also located at Blaxland and Lawson, with a number of other minor centres. Katoomba is the administrative centre for the Blue Mountains as well as the largest urban centre.

Figure 17 shows that the population of Blue Mountains LGA has a number of concentrations, particularly in the Lower Mountains around Blaxland, around Springwood/Winmalee, and in the Upper Mountains around Katoomba‐Leura and Wentworth Falls. However the remaining population outside these centres is spread over a considerable distance and in numerous towns and villages. Of the 26 towns and villages in the Mountains, 11 had populations over 3,000 in 2006.

Figure 17: Distribution of Population across the Blue Mountains Towns and Villages

Source: ABS, 1996, 2006

4.7 HOME OWNERSHIP

The Blue Mountains has a home ownership rate well above the average rate across Greater Western Sydney, as well as across the Sydney Metropolitan Area, as shown in Table 16.

In 2006, 36.1 per cent of households were owner‐occupiers, compared with 28.8 per cent in WSROC and 30.1 per cent in the Sydney SD, as shown in Table 16 and illustrated graphically in Figure 16. A further 38.6 per cent of households were purchasing their dwelling in 2006, compared with 35.6 per cent in WSROC and 31.1 per cent in the Sydney SD. The Blue Mountains has proportionally more households who either own or are purchasing their dwellings than both WSROC and the Sydney SD. As shown in Table 16 the proportion of owner occupier households has decreased since 1996, although it has decreased less in the Blue Mountains than in WSROC or the Sydney SD. Furthermore the proportion of households purchasing their own home has increased in the Blue Mountains since 1996, and to a greater extent than the increase in WSROC and the Sydney SD.


It follows that the Blue Mountains has a significantly lower rate of households in rental accommodation. In the Blue Mountains, 17.9 per cent of all households are renting from private sources, compared to 21.6 per cent in WSROC and 25.2 per cent in the Sydney SD. The proportion of private rental households has increased to a small extent in all three areas since 1996. Only 1.5 per cent of households in the LGA are renting from the Department of Housing, compared to 6.4 per cent in WSROC and 4.5 per cent in the Sydney SD. While the Blue Mountains has shown a slight increase in the proportion of public housing tenant households, both WSROC and the Sydney SD has shown decreases, largely as a result of the construction of relatively more private housing stock than public housing stock in these areas.

Table 16: Number of Households by Tenure 1996‐2006

Source: ABS 1996, 2006, id. 2007

Figure 18: Housing Tenure Trends 1996‐2006

Source: ABS 1996, 2006, id. 2007

It should be noted that a large proportion of housing stock in the LGA is only used as holiday or weekend accommodation (see Section 5.1.3). This decreases the availability of housing for purchase or rental.

4.8 INCOME

According to the 2006 census median household income (self reported) in the Blue Mountains is $45,000 pa, with median incomes ranging from $33,450 in the Upper Mountains to $55,276 in the Lower Mountains.

The Blue Mountains has less individual income earners receiving “nil income” or $2,000 per week or more, compared with the Sydney SD, and more in the middle income categories of $250‐$599 per week (ABS 2006).

Fully Owned

(%) Being Purchased

(%) Renting from State

Housing Authority (%) Renting from other

sources (%) Not Stated

1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006

Blue Mountains

44.4 36.1 33.2 38.6 1.3 1.5 17 17.9 1.7 5.1

WSROC 40.0 28.8 27.6 35.6 8.1 6.4 19.5 21.6 2.4 6.9

Sydney SD 41.6 30.1 23.3 31.1 5.7 4.5 24.6 25.2 2.5 8.4


Weekly household incomes for the Blue Mountains in 2006 are shown in Figure 19. The pattern of distribution of levels of household income generally follows that of Sydney SD, however the Blue Mountains has a greater proportion of households in the $250‐$349, $500‐$749, and $1400‐$1999 income ranges. The significantly greater number of households receiving $2500 or more per week in the Sydney SD is clearly evident from this graph. The higher proportion of households in the Blue Mountains with incomes below $799 per week means that particular attention needs to be paid to the supply of affordable rental and “for purchase” housing market of the Blue Mountains, to meet the needs of the local population.

Figure 19: Weekly Household Income

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nil

inco

me

$1 to

$14

9

$150

to $

249

$250

to $

349

$350

to $

499

$500

to $

649

$650

to $

799

$800

to $

999

$1,0

00 to

$1,

199

$1,2

00 to

$1,

399

$1,4

00 to

$1,

699

$1,7

00 to

$1,

999

$2,0

00 to

$2,

499

$2,5

00 to

$2,

999

$300

0 or

mor

e

Income category

Per

cent

age

of p

opul

atio

n

Blue MtnsSydney SD

Source: ABS, 2006

A comparison of the changes over 1996‐2006 in individual income distribution in the Blue Mountains shows that relative incomes have increased slightly in the Blue Mountains (the quartiles are the Sydney SD income quartiles). This trend appears to have increased, with a lesser decrease in the lowest quartile occurring over 2001‐2006. This is surprising given that the population of the Blue Mountains is ageing and that household incomes usually become lower when people retire.

Figure 20: Income quartiles Blue Mountains 1996‐2006

From id., 2007

A comparison of the distribution of household income quartiles over 1996‐2006 shows most growth in the medium highest quartile (Figure 20). Over the more recent period 2001‐2006 the number of households in the lowest and medium lowest quartiles slightly decreased, while the medium highest

Similar income structure to the Sydney SD in these income brackets


quartile showed the most increase and the highest quartile showed a small increase. However, trends in income distribution are not consistent across the LGA, as discussed below.

Figure 21: Household Income Quartiles Blue Mountains 1996‐2006

Source id., 2007

An examination of the distribution of incomes across the Planning areas (Figure 21) shows that the Upper Mountains (Planning Areas 1 and 2) generally have a lower proportion of households with higher incomes, in contrast to the Lower Mountains (Planning Areas 4 and 5). The Mid Mountains (Planning Area 3) has income characteristics between the Lower and Upper Mountains in most income categories. A key difference is that the Mid Mountains has much lower proportion of households with an income of greater than $1700 per week than the Lower Mountains, and an even lower proportion above $2500 per week.

Figure 22: Annual Income Variables

Source: ABS 2006

Figure 23 shows the income distribution of Blue Mountains households relative to the Sydney SD. Household income levels in the Blue Mountains are slightly skewed to the lower three quartiles, resulting in around 5% less households in the upper income quartile relative to the Sydney SD.

However, the picture is much more complex when examined at a Planning Area level. Planning Area 1 has a markedly lower income profile than the Sydney SD, and Blue Mountains as a whole. The eastern Planning Areas are more like Sydney than the western Planning Areas, with Planning Area 4 being the most like Sydney. Planning Area 5 has a higher income structure than Sydney. The income structure probably reflects the increasing proximity to employment closer to the Sydney basin. In


addition, Planning Area 5, and to a lesser extent Planning Area 4, function as prestige suburbs of Penrith (the “Penrith Heights effect”) rather than as longer range commuting areas or highly dependent on the limited range of jobs in the local townships. As house prices increase in the Lower Mountains, those with lower incomes could also be moving westwards in search of more affordable housing, thus magnifying the income differences between the Upper and Lower Mountains.

Figure 23: Household Income Quartiles Blue Mountains 2006

Source id., 2007


4.9 CULTURAL DIVERSITY

The Blue Mountains is much less culturally diverse than the Sydney region in general. The ethnic makeup of the Blue Mountains is relatively homogeneous with only 4582 people (6.3%) born in a non‐English speaking country (NESB), the same proportion as in 1996 (6.3%). This compares to the Sydney Statistical Division where 23.9 per cent of the population was born in a NESB (ABS, 2006).

In 2006, 29.2 per cent of the population of WSROC was born in a non English speaking country compared with 23.9 cent for the Sydney SD and only 6.3% in the Blue Mountains. WSROC is more multicultural than the rest of Sydney.

The 1996 Census indicated that the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has increased from 702 people in 1996 (0.5% of the population) to 943 people in 2006 (1.3%). This represents a 34.3 per cent increase between 1996 and 2006 In common with many localities; this increase is mainly due to an increasing number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are identifying as indigenous people. Of the Indigenous population in the Blue Mountains, the highest concentrations live in the townships of Katoomba (3.1%) , Lawson (2.6%), Blackheath (2.2%), Hazelbrook suburb (2.1%), and Woodford‐Linden suburb (2.0%), with the percentage showing proportion of the population which is of indigenous origin in each total township or suburb).

4.10 CONCLUSION

The above overview highlights several key points about the Blue Mountains population, which have to a bearing on the types of housing required in the LGA:

• The population of the Blue Mountains is stable or declining slightly • It is projected that the proportion of the population aged 55 years and over will increase in

the future, whilst all other age groups are projected to decrease in number and proportion of the population

• Household sizes are generally larger in the Lower Mountains, with a greater proportion of families comprising couples with children. In the Upper Mountains households are generally smaller, with more lone person households, and sole parent families

• Many lone person households are aged over 65 years of age • The main concentrations of population occur in Katoomba, Winmalee, Springwood, Blaxland,

Wentworth Falls and Glenbrook • Within the Blue Mountains there are a comparatively high proportion of home owners and

purchasers compared to Sydney and WSROC, and a low proportion of renters • Households in the Blue Mountains on average have lower weekly incomes than those in the

Sydney SD. Higher annual incomes are experienced in the Lower Mountains than in the Upper Mountains

• A very large majority of Mountains residents are born in English‐speaking countries, a much higher proportion than in the Sydney SD.

The declining numbers of residents in the child bearing age groups is a major concern, as it is this group and their children that would otherwise offset the growth of the age groups of 55 years of age. Trends suggest that the attractiveness of the Blue Mountains to almost all age groups has decreased, as is indicated by low levels of in‐migration. This is probably due to a combination of lack of housing choice, limited employment opportunities and limited education opportunities.

The concentration of population around a selection of existing centres suggests that these centres are appropriate targets for future diversification of dwelling stock and increased levels of service provision. Further, the lower disposable income of households in the LGA relative to the Sydney SD,


and especially within the Upper Mountains, suggests that housing costs need to be kept moderate or otherwise they will comprise a greater proportion of household income than is considered reasonable.

Finally, the lack of substantial cultural diversity within the LGA suggests that the specific housing need of people from a non‐English speaking background (NESB) is not a significant factor in housing policy in the LGA. However, it does pose problems for service provision because the very low number of people born in an NESB country may lead to individual isolation and difficulty of delivering viable local services that are culturally specific or cultural sensitive.


PART 5 EXISTING HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

This Section will consider the existing housing stock provided in the Blue Mountains, and the household types common to each dwelling type. A consideration of factors related to housing costs will follow, covering aspects such as incomes and housing affordability. An assessment of the character of urban settlement in the Blue Mountains was undertaken in EMP 2002.

This section makes reference to a variety of housing forms, which are:

• Alternative Housing: all housing that is not a single detached dwelling, including flats, townhouses and dual occupancies

• Granny Flat: a dwelling that is attached to a dwelling house and which is self contained to the extent of having a separate bathroom and kitchen facility (note: recently this term is increasingly being used to describe secondary dwellings that are not attached to the primary dwelling)

• Dual Occupancy: two dwellings on one allotment with separate titles • Multi‐dwelling housing: a development comprising three or more dwellings, which may

include villas, townhouses, terrace buildings, apartments and the like.

5.1 HOUSING PROFILE

5.4.1 Dwelling stock

Residential dwellings in the Blue Mountains are predominantly single detached dwellings. Detached dwellings comprise 93.3 per cent of housing stock dwellings in the Blue Mountains, compared with WSROC, where 76.0 per cent of dwellings are detached, and the Sydney SD, where 60.8 per cent of dwellings are detached.

In the Blue Mountains, 5.6 per cent of housing stock is alternative housing of 2 storeys or less and 0.5 per cent is alternative housing over 2 storeys. The alternative housing can be further broken down into 3.4 per cent of housing being semi detached, villa or townhouses, and 2.7 per cent are flats or units Semi‐detached dwellings, flats and units comprise a combined total of 23.2 per cent of dwellings in WSROC, and 38.3 per cent of dwellings in the Sydney SD, compared with a much lower 6.1 per cent of dwellings in the Blue Mountains (ABS 2006).

Over 1996‐2006, the proportion of detached dwellings in the Blue Mountains increased by around 2.4%, semi detached houses, villas and townhouses have increased by 1.2% whilst flats and units have declined by 1.2%. This is in contrast to the WSROC Councils where semi detached dwellings, flats and units increased by 5.6 per cent, and the Sydney SD where flats and units increased by 5.5 per cent, as a proportion of all dwelling stock.

Despite the constraints on the development of new land for housing in the Blue Mountains, the development of alternative (medium density) infill housing has proceeded at an even lower rate than new detached housing. This is of considerable concern because given the physical constraints of the Blue Mountains (which are expressed in its planning instruments) and the nature of demographic change (which is favouring smaller dwellings) it would be reasonable to assume that infill housing would have increased as a proportion of dwelling stock. However, this has not eventuated.

Table 17 describes the number and proportion of households within each dwelling type in the Blue Mountains by town.


Table 17: Dwelling Type by Suburb and Planning Area 2006

Town Separate houses

Semi detached, villa,

townhouses, flats units and apartments up to 2 storeys

Flats, units and apartments over 2 storeys

Flats or units attached to a

house

Other or not stated

Total (100%)

% of

dwellings in the LGA

% % % % % Planning Area 1

Mount Wilson 211 95.9% 4 1.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 2.3% 220 0.7%Mount Victoria 512 98.8% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 518 1.6%Blackheath 2493 96.0% 69 2.7% 0 0.0% 9 0.3% 27 1.0% 2598 8.0%Megalong 81 96.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.6% 84 0.3%Subtotal 3297 96.4% 76 2.2% 0 0.0% 9 0.3% 38 1.1% 3420 10.5%Planning Area 2

Medlow Bath 295 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 295 0.9%Katoomba 3592 85.0% 451 10.7% 154 3.6% 8 0.2% 23 0.5% 4228 13.0%Leura 2114 91.9% 180 7.8% 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 2300 7.1%Wentworth Falls 2689 95.4% 112 4.0% 0 0.0% 11 0.4% 6 0.2% 2818 8.7%Subtotal 8690 90.1% 743 7.7% 154 3.6% 22 0.2% 32 0.3% 9641 29.6%Planning Area 3

Bullaburra 557 95.7% 16 2.7% 0 0.0% 6 1.0% 3 0.5% 582 1.8%Lawson 1023 96.4% 35 3.3% 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 0 0.0% 1061 3.3%Hazelbrook 1827 96.6% 55 2.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 6 0.3% 1891 5.8%Woodford 780 99.1% 4 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 787 2.4%Linden 167 100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 167 0.5%Subtotal 4354 97.0% 110 2.5% 0 0.0% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% 4488 13.3%Planning Area 4

Faulconbridge Bal 100 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100 0.3%Springwood 2691 81.7% 580 17.6% 14 0.4% 8 0.2% 0 0.0% 3293 10.1%Winmalee 2265 99.1% 15 0.7% 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 2286 7.0%Yellow Rock 315 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 315 1.0%Valley Heights 492 95.0% 26 5.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 518 1.6%Hawkesbury Hts 148 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 148 0.5%Subtotal 7522 91.6% 643 7.8% 19 0.7% 24 0.3% 3 0.0% 8211 24.8%Planning Area 5

Warrimoo 851 98.8% 7 0.8% 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 0 0.0% 861 2.6%Blaxland 2489 93.7% 146 5.5% 0 0.0% 14 0.5% 6 0.2% 2655 8.2%Mount Riverview 1090 98.9% 6 0.5% 3 0.3% 3 0.3% 0 0.0% 1102 3.4%Glenbrook 1793 95.1% 86 4.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 0.4% 1886 5.8%Lapstone 344 98.3% 3 0.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.9% 0 0.0% 350 1.1%Subtotal 6567 95.8% 248 3.6% 3 0.3% 23 0.3% 13 0.2% 6854 21.1%BM Nat’l Park 106 93.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 6.2% 113 0.3%BM TOTAL 30536 93.3% 1820 5.6% 176 0.5% 90 0.3% 105 0.3% 32727 100%Sydney SD 1000307 60.8% 310880 18.9% 316385 19.2% 3,401 0.2% 12698 0.8% 1643671

Source ABS 2006

Katoomba (population 8544) and Springwood (population 7112) are the largest retail, commercial and service centres in the Blue Mountains, and accordingly it is not surprising that they have the highest proportion of alternative (non detached) housing, at 15% and 18.3% of each town’s total dwellings, respectively. However, even these centres have a higher proportion of detached housing, and lower proportions of alternative housing, than WSROC and Sydney SD overall. It is also surprising that the smaller service centres such as Blaxland, Lawson and Blackheath have very low portions of alternative housing, even of the lower density semi detached, villa, townhouse dwelling types, comprising no more than 6% of their total dwellings.

Alternative dwellings, often smaller in size than detached dwellings, are dominated by smaller households and particularly lone person households, both of which are growing in number in the Blue Mountains.


WSROC and the Sydney SD are increasing their share of alternative dwellings and decreasing their share of detached dwellings at a faster rate than the Blue Mountains.

The increase in alternative housing throughout the Sydney SD is a relatively recent phenomenon, occurring mainly over the past twenty years. Much of this increase has been due to State Government urban consolidation policies, with smaller average lot sizes resulting in the diversification of dwelling stock. The intention of the Metropolitan Strategy is to encourage increased densities of residential development around service centres and transport nodes. Whilst the Blue Mountains has a number of relatively self contained service centres (townships and villages), most of which are focused on a transport node (the railway), and which are linked by a road transport spine (the Great Western Highway), development does not seem to have responded to this opportunity. Whilst the distance from employment is a disincentive for this style of development, the demographics of the LGA should provide a strong market demand for alternative housing (i.e. smaller dwellings near shops and services), which suggests that there is a community need which is not being met.

A comparison of types of households by the type of dwelling indicates potential mismatches between the household composition and dwelling stock of the Blue Mountains. In 2006, 84.7 per cent of lone person households lived in detached dwellings, while a further 7.3 per cent lived in flats and units, and 7.6 per cent lived in semi‐detached dwellings, villas and townhouses. Around 40 per cent of those living in lone person households in the Blue Mountains are aged over 65 years By contrast, Sydney SD has 43.0 per cent of lone person households living in flats and units, and 14.6 per cent in semi‐detached dwellings, villas and townhouses.

As a result, the Blue Mountains can be expected to have a high and growing demand for home maintenance and community support services, in excess of that experienced by the Sydney SD generally. Increasing, the older lone person households will struggle to maintain a large detached dwelling. The high proportion of older residents living by themselves in detached housing may also be indicative of the low proportion of alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains, and the possible lack of choice for those seeking or needing a smaller dwelling.

Lone person households are not the only households types in which this difference is evident. Of couples without dependants in the Blue Mountains, 95.7 per cent reside in detached dwellings while a further 4.1 per cent reside in semi‐detached dwellings or flats. In Sydney, 63.0 per cent of couples without dependants live in detached dwellings, and a further 33.6 per cent live in semi‐detached dwellings or flats. This is illustrated by Figure 23, which compares the proportion of the main household types living in alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains and Sydney. The statistics for one parent families tell a similar story.


Figure 24: Proportion of household types in alternative dwellings (ABS 2006)

Source: ABS 2006

5.4.2 Location of alternative housing The district centres of Springwood and Katoomba are the most densely settled villages within the Blue Mountains, and together account for 60 per cent of the total alternative housing stock in the Blue Mountains.

Figure 25: Alternative Housing Types as a Proportion of Existing Dwellings in Blue Mountains

Source: ABS 2006

Figure 25 demonstrates that the location of existing alternative housing types is concentrated around the major district centres. In the Upper Blue Mountains this concentration is around Katoomba, where alternative housing comprises 14.5 per cent of all dwellings. In the Lower Blue Mountains the concentration of alternative housing surrounds Springwood, where it comprises 18.3 per cent of all dwellings.

5.4.1 Vacant housing Because of the Blue Mountains role as a place for holiday and weekender accommodation, there are a large number of dwellings which are only occupied periodically, and which were vacant on census night. The 2006 census showed the proportion of unoccupied dwellings was higher in the Upper Mountains, where in Planning Area 1 just over 30% of dwellings were unoccupied. In the Lower Mountains the proportion of unoccupied dwellings is considerably lower, and was around 6% in Planning Areas 4 and 5.

While the “holiday” dwellings in the Upper Mountains have an important role in tourism, they also represent an inefficient use of dwelling stock and of urban infrastructure. The existence of very high levels of unoccupied dwellings needs to be taken into account in the development of residential


strategies by factoring in an ongoing “loss factor” in the relationship between dwelling stock and population levels. It should be noted though, that unoccupied dwellings are not counted in determining dwelling occupancy rates (i.e. the average number of people residing in each dwelling).

Further research is required to determine whether the vacancy rate of dwellings in the Upper Mountains has declined since the 2006 census, and is being occupied by full time residents.

The table below details the proportion of unoccupied dwellings in each suburb and Planning Area, as well as for the LGA as a whole.

Table 18: Proportion and number of unoccupied dwellings

Locality No. unoccupied

dwellings % unoccupied dwellings

Mount Wilson 118 53.9%

Mount Victoria 169 32.4%

Blackheath 739 28.5%

Megalong 22 25.3%

AREA 1 total 1048 30.6%

Medlow Bath 87 29.5%

Katoomba 860 20.3%

Leura 546 23.7%

Wentworth Falls 514 18.2%

AREA 2 2007 20.8%

Bullaburra 81 14.0%

Lawson 119 11.2%

Hazelbrook 153 8.1%

Woodford (Blue Mts) 69 8.8%

Linden 11 6.6%

AREA 3 total 433 9.7%

Faulconbridge 93 6.0%

Faulconbridge bal 9 9.0%

Springwood 211 6.4%

Winmalee 129 5.6%

Yellow Rock (Blue Mts) 3 1.0%

Valley Heights 36 7.0%

Hawkesbury Hts bal 6 4.1%


Warrimoo 53 6.1%

Blaxland 175 6.6%

Mount Riverview 43 3.9%

Glenbrook 120 6.3%

Lapstone 18 5.2%


Blue Mountains National Park

37 32.7%

BLUE MTNS LGA Total 4421 13.5%

Source: id., ABS, 2006

5.4.2 Development approvals (construction certificates) Council records of the number of development approvals issued for detached dwelling houses, flats and units provide an indication of the past rate of residential development in the Blue Mountains, as well as the likely trend of future approvals. Construction certificate approvals for new residential construction are shown in Table 19. The total number of approvals declined from a peak in 2003/4 until 2006/7, after which approvals stabilised at around 121‐127 approvals each year.

Table 19: Construction Certificate Approvals for new residential development


Development Type 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 Detached dwellings 247 304 313 340 222 139 173 115 125 Dual occupancies 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 Other multi unit dwellings 7 7 5 7 7 2 1 4 2 Total Approvals 254 312 319 348 229 143 174 121 127

*No. of construction certificates, not number of flats or units in each development.

Source: BMCC, 2009.

The continued dominance of detached housing in the Blue Mountains’ dwelling stock is reflected in the number of residential development approvals given to detached and other dwellings. Between 2000/1 and 2008/9 the number of approvals for new detached dwelling houses ranged between 115 and 340 per year. In contrast, between 2000/1 and 2008/9 the number of approvals for multiunit residential dwellings has ranged between 1 and just over 7 approvals per year (Note: these figures are for the number of approvals, not number of dwellings).

A more accurate indication of the change in the number of dwellings in the Blue Mountains is provided by the number of new connections to the reticulated water supply by Sydney Water as shown in Table 20. These statistics show net additional connections; for example, if a single detached dwelling is demolished and replaced by another single detached dwelling, no net increase is shown. Similarly, the replacement of an existing single detached dwelling by six townhouses is shown as a net increase of five dwellings. Thus, they show the real change in housing stock.

New net water connections to dwellings peaked at 301 connections in 1999/2000 after which it declined to 132 in 2007/2008.

Table 20: Net new water connections for residential development Development

Type 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total

Detached dwellings 204 231 218 159 163 93 135 73 132 100 1,509

Multi unit Dwellings 49 70 62 95 12 112 59 48 48 32 586

Total new net connections 253 301 280 254 175 205 194 121 180 132 2,095

Source: Sydney Water, Department of Planning 2009

The dominance of detached houses is still quite marked, albeit to a lesser extent, when actual net additions to the LGA dwelling stock are considered. Between 1998/99 and 2007/08 the number of new net connections for detached dwellings ranged between 73 and 231 per year, contrasting with between 12 and 112 new net connections for multiunit dwellings over the same period (Note: these figures are for the net increase in connections). Figure 25 shows net water connections in graphical form for both detached housing and multiunit “alternative” housing.

On average, over the last 10 years an additional 151 detached dwellings and 59 multiunit dwellings each year have been added to the Blue Mountains’ housing stock. In other words, around 39% of the additional housing stock of the Blue Mountains over the last 10 years has been multiunit dwellings (as measured by net new water connections). However, it should be noted that although the production of multiunit dwelling stock has fluctuated greatly each year on average it has remained at around 50‐60 new multiunit dwelling connections per year, while detached housing connections have generally trended downwards.

As with construction certificate approvals, net new water connections have trended downwards over time. They have stabilised in recent years at an average of around 150 connections annually, which is


less than the 10 year average. The statistics for water connections tend to lag behind those for construction certificates because they occur after approvals have been given.

Figure 26: Net new water supply connections by dwelling type


5.4.3 Spatial Distribution of Approval and Connections

Table 21 shows that in total since 2000/1 the majority of Construction Certificate approvals for all dwellings have been within Area 2 and Area 4, which contain the main centres of Katoomba and Springwood respectively. For every year Area 2 has had by far the largest number of approvals. However since 2003/4 the number of approvals in Area 5 has been slightly greater than that for Area 4. The following analysis of new water connection figures will assist in understanding the nature of these trends.

Table 21: Construction Certificate approvals for all dwellings by Planning Area*

Year 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total

Area 1 38 34 37 48 39 16 19 15 18 264

Area 2 84 118 102 94 70 61 52 33 40 654

Area 3 55 48 39 53 44 29 27 27 21 343

Area 4 43 74 101 72 39 21 35 24 20 429

Area 5 41 44 45 86 39 22 45 24 28 374

Total 261 318 324 353 231 149 178 123 127 2064 *Includes the number of developments, not number of flats or units in each development.

Source: BMCC, 2009

Table 22 shows that Planning Areas 2 and 4 also account for the majority of net water connections. Planning Area, and as well for multiunit dwellings (Table 23). Planning Area 1 has experienced a consistently low number of net new connections. From year to year variations in the general trend are evident in all Planning Areas due to small urban land releases, or because of alternative housing developments.

Note: the upper line on this figure shows the aggregate of detached and multiunit dwelling connections. The contribution of each of the two components is shown by the height of their colour band at any specific time.


Table 22: Net new residential water connections by Planning Area

1998/9 1999‐00 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Total Area 1 27 33 33 19 21 15 13 8 15 16 199 Area 2 70 113 77 68 70 99 74 41 70 45 728 Area 3 34 54 68 35 22 28 18 22 44 22 347 Area 4 66 78 77 97 46 53 27 29 22 27 523 Area 5 56 23 24 35 16 10 62 22 29 22 298 Total 253 301 280 254 175 205 194 121 180 132 2095

Source: Sydney Water, Department of Planning, 2009

Figure 27 shows the distribution of net new water connections in graphical form. Again, the downwards trend in new connections is clearly shown. The changing contribution to new dwelling stock by each of the Planning Area is also evident. Planning Area 4, and to a lesser extent Planning Area 3, were significant contributors to new dwelling stock from 1999 to 2002, as a result of urban land development and some multiunit development. However their contribution has since declined to become similar to the other Planning Areas, with the exception of the dominant Planning Area 2.

Figure 27: New net residential water connections by Planning Area


Note: the upper line on this figure shows the aggregate of detached and multiunit dwelling connections. The contribution of each of the two components is shown by the height of their colour band at any specific time.


Table 23: Net new water connections by Planning Area and Dwelling Type

Year Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Total

1998‐99

Multiunit 0 17 1 4 27 49

Detached 27 53 33 62 29 204

1999‐00 Multiunit 0 39 3 21 7 70

Detached 33 74 51 57 16 231

2000‐01 Multiunit 0 14 4 40 4 62

Detached 33 64 64 37 21 218

2001‐02 Multiunit 0 13 2 67 14 95

Detached 19 55 33 31 21 159

2002‐03 Multiunit 0 11 0 1 0 12

Detached 21 59 22 45 16 163

2003‐04 Multiunit 0 73 10 29 0 112

Detached 15 26 19 24 10 93

2004‐05 Multiunit 0 41 2 8 9 59

Detached 13 34 16 19 53 135

2005‐06 Multiunit 0 23 1 12 12 48

Detached 8 18 21 17 9 73

2006‐07 Multiunit 0 24 13 3 8 48

Detached 15 46 31 19 21 132

2007‐08 Multiunit 5 13 4 2 8 32

Detached 11 32 18 25 14 100

Total Multiunit 5 266 39 187 89 586

Detached 194 461 308 336 210 1,509


Table 23 above and Figure 28 below show that there are few discernable trends in the nature of net new water connections when analysed at a Planning Area level. Care should be taken in the interpretation of these graphs because the axes are based on the dwelling production levels of each Planning area, and accordingly are different for each graph.

It can be seen that the production of dwellings in multiunit developments tends to be sporadic. It is very dependent on one‐off development of specific sites which become available from time to time, rather than on broad based program of development.

It can be seen that the production of additional detached dwellings has declined over the past 10 years, and that in Planning Areas 2 and 5 multiunit housing is playing an important role in the overall supply of dwellings. Planning Areas 3 and 4 have played a declining role in producing new net detached dwellings since 2003/04.

Table 24 and 25 show the same data sheet, but at a suburb by suburb level. Table 26 shows the suburb by suburb data combined for all dwellings and Table 27 provides an LGA wide summary by dwelling type. Over the last 10 years, Springwood in Planning Area 4 has provided the largest number of net new connections to multiunit dwellings (165), followed by Katoomba (111) in Planning Area 2. Katoomba’s neighbouring suburbs in Planning Area 2, Leura (90) and Wentworth Falls (65) provided the next largest number, followed In Planning Area 5 by Blaxland (45) and Glenbrook (38), and finally Hazelbrook (31) in Planning Area 2. All other suburbs have very small numbers of new connections to multiunit developments.


Figure 28: Net new water connections by Planning Area and dwelling type



Table 24: Net new water connections to single dwellings by suburb

Single Dwellings

SUBURB 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 TotalMOUNT VICTORIA 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 24BLACKHEATH 25 30 31 16 18 14 11 6 12 7 170AREA 1 Total 27 33 33 19 21 15 13 8 15 11 194MEDLOW BATH 4 2 8 3 6 1 2 2 28KATOOMBA 15 28 21 27 16 10 12 4 19 7 157LEURA 21 29 12 13 24 8 12 3 13 8 142WENTWORTH FALLS 13 15 23 12 14 9 10 11 12 15 134AREA 2 Total 53 74 64 55 59 26 34 18 46 32 461BULLABURRA 5 5 28 11 2 5 3 5 5 1 69LAWSON 7 17 13 6 6 5 4 2 4 3 67HAZELBROOK 10 14 13 12 5 7 6 11 15 10 103LINDEN 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 15WOODFORD 8 14 9 4 6 2 2 1 5 4 55AREA 3 Total 33 51 64 33 22 19 16 21 31 18 308FAULCONBRIDGE 14 6 8 6 14 10 6 3 4 7 77SPRINGWOOD 4 1 3 4 7 4 6 6 35

WINMALEE 26 29 13 10 17 13 10 9 6 5 137HAWKESBURY HEIGHTS 4 6 6 5 2 2 2 1 28YELLOW ROCK 1 1 1 1 3 7VALLEY HEIGHTS 13 14 7 6 5 1 2 2 3 52AREA 4 Total 62 57 37 31 45 24 19 17 19 25 336WARRIMOO 6 2 1 1 3 4 3 4 24BLAXLAND 15 9 16 9 11 4 42 5 14 9 133MOUNT RIVERVIEW 1 1 3 1 2 4 12GLENBROOK 7 5 3 9 4 3 3 1 4 1 40LAPSTONE 1 1AREA 5 Total 29 16 21 21 16 10 53 9 21 14 210

Blue Mtns LGA Total 204 231 218 159 163 93 135 73 132 100 1,509 Table 25: Net new water connections to multi unit dwellings by suburb

Multi-unit Dwellings

SUBURB 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 TotalMOUNT VICTORIABLACKHEATH 5 5AREA 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5MEDLOW BATHKATOOMBA 7 27 4 2 5 10 15 14 14 13 111LEURA 5 8 2 2 63 2 8 90WENTWORTH FALLS 5 4 10 9 4 25 7 2 65AREA 2 Total 17 39 14 13 11 73 41 23 24 13 266BULLABURRA 1 1LAWSON 1 2 2 2 7HAZELBROOK 1 4 2 10 13 2 31LINDENWOODFORDAREA 3 Total 1 3 4 2 0 10 2 1 13 4 39FAULCONBRIDGE 2 3 1 6SPRINGWOOD 1 17 33 65 1 28 5 12 3 166WINMALEE 3 2 7 1 13HAWKESBURY HEIGHTSYELLOW ROCKVALLEY HEIGHTS 2 1 3AREA 4 Total 4 21 40 67 1 29 8 12 3 2 187WARRIMOO 4 4BLAXLAND 25 6 4 1 7 2 45MOUNT RIVERVIEWGLENBROOK 1 14 5 11 1 6 38LAPSTONE 2 2AREA 5 Total 27 7 4 14 0 0 9 12 8 8 89

Blue Mtns LGA Total 49 70 62 95 12 112 59 48 48 32 586


Table 26: Net new water connections to all dwellings by suburb

All DwellingsSUBURB 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total

MOUNT VICTORIA 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 24BLACKHEATH 25 30 31 16 18 14 11 6 12 12 175AREA 1 Total 27 33 33 19 21 15 13 8 15 16 199MEDLOW BATH 4 2 8 3 6 1 2 2 28KATOOMBA 22 55 24 28 20 20 27 18 33 20 268LEURA 26 37 12 15 26 71 12 5 21 8 232WENTWORTH FALLS 18 19 33 21 18 9 35 18 14 15 199AREA 2 Total 70 113 77 68 70 99 74 41 70 45 728BULLABURRA 5 5 28 11 2 5 3 6 5 1 70LAWSON 8 19 13 6 6 5 6 2 4 5 74HAZELBROOK 10 15 17 14 5 17 6 11 28 12 134LINDEN 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 15WOODFORD 8 14 9 4 6 2 2 1 5 4 55AREA 3 Total 34 54 68 35 22 28 18 22 44 22 347FAULCONBRIDGE 14 6 8 8 14 10 9 3 4 8 83SPRINGWOOD 5 18 36 69 8 28 5 16 9 6 200WINMALEE 29 31 20 10 17 14 10 9 6 5 150HAWKESBURY HEIGHTS 4 6 6 5 2 2 2 1 28YELLOW ROCK 1 1 1 1 3 7VALLEY HEIGHTS 13 16 7 6 5 1 2 2 4 55AREA 4 Total 66 78 77 97 46 53 27 29 22 27 523WARRIMOO 6 2 5 1 3 4 3 4 28BLAXLAND 40 15 16 9 11 4 46 6 21 11 178MOUNT RIVERVIEW 1 1 3 1 2 4 12GLENBROOK 7 6 3 23 4 3 8 12 5 7 78LAPSTONE 2 1 3AREA 5 Total 56 23 24 35 16 10 62 22 29 22 298

Blue Mtns LGA Total 253 301 280 254 175 205 194 121 180 132 2,095 Table 27: Summary of net new water connections to all dwellings by dwelling type

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 TotalSingle dwellings 204 231 218 159 163 93 135 73 132 100 1,509Muti unit dwellings 49 70 62 95 12 112 59 48 48 32 586Blue Mtns LGA Total 253 301 280 254 175 205 194 121 180 132 2,095

5.4.4 Distribution of new development by land use zone

Table 28 and Figure 29 show the number of construction certificates approved in each year in each zone. The trend over the last nine years has been a decline in the approval of construction certificates for new dwellings (of all types), stabilising from around 2005/06 to its current level. During this time the major contributing land use zones have declined as the location for construction certificate approvals for new dwellings, whilst others have maintained a continuing low level of approvals.

It clearly shows the significant decline in the role of the LEP 2005 Living Bushland Conservation zone in supplying land for housing. It also shows the continuing role of the LEP 1991 Residential Bushland conservation zone in supplying land for housing, a factor which was not considered in the 2002 Residential Strategy. Other zones play a lesser role, with the LEP 2005 Living General and Living Conservation Zones being the most important of these from the perspective of land supply.

It also shows that the village zones have been very small contributors to overall construction certificate approvals. This indicates the fragility of the supply of alternative housing, which mainly occurs in the Village zones. The supply of alternative housing results from an average of 2 approvals per year. It would be a better outcome if alternative housing was supplied from a greater number of approvals, reducing the LGA’s dependence on one or two developments to deliver its alternative housing needs.


Figure 29: Housing Construction certificate approvals by year and by zone

Source: BMCC 2009

Note: the upper line on this figure shows the aggregate of construction certificates of all zones. The contribution of each of the components is shown by the height of their colour band only.


Table 28: Construction Certificate approvals by year by zone

Dwelling Type LEP 2005 LEP 1991 LEP 4

Single Dwelling

Dual Occ

Second Occ

Multi Units

V TC V NC

V Tour

V Hous

L‐Gen

L Con

LBC EMP‐EN

RT Corr

Rec‐Priv

EP‐Priv

E Prot RUR Con

BUSH C RES BC

RES INV

REG OS

Uncol Res (A1)

2000/01 247 0 0 7 1 0 0 2 18 12 133 1 0 0 25 20 6 9 64 0 0 0 0

2001/02 304 1 0 7 0 0 1 2 30 29 158 0 0 0 37 18 1 9 81 0 0 0 0

2002/03 313 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 31 21 170 0 2 0 34 25 3 14 81 0 0 0 0

2003/04 340 1 0 7 0 0 2 2 27 43 143 0 2 0 17 24 3 12 78 0 0 0 0

2004/05 222 0 0 7 0 0 2 1 23 26 94 0 0 0 17 13 3 7 73 0 0 0 0

2005/06 139 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 14 22 74 0 0 0 10 13 1 2 38 0 0 0 0

2006/07 173 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 14 16 85 0 0 1 6 16 4 11 44 0 0 0 0

2007/08 115 2 0 4 0 0 0 3 10 17 51 0 1 1 9 8 1 7 32 0 0 0 0

2008/09 125 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 15 13 65 0 0 1 7 6 3 3 31 0 0 0 0

2009/00 61 3 3 0

Total 2000/09

1978 7 0 42 3 0 7 13 182 199 973 1 5 3 162 143 25 74 522 0 0 0 0

Average per year

220 1 0 5 0 0 1 1 20 22 108 0 1 0 18 16 3 8 58 0 0 0 0

Note: Most Construction Certificates in Environmental Protection and Environmental Protection Private zones belong to a split zone lot and are also counted in another zone, usually Living Bushland conservation or Bushland Conservation zones.

Source: BMCC 2009


5.2 HOUSING COSTS

Figures on housing costs are not available in a form that would allow the differentiation in patterns across the Mountains. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the housing market in the Lower Mountains is more closely associated in price to the Sydney market, whereas prices in the Upper Mountains are comparatively lower, with the exception of “boutique” locations within suburbs such as Leura.

Over the period 1991 to 1998, median house and unit prices for the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury have increased at a much slower rate than those of the Sydney SD (Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999). From 1998 to 2004 median prices increased at a significantly greater rate than that of Sydney, an 88.1 per cent increase relative to 50.1 per cent respectively over that period. From 2004 to 2008, both housing markets moderated, with only 2007 showing a price increase in the Blue Mountains and Sydney. The other years from 2004 showed only a drop in prices or negligible change. During this period housing in the Blue Mountains dropped less in price than the Sydney SD, at minus 7.1 per cent relative to minus 16.9 per cent respectively over 2004‐2008.

Table 26 shows that over the 10 years from 1999 to 2009, the median residential sales price in the Blue Mountains increased by 71 per cent, higher than the Sydney SD increase of 59 per cent. In 1999 the median sales price in the Blue Mountains was 71 per cent of that in Sydney. By 2009, the difference had narrowed to 73 per cent. Over the medium term, median housing prices in the Blue Mountains are increasing at a similar rate to those of Sydney, even after rapid increase in Sydney housing prices over 2009 is included. There is some evidence that the rapid increase in Sydney prices in 2009 moderated during early 2010 but continued to increase in the Blue Mountains.

Increasing housing prices in the Blue Mountains may be a desirable outcome for existing homeowners, but it has steadily reduced affordability for those seeking to become homeowners. Assuming the supply of land for housing remains constrained, and the development of infill housing continues at low levels, sustained continued upward pressure on dwelling prices is likely to continue in the LGA. The demand arising from the growth of the Penrith City Centre, and increasing employment in Western Sydney generally, will exacerbate this effect in the Lower Mountains in particular.

Table 29: Median Sales Price by Year 1997‐2008

Year Blue Mtns Sydney SD Blue Mtns Sydney SD

1997 $ 156,000 $ 257,000 5.3 9.01998 $ 177,000 $ 273,000 10.7 2.21999 $ 192,000 $ 270,000 16.5 9.32000 $ 215,000 $ 282,000 10.3 1.12001 $ 245,000 $ 327,000 12.6 12.82002 $ 305,000 $ 388,000 23.1 16.52003 $ 355,000 $ 430,000 8.7 14.92004 $ 360,000 $ 435,000 0.3 ‐1.12005 $ 350,000 $ 425,000 ‐3.3 ‐5.32006 $ 345,000 $ 430,000 ‐1.6 ‐0.52007 $ 355,000 $ 450,000 2.8 2.32008 $ 340,000 $ 406,000 ‐5.3 ‐12.32009 364,000$ 498,000$ 6.9 21.3

% Annual Increase Median Sales Price

Source: NSW Department of Housing 1998‐2009 Median Sales Price December Quarter for all dwellings


Figure 29 shows that changes in dwelling prices in the Blue Mountains have tended to match those in the Sydney SD, albeit with a narrowing of the margin between them. Housing prices in the LGA have been stable or decreasing slightly since 2004, with a slight increase in 2009.

Figure 30: Median Sales Price‐ all dwellings

Source: NSW Department of Housing 1998‐2009

Rental costs in the Blue Mountains are lower than those of the outer ring of Sydney and lower than those in the Sydney SD. Median rents have have not increased at the same rate as rents in the Sydney SD, as shown in the Table 30 and the accompanying figure below. Rents in the outer ring of Sydney are lower than the Sydney SD, but have tended to increase at the same rate as those of Sydney.

Table 30: Median Weekly Rent 1994‐2008 Based on the Median Rent for the December Quarter for all Dwellings

Year Blue Mtns Outer ring Sydney

Sydney SD

1994 $135 $177

1995 $138 $187

1996 $145 $195

1997 $145 $207

1998 $152 $222

1999 $162 $235

2000 $220 $260

2001 $195 $220 $265

2002 $200 $230 $260

2003 $205 $235 $270

2004 $210 $240 $280

2005 $220 $250 $290

2006 N/A $260 $310

2007 $245 $290 $350

2008 $270 $330 $385

2009 $285 $350 $400

Source: BMCC, 2002, NSW Department of Housing, 2009


Figure 31: Median weekly rents‐ all dwellings

Note: Some columns are missing due to unavailability of data. Source: NSW Department of Housing 2009

The above table and figures are based on the median rent cost of all dwellings. The figure below provides greater detail of the costs of specific dwelling sizes. The Blue Mountains rental costs are lower than Sydney for each dwelling size. With the possible exception of 4+ bedroom dwellings rents are not increasing in rental cost as rapidly as Sydney. Caution should be applied in interpreting the statistics for the 4+ bedroom dwellings because they are likely to be a small sample size in the Blue Mountains and possibly unrepresentative as a result.

Figure 32: Median weekly rents by dwelling type

Source Department of Housing, 2001‐10

The number of rental properties is increasing in the Blue Mountains. 5032 rental bonds were held in June 2004 and this increased to 5763 in June 2009, or an average increase of 1.45 per cent each year over the last 5 years.

Rental properties comprise 19.4 per cent of the occupied dwelling stock in the Blue Mountains, which is well below their proportion of dwelling stock in the Sydney SD (29.7 per cent). The vacancy rate for Outer Sydney (of which the Blue Mountains is a part) for July 2009 was 1.1 per cent. This is just below the vacancy rate for the Sydney total for the same period, which was 1.3 per cent (REINSW, 2009). This is reflective of an extremely tight rental market, as a 5 per cent vacancy rate is generally seen as being required to ensure adequate tenancy choice and to restrain excessive


upwards pressure on rental costs. Precise vacancy rate statistics are not available for the Blue Mountains.

It should be noted that vacancy rates for such broad areas are not necessarily indicative of local market variations. For example, demand for rental properties in a desirable suburb may be much higher than the demand for rental properties in an adjacent but less amenable area.

Private rental accommodation is an important source of low cost affordable housing. Its importance in the Blue Mountains is likely to continue or even increase, in view of the limited supply of public rental accommodation and the long waiting lists.

5.3 PUBLIC HOUSING

According to the Department of Housing (2008) there are 633 social housing dwellings in the Blue Mountains, including 457 public housing dwellings and 173 community housing properties. These assets are primarily located in Katoomba, with limited properties located in the Lower Mountains. In 2006, 48.2% of the public housing stock was detached houses, 16.8% semi‐detached dwellings, villa and townhouses, and 35% flats or units. This is reflective of the nature of public housing tenancy households, which tend to be smaller than the community average (see below).

Whilst in 1992 public housing comprised 2.3 per cent of all housing in the Blue Mountains, in 2000 it comprised only 1.6 per cent, and in 2006 1.5 per cent. This is considerably lower than the proportion of public housing in the Sydney SD where is comprises 5.1 per cent of the total housing stock (ABS 2006). These are pockets of public housing throughout the Blue Mountains, although the largest numbers of dwellings are focused around Katoomba, Lawson/Hazelbrook, and Blaxland. Their concentrations are low, generally less than 12% of the housing stock in the census collectors district (CD) in which they are located, with only one CD approaching 16.9 per cent of housing stock.

The Department of Housing in 2008 produced this profile of those occupying public housing in the LGA:

“Public housing tenants (household heads) in Blue Mountains are predominantly in the 25–54 age group (58.5% compared with the Greater Metropolitan Region (GMR) public housing average of 47.1%), followed by the 55 plus age group (40.5% compared with 51.2% on average in public housing in the GMR). There is a high proportion of single person households in Blue Mountains (56.5% compared with 51.0% on average in the GMR), followed by single parents (18.0% in Blue Mountains compared with 15.4% on average in the GMR). A significant proportion of household heads are Aged Pensioners (19.6% although below the GMR average of 27.5%) and Disability Pensioners (a significant 41.2% compared to 28.8% in the GMR)”. GMR refers to the Sydney SD.

Wentworth Community Housing is the main community housing provider in the Blue Mountains. It has a branch office at Katoomba, with its head office at Penrith. Community housing is generally managed by not for profit community organisations. It provides affordable long term rental housing to people on low to moderate incomes with a housing need. The dwellings are usually owned by the government or rented from private owners with government funding. Some community housing providers own housing stock, and recent Government policy is increasing the providers’ level of ownership.


5.4 HOUSING STRESS & AFFORDABILITY

5.4.1 Calculating housing stress

Housing affordability comprises a joint consideration of the extent to which housing needs are met, and the extent to which the cost of housing impinges on the ability to meet other needs ‐ that is, joint consideration of housing quality and housing cost (King, 1994:108). A measure of both of these aspects is needed in order to develop a measure of housing stress.

The level of housing stress experienced by residents in the Blue Mountains is an important consideration in determining housing need in the LGA. Housing stress is generally measured by comparing household incomes against housing costs. If a household (or ‘income unit’) is spending an unreasonable proportion of their income on housing, or if they have insufficient income remaining after paying for housing to achieve a reasonable standard of living, they are deemed to be in housing stress. Generally, housing stress as a situation in which a household spends more than 30 per cent of its income on housing (Burgess and Skeltys, 1992).

Housing stress is usually measured in terms of cost of rent or mortgage payments, however the appropriateness of housing and total cost of living in a given location also need to be considered.

Associated issues include:

• Accessibility of housing ‐ many people have mobility disabilities, and as the community ages, the number of people with mobility disabilities will increase. Housing needs to have internal and external features will ensure high accessibility and personal independence

• The appropriateness of particular housing within a person’s or household’s lifecycle, including issues of overcrowding

• The location of housing may make it difficult to access employment, recreation, shops and services

• The location of housing may entail long travel times and/or high transport costs to access employment, recreation, shops and services

• The nature of relationships between people in a household and the ability to share housing costs

• The ability of some older people to access sufficient income to pay for housing running costs, such as rates, including the ‐“asset rich income poor”.

Some people may spend a large proportion of their income on housing out of choice. The many assessments of housing stress exclude anyone other than the lowest 40 per cent of incomes.

A calculation of housing stress requires complex analysis. Without the necessary data on incomes and assets, on income units within households, and even with the limited availability of data on income after the 2006 ABS Census, it is impossible to gain an accurate picture of affordability. Due to these data limitations, the discussion and assessment of housing stress is limited in scope in this Review.

The review of population and housing characteristics highlights a number of trends that can be interpreted in the light of discussions on housing stress and affordability. It has been shown above that rents are increasing over the short and long term, albeit at a lower rate than the Sydney SD in both cases. The median sales price of dwellings over the medium to long term, whilst still below that of the Sydney SD, is increasing at a faster rate than in the Sydney SD. It is also shown above that household incomes in the Blue Mountains are generally lower than those in the Sydney SD, particularly in the Upper Mountains. However median weekly household incomes across the LGA


vary, with those in the Lower Mountains being $55,276 per year, considerably higher than the average income of the Upper Mountains at $33,450 per year. The median household income in the Blue Mountains is $45,000 per year (ABS 2006).

There are, however, four main implications of the housing circumstances of the Blue Mountains in relation to housing affordability. Each has some impact on the ability of the LGA to provide affordable housing in the future:

First, the stock of rental housing in the Blue Mountains is low in comparison to both the Sydney SD and WSROC areas. Rental housing is one of the main sources of low cost housing. Without an increase in the stock of rental dwellings in the Mountains, the housing options for those on low incomes are limited.

Secondly, the environmental and infrastructure constraints outlined in Part 3 of this report limit the supply of land that is available to accommodate future urban development. LEP 1991 and 2005 acknowledge these constraints by limiting infill, preserving environmentally sensitive lands, and reducing the extent to which development may proceed without sewer and water infrastructure, especially in water supply catchment areas. The lack of land supply will inevitably place further pressure on the housing market. As development within the Mountains approaches these limits to growth, it is expected that house prices will increase, and will be accompanied by increasing levels of housing stress.

Thirdly, alternative housing within the Blue Mountains was identified as being under‐provided in the 2002 Residential Development Strategy, and this is still the case. As well as being characterised by rental housing, lower cost accommodation is typically located in alternative dwellings such as flats and units.

Finally, this shortage is juxtaposed against a likely increase in demand. The above population profile documents a decrease in the traditional household type of two adults with dependent children, and a subsequent increase in smaller household types, including lone person households, ageing households and single parent families. As a result more housing will be needed to house the existing population levels, let alone any increase in population.

These restrictions tend to indicate that the affordability of housing in the Blue Mountains will decrease relative to current levels. This is consistent with previous research undertaken by the Blue Mountains City Council and others.

5.4.2 Income and measuring Housing Stress

In evaluating annual household income levels, income is considered in ranges as a percentage of annual median income. A number of benchmarks have been developed in determining incomes levels that may give rise to financial stress, particularly as it relates to housing provision. Affordable Housing is defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) as:

“affordable housing" means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such householdsas are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument.”

The primary environmental planning instruments dealing with affordable housing in NSW are SEPP No. 70 Affordable Housing and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (2009), which define affordable housing in reference to very low income households, low income households and moderate income


households. These are those households whose gross incomes fall within the following ranges of percentages of the median household income:

Table 31: Income ranges adopted Centre for Affordable Housing and SEPP 70

Household income level Percentage of median household income Very Low Income Household Less than 50% Low Income Household 50 or more but less than 80% Moderate Income Household 80‐120%

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP also provides an alternative definition of such households as including those eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and which pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.

According to the Housing NSW Centre for Affordable Housing and the National Housing Supply Council (2008), housing is generally seen to be affordable if households do not pay more than 30% of their gross household income in housing costs (rental or purchase). If they exceed 30%, they are regarded as being in housing stress. The Affordable Housing SEPP defines affordability with reference to the median household income in the Sydney Statistical District (Sydney SD).

The “30%” is a general figure and individuals or households may be in housing stress due to their personal circumstances, even if this criterion is met. Notwithstanding the notional financial affordability of housing in a locality, the appropriateness of housing, access to services and employment, cost of living, and the overall supply of affordable housing are all important factors in determining whether housing is truly “affordable”.

For the purposes of this report, affordability has been assessed relative to Sydney SD, and where possible, the median income of the Blue Mountains Local Government Area. This follows the approach used in some parts of the United States, which use “regional” median incomes rather than “city wide” medians, in recognition of the diverse nature of a large metropolis.

The affordability of housing in the Blue Mountains is further discussed below.

5.4.3 Simple measures of housing stress and affordability

Using the 2006 ABS census household income statistics and the September 2006 median rent costs, and the 2006 median dwelling cost for the Blue Mountains the following are evident.

Purchase

The median purchase price of a dwelling in the Blue Mountains in 2006 was $345,000. With 20% deposit and a principal and interest home loan at 7.0 per cent for 25 years, the weekly repayments would be $449.79 per week.

If a household was to pay a maximum of 30 per cent of the gross household income towards the loan, they would need an income of $1499.30 per week or $77,963.60 per year. Over 60 per cent of Blue Mountains households would be in housing stress if they purchased a house under these circumstances because they earn less than this. However, these statistics consider all households, not only those paying or likely to pay off a mortgage.

According to ABS 2006 census data processed by id., 31.8 per cent of mortgagees in the Blue Mountains are in rental stress (defined by the households in the lowest 40 per cent of household income paying 30 per cent or more of their income in mortgage repayments). These statistics are shown in Table 29. In Planning Area 1 13.6 per cent of private renters are in rental stress, 11.5 per


cent in Planning Area 2 and 9 per cent in Planning Area 3, relative to 6.1 per cent in Planning Area 2 and 4.2 per cent in Planning Area 1. The Upper Mountains are in greater mortgage stress than the Lower Mountains, despite the generally higher housing costs in the Lower Mountains.

Table 32: Proportion of mortgagees in repayment stress

Locality/Planning Area No in mortgage

stress* % in mortgage

stress*

Planning Area 1

Blackheath ‐ Western Townships 97 13.6

Total 97 13.6

Planning Area 2

Leura 46 9.5

Lawson ‐ Bullaburra 60 10.4

Katoomba ‐ Medlow Bath 151 14.4

Total 252 11.5

Planning Area 3

Mount Riverview 30 6.3

Winmalee ‐ Yellow Rock 94 6.9

Hazelbrook 63 8.2

Wentworth Falls 62 8.3

Woodford ‐ Linden 40 8.6

Total 162 9

Planning Area 4

Faulconbridge 35 5.3

Springwood ‐ Valley Heights 76 5.6

Total 205 6.1

Planning Area 5

Blaxland 33 3.6

Glenbrook ‐ Lapstone 30 3.7

Warrimoo 15 4.1

Total 105 4.2

Blue Mountains LGA 848 7.8

Sydney Statistical Division 48684 10.3

*defined by the households in the lowest 40 per cent of household income paying 30 per cent or more of their income in mortgage repayments.

Rental

The median rent cost of a one bedroom unit in September 2006 was $145 per week. If a household was to pay a maximum of 30 per cent of their gross household income in rent, they would need an income of at least $483 per week, or $25116 per year. Around 17 per cent of Blue Mountains households would be in housing stress because they earn less than this.

The median rent of a two bedroom unit in September 2006 was $190 per week. If a household was to pay a maximum of 30 per cent of their gross income in rent, they would need an income of at least $633 per week or $32916 per year. Around 27 per cent of Blue Mountains households would be in housing stress because they earn less than this. However, these statistics consider all households, not only those renting or likely to rent.


The median rent of a three bedroom detached dwelling in September 2006 was $238 per week. If a household was to pay a maximum of 30 per cent of their gross income in rent, they would need an income of at least $793 per week or $41236 per year. Around 34 per cent of Blue Mountains households would be in housing stress because they earn less than this. Again, these statistics consider all households, not only those renting or likely to rent.

According to ABS 2006 census data processed by id., 31.8 per cent of private renters in the Blue Mountains are in rental Stress (defined by the households in the lowest 40 per cent of household income paying 30 per cent or more of their income in rent). These statistics are shown in Table 30. Over 37 per cent of private renters are in rental stress in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3, relative to 25.8 per cent in Planning Area 2, and 19.1 per cent in Planning Area 1. Similar to the incidence of mortgage stress, the Upper Mountains are in greater rental stress than the Lower Mountains despite the generally higher rental costs in the Lower Mountains.

Table 33: Proportion of private renters in rental stress

Locality/Planning Area No. in stress*

% of private renters in stress*

Planning Area 1

Blackheath ‐ Western Townships 210 40.5

Total 210 40.5

Planning Area 2

Katoomba ‐ Medlow Bath 485 40.9

Leura 120 34.5

Wentworth Falls 153 35.9

Total 754 38.7

Planning Area 3

Lawson ‐ Bullaburra 113 42.5

Hazelbrook 105 35.7

Woodford ‐ Linden 16 21.9

Total 234 37

Planning Area 4

Faulconbridge 44 22

Springwood ‐ Valley Heights 162 25.2

Winmalee ‐ Yellow Rock 84 28.3

Total 284 25.8

Planning Area 5

Warrimoo 12 10.6

Blaxland 99 22.8

Mount Riverview 19 18.1

Glenbrook ‐ Lapstone 51 17

Total 181 19.1

Blue Mountains LGA 1665 31.8

Sydney Statistical Division 107561 24.7

*defined by the households in the lowest 40 per cent of household income paying 30 per cent or more of the income in rent


5.5 CONCLUSION

This section has outlined a number of indicators that suggest a mismatch between household structures and the current housing stock within the LGA. In summary, the main points are:

• The majority of housing stock in the Blue Mountains comprises single detached dwellings (93.3%). This is a higher proportion than in Sydney or WSROC. A further 6.1 per cent of dwellings in the Blue Mountains are medium density alternative housing.

• Alternative dwellings are increasing their share of dwelling stock at a much slower rate in the Blue Mountains than in Sydney or WSROC.

• Compared to Sydney and WSROC, a considerably lower proportion of lone person households, one parent families and couples without children live in alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains.

• A high proportion of alternative housing is occupied by lone person households aged over 65. • The majority of the existing stock of alternative housing in the Blue Mountains is located in

Katoomba and Springwood. • The number of residential construction approvals in the LGA peaked in 2003/4 and has been

declined since then, to stabilise at around 127 approvals, or 150 dwellings, per year. • The majority of building approvals have occurred in the urban areas of the LGA, and have

been for detached dwellings. • The LEP 2005 Living Bushland Conservation zone has supplied most land for housing with an

average of 49 approvals for housing each year for the past 9 years. However its role has declined from a peak of 170 approvals in 2002/3.

• The LEP 1991 Residential Bushland conservation zone is the second largest supplier of land for housing. This zone had 26% of approvals for new dwellings over the last 9 years.

• Over the past 10 years 39% of additional dwelling stock has been alternative housing; however there is still a serious mismatch between the LGA’s demography and housing stock.

• The median sales prices for housing in the LGA increased by 71 per cent between 1999 and 2009, a rate of increase higher than that for the Sydney SD (50.1%).

• Rental costs have increased at an average of 7.6per cent per annum over the last ten years, however rental costs for one bedroom units increased slightly faster. This is a lower rate of increase than Sydney.

• It is expected that as house prices increase and available building land decreases, the affordability of dwellings in the Blue Mountains will decrease and housing stress is likely to affect a greater proportion of residents.


PART 6 HOUSING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES

Council has a responsibility to ensure that housing needs in the area are not only identified but also properly met. The demographic structure and environmental and housing characteristics of the LGA, as described above, substantially affect housing demand.

The previous sections of this report have provided an indication of housing need. The LGA faces considerable environmental, physical and infrastructure constraints to development, and therefore the number of greenfield sites suitable for urban development is limited. Housing stock within the Blue Mountains is dominated by detached dwellings, and there are various cohorts among the population that do not have adequate opportunity to choose housing more appropriate to their needs. These include those aged between 20 and 35, smaller households such as lone person and couples without children, and low‐income earners. The current housing provision does not correlate to the population profile and household types, suggesting that an appropriate range of housing forms is not presently available. Dwelling purchase and rent prices are increasing, and it is likely that housing affordability relative to incomes will decrease in the future.

In view of these trends, this section will examine the needs and preferences of the population for alternative housing. Such a discussion cannot provide definitive statements about housing preferences or aspirations, as these vary considerably between individuals. Housing expectations also alter with changes in personal circumstances and as alternative options become available. The level of compromise people make in choosing certain housing is also a variable factor. However, broad indicators will be considered.

The major population changes projected in the Blue Mountains relate to an ageing population and decreasing household sizes rather than to population increases. Future housing provision therefore needs to promote the flexibility to realign the LGA’s dwelling stock with an increased proportion of smaller dwellings, to increase housing choice. This section focuses on the likely demand for alternative housing, and the extent to which this can be met by the existing dwelling stock.

6.1 EXISTING DWELLING STOCK AND HOUSING NEED

As discussed above, dwelling stock in the Blue Mountains is characterised by detached dwellings. The traditional detached three bedroom house on a large block of land is not always appropriate for a variety of household types. The lower density settlement pattern within the Blue Mountains leaves many residents either car dependent or isolated. Such housing also carries higher maintenance requirements, is less affordable due to the take‐up of land, and is less sustainable for the same reason. It is not proposed, nor is it considered feasible, to substantially alter the existing land use patterns that characterise the Blue Mountains. However, it is considered that in providing a range of housing options to meet the needs of residents, such provision should work towards more sustainable settlement patterns by increasing the stock of alternative dwellings close to town centres. Residents of the Blue Mountains will increasingly require diversity among dwelling types, as household types and sizes change, and this housing should be located in close proximity to urban infrastructure such as public transport, recreational facilities, shops and community services.

Household types that are projected to grow as a proportion of the population include lone person households (not only older people) and couples without children. Lone person households are one of the most rapidly increasing components of the Blue Mountains population. It is considered that, with greater availability of alternative dwelling types, some lone person households currently living in


detached dwellings would choose to live in smaller one and two bedroom dwellings in locations more convenient to transport and services.

The low provision of social (public and community) housing in the Blue Mountains adds to the demand for both affordable and alternative housing. Disadvantaged households in the LGA who cannot gain access to social housing are forced to satisfy their housing needs in the private rental market. Many of these households are likely to rely on pensions or benefits for income, and may consequently be experiencing housing stress. Whittington (1993) identified a clear need for additional public housing to be provided by the Department of Housing, to cater for the housing needs of disadvantaged people in the Blue Mountains and this situation has not changed in over a decade. However it is unlikely that the Department of Housing will provide more public housing in the foreseeable future, and alternative mechanisms such as community housing and the development of affordable rental and ownership housing need to be explored. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, National Rental Affordability Scheme, Housing affordability Fund and “A Place to Call Home” program are examples of recent programs to increase the supply of affordable housing to those in need.

The limited supply of land is curtailing further urban expansion to a very low level. However, it will be difficult to house the projected demographic shifts in the future unless the existing dwelling stock changes. Shortages of housing, and particularly of alternative dwellings, will place inevitable pressure on the housing market and have probably contributed to the greater rate of increase in house prices in the Blue Mountains relative to the Sydney SD over the last 10 years. The 2002 Residential Development Strategy projected an increase in demand for alternative housing, yet the supply of such housing has only undergone a small increase. Unless more alternative housing is provided, the Blue Mountains is likely to face a housing shortage that will continue to result in decreasing housing affordability.

The extent to which Council is able to address this need is determined in the context of local planning controls. Council is able to zone areas for alternative housing where appropriate. The need for alternative housing must, however, be balanced against the protection of environmentally sensitive land in the Blue Mountains and the protection of areas of significant built character. Where alternative housing is appropriate to an area, other constraints to its development are likely to be posed by the existing stock of detached dwellings, the redevelopment of which may not become financially attractive for a number of years. Ultimately, the provision of alternative housing in the LGA will depend on factors of supply and demand, as interpreted by the housing market. Provided that options are left open for the reasonable provision of appropriate alternative housing, balanced against environmental and character constraints, people’s preferences for this type of housing will be represented by the market take‐up for this form of development. The LEP 2005 sought to provide for alternative housing for the general community in close proximity to the town centres, and in similar locations for seniors and those with disabilities in the form of “accessible” housing areas.

The market response to this zoning provision has been muted. Whilst some development has occurred, it has not occurred to the extent that could be anticipated from the “latent” market demand of a community with the demographic character of the Blue Mountains.

Clearly, other factors must be reducing the supply for such housing. These factors could include: the nature of the local development industry, community and political views towards alternative housing proposals, land values, regulations for accessible and alternative housing, and approval processes for accessible housing.


6.2 DEMAND FOR ALTERNATIVE HOUSING

The Metropolitan Planning Strategy “City of Cities”, the draft North West Subregional Planning Strategy and the Metropolitan Development Program, and a range of other State Government planning strategies, as discussed in Part 2 of this report, seek to promote a greater variety of housing options. Their aim is twofold: to provide increased housing choice to meet the demand of an increasingly diverse community, to improve the efficiency of the use of infrastructure and to address the lack of sustainability of urban development, particularly in relation to motor vehicle use. These aims are reflected in the objectives of Council’s LEP 2005.

During the preparation of the 2002 Residential Development Strategy, Council engaged the services of the ‘Urban Frontiers Program’ (UFP), a research unit associated with University of Western Sydney, to undertake research that would:

• Identify the relationship between household demographics and housing demand; and • Provide Council with a clear understanding of the level of demand that may exist within the

city, over a 20 year period, for diverse housing opportunities.

This research found:

• The level of demand for alternative housing increases with an increase in the following demographic groups within the City:

o Lone person households, o High income households, o Persons aged over 65.

• The level of demand for alternative housing decreases with an increase in owner‐occupiers within the City.

• The forecast increase in older persons and lone person households in particular will create an increased demand for alternative housing in the LGA. By 2021, Holloway and Wood predicted that there would be a demand for between 2,950 and 3,200 alternative dwelling units with the Blue Mountains (2001:42). Given the current supply of 1,850 alternative housing units, between 1,100 and 1,350 additional units will be required to meet this demand.

It was beyond the scope of this Report to replicate the modelling undertaken by Urban Frontiers. However, the research undertaken as part of this Report shows that the parameters used by Urban Frontiers are still largely valid, and that many of the demographic imperatives they identified, combined with the low level of production of alternative housing since 2001, have increased the need for the supply of alternative housing to meet “latent” market demand.


PART 7 LEP 2005 – HOUSING OUTCOMES

7.1 LAND USE STRUCTURE

LEP 2005 is based on a strategy of implementing ecologically sustainable development. A number of practical land use planning measures have been incorporated into the LEP to achieve this aim. LEP 1991 applies to the rural areas of the LGA as well as the urban fringes, and was also based on environmental principles.

LEP 2005 aims to manage through the selective control of land uses through the zoning of land, and other provisions of the LEP. This includes the identification of land that is not suitable for urban development and land that has a reduced potential for additional development or subdivision. Land that has reduced capacity due to the environmental constraints that have been identified through mapping and research as well as a consideration of infrastructure capacity and requirements. LEP 1991 operates in a similar manner, although it is based on earlier less sophisticated planning analysis.

The identification of town and residential character has had a very important role in the development of land use controls, because of the importance of character to the identity of the Blue Mountains. In order to protect those elements of the urban form that are unique to the Blue Mountains, findings from Council’s Residential Character Study (BMCC, 2002c) were used in the application of the Living – Conservation and Living – Bushland Conservation zones. In some instances this resulted in the lowering of densities within and around town centres in order to protect character elements such as garden settings.

LEP 2005 adopts a concentric approach to the application of zones as represented in Figure 32. This involves providing opportunities for a fine‐grained concentration of development (both density and mix of land uses) around town centres and transport nodes, while permitting lower density development within the urban/bushland fringe. This approach is consistent with contemporary planning practice and the policy directions of Sydney’s Metropolitan Strategy “City of Cities”, which aim to focus development in existing centres which have good access to services and transport.

Figure 33: Concentric model of urban development in the Blue Mountains

LBC

LG VH/ VT

VTC

LC

EPOS

ROAD/ RAIL CORRIDOR

NATIONAL PARK

NATIONAL PARK

VTC VH LG LC LBC EPOS NATIONAL PARK

KEY TO ZONES

Village – Town Centre

Village – Housing

Living – Genera l

Living – Conserva tion

Living – Bushland Conserva tion

Environmenta l Protec tion – Open Spac e


The promotion of higher intensity development is particularly relevant in the larger district centres of the Blue Mountains, where services and facilities are easily accessed. The strategy will encourage more sustainable land use patterns, reduced reliance on private transport, increased accessibility, and increased activity within town centres. LEP 2005 also aims to promote a mix of uses within town centres and encourages the provision of well designed multi‐dwelling housing within the town centres and on selected sites in the vicinity of major town centres.

The areas around the established town centres, where there are fewer constraints on land in terms of the environment, residential character or infrastructure, are zoned Living – General. This zone aims to encourage the consolidation or redevelopment of land in order to provide a range of alternative housing types, including housing for older people and people with a disability, dual occupancies and granny flats.

Those areas on the periphery of urban settlement and within a bushland setting are zoned at lower densities. The Living – Bushland Conservation zone identifies land with environmental constraints or bushland characteristics. It recognises the limited capacity of this land to support intensive land uses due to a range of issues including infrastructure provision, isolation, exposure to bushfire risk and adverse impacts on the environment and water supply catchments.

The LEP 1991 Residential Bushland Conservation zone is generally located on the periphery of the urban areas and where developed performs a similar zone to the LEP 2005 Living Bushland Conservation Zone. The LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation and Rural Conservation Zone provide for progressively lower intensities of development, consistent with their environmental and rural qualities.

7.2 VILLAGE HIERARCHY

As discussed in Part 3 of this report, the linear development in the Blue Mountains along the Great Western Highway makes it difficult for Council and other government and community agencies to adequately provide community support infrastructure and services across the LGA. Choices must be made between either duplicating services in each township (which would result in an extensive outlay of infrastructure and represents an inefficient use of resources) and selecting a number of key centres in which to provide a greater level of service. In response to this situation, Council has recognised that it must target certain district and local centres for the provision of adequate facilities to meet the needs of its population. The linear nature of urban settlement in the Blue Mountains means that it is an easier task to link these townships by bus and rail public transport as a way of maximising the community’s access to the service centres

Ten primary townships form the urban focus of Council’s residential strategy, building on concepts developed in the Blue Mountains Community Plan and Council’s 25 year Vision and Map for Action. These represent the centres in which key facilities and services may be provided. A hierarchy of district, major and minor service centre reflects the relative role of each centre and the range and scope of services which could be expected to be found at each centre. The service centres are:

• Blackheath‐ major service centre • Katoomba‐ district service centre • Leura‐ minor service centre • Wentworth Falls‐ minor service centre • Lawson‐ major service centre • Hazelbrook‐ minor service centre • Springwood‐ district service centre • Winmalee‐ minor service centre (changing to major service centre)


• Blaxland‐ major service centre • Glenbrook‐ minor service centre.

These are identified in Figure 34

The town centres of Katoomba and Springwood provide citywide services and facilities, serving the Upper and Lower Mountains respectively. One major service centre has been identified for each of the community planning areas. Minor service centres, capable of meeting the day to day social and physical support needs of residents, are also shown.

Figure 34: Major local and district service centres in the Blue Mountains

A key theme of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy “City of Cities” and associated planning documents is the integration of land uses and transport nodes though the selective development of higher intensity compatible land uses in key centres, within walking distance of transport nodes. The concentration of key land uses around major transport nodes creates increased use of public transport, and reduces trip generation as people are more likely to make one trip for a number of purposes. The Strategy also encourages a mix of compatible uses in centres, and the location of centres along major public transport corridors in urban areas.

These principles are mirrored in the choice of service centres in the Blue Mountains. All service centres (with the exception of Winmalee) are located along the Western Railway Line, a major transport corridor, and are within walking distance of the railway station. The service centres cores are generally zoned Village – Town Centre or Village – Neighbourhood Centre, and these zones encourage a variety of land uses, including the highest appropriate density of residential and commercial development. Further, LEP 2005 provided for Accessible Housing Areas located close to the core of the service centres in order to provide accessible housing of seniors and people with disabilities in close proximity to key facilities and services. These are described in more detail in Part 7.5 of this Report.


7.3 RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY

As a corollary to developing a land use structure for the urban areas of the City, an assessment of the residential land supply under the provisions of LEP 2005 has been undertaken. This involved an analysis of approved development (construction certificates) by year, zone and suburb, as well as a recap on the 2002 Residential Development Strategy’s investigation of the supply of vacant and partially developed land that could accommodate future development.

It should be noted that the 2002 assessments aimed to determine the maximum possible development in the future or “highest and best use” in economic terms, within the constraints of a particular zone.

The 2002 assessment complements this Report’s assessment of housing market activity over the past 10 years.

The potential supply of multi‐dwelling and other alternative housing is covered separately in Section 7.5 of this report. The total land stock in these zones was sifted to exclude that land which is not serviced by sewer.

Residential Land Supply Assessment – LEP 2005 lands (2002 analysis)

The 2002 residential land supply assessments were limited to that land proposed to be within the Living – General, Living – Conservation or Living – Bushland Conservation zones of what became LEP 2005. This restricted the search to the lower density residential allotments and it was assumed that each allotment contained a maximum of one dwelling. Additionally, the assessment did not include the LEP 1991 area, which resulted in an understatement of residential land supply. The remaining allotments were then reduced by excluding those with an area of less than 300m2, or an area to perimeter ratio of less than 3:1. This excludes those allotments which were too small or too narrow to be reasonably developed. At the conclusion of this process there were 28,362 remaining allotments which were considered suitable for development based on servicing, size and perimeter. As the next step in estimating future residential land supply, these allotments were then divided into those which were vacant and those which were either partially or fully developed. This was based on a scan of aerial photographs taken in 1999, cross‐checked against Council’s development records and garbage collection database.

Although properties currently on the Sydney Water Corporation’s backlog programme were not included, it was to be noted that they represent an additional 741 allotments that have potential to be developed within the next decade.

Vacant serviced land

Vacant serviced land was divided into that which can be subdivided, based on the relevant zoning and subdivision controls, and that which cannot be further subdivided. The number of existing parcels, together with the notional number of parcels that could be generated if the land were subdivided is shown in Table 34.

A total of 2,399 vacant allotments in the LGA cannot be further subdivided, and could accommodate one dwelling per allotment, irrespective of the relevant zoning and subdivision controls under LEP 2005. These comprise 96.5 per cent of all vacant, sewered and developable allotments (in terms of size and perimeter) in the LGA. A large proportion of these allotments are in Blackheath, Katoomba, Leura and Wentworth Falls.

Table 34: Potential supply of Vacant Serviced Residential Land under LEP 2005 (2002 analysis)


Town Land that cannot be subdivided

Subdividable land Total land

Parcels Parcels Yield after subdivision

Parcels Yield after subdivision

Bell 0 0 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 2 7 106 111 Blackheath 456 9 40 465 496 Total Planning Area 1 560 11 47 571 607

Medlow Bath 0 0 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 13 38 446 471 Leura 280 9 19 289 299 Wentworth Falls 263 15 62 278 325 Total Planning Area 2 976 37 119 1 013 1 095

Bullaburra 56 0 0 56 56 Lawson 131 8 20 139 151 Hazelbrook 171 4 12 175 183 Woodford 91 1 2 92 93 Linden 13 0 0 13 13 Total Planning Area 3 462 13 34 475 496

Faulconbridge 49 3 7 52 56 Springwood 97 8 21 105 118 Valley Heights 25 1 3 26 28 Winmalee 95 1 2 96 97 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 0 0 Total Planning Area 4 266 13 33 279 299

Warrimoo 35 0 0 35 35 Blaxland 36 8 18 44 54 Glenbrook 42 6 47 48 89 Lapstone 4 0 0 4 4 Mount Riverview 18 0 0 18 18 Total Planning Area 5 135 14 65 149 200

LGA TOTAL 2 399 88 298 2 487 2 697

In total, there are 2487 vacant, serviced, developable allotments in the LEP 2005 area, with the potential to accommodate a total of 2697 dwellings.

The stock of developed serviced land was also divided into that which may and may not be further subdivided, based on the relevant zoning and subdivision controls in the LEP 2005. There were 24,923 developed serviced allotments that could not be further subdivided. It is assumed that these have no additional development potential beyond that which was already on the allotment, and therefore make no further contribution to the yield calculations.

From this analysis the developed serviced land within the selected residential zones that could be further subdivided, based on the subdivision provisions and under the LEP 2005, is shown in Table 35.


Table 35: Potential supply of developed serviced land under LEP 2005 (2002 analysis)

Town Land that cannot be subdivided

Subdividable land

Parcels Parcels Yield after subdivision Planning Area 1 Bell 0 0 Mount Victoria 283 36 95 Blackheath 1 914 84 240 Total 2 197 120 335

Planning Area 2 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 3 182 114 329 Leura 1 622 77 140 Wentworth Falls 1 940 122 317 Total 6 744 313 786

Planning Area 3 Bullaburra 386 34 53 Lawson 968 42 64 Hazelbrook 1 607 66 145 Woodford 544 18 35 Linden 53 0 0 Total 3 558 160 297

Planning Area 4 Faulconbridge 1 160 48 184 Springwood 2 634 87 341 Valley Heights 357 1 1 Winmalee 1 944 37 112 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Total Area 4 6 095 173 638

Planning Area 5 Warrimoo 809 4 30 Blaxland 2 400 92 268 Glenbrook 1 681 82 121 Lapstone 346 0 0 Mount Riverview 1 093 8 30 Total Area 5 6 329 186 449

LGA TOTAL Maximum Yield 24 923 952 2 505

At the time there were 952 developed serviced allotments in the selected zones which might be further developed, creating the potential for a total of 2505 additional allotments. The majority of these allotments were in Katoomba, Wentworth Falls, Springwood and Blaxland. Developed serviced land represented almost half of the total potential yield for new dwellings in the selected zones. However, it is emphasised that these subdivisions outcomes are notional, and do not account for all the variables that may apply at the site level. In retrospect it is unlikely that the possible development scenarios on developed land would be realised ,i.e. this assessment therefore represented the upper limit of possible future development, and it is highly unlikely that level of subdivision will be achieved.

Table 36 shows the total supply of land available under the Living – General, Living – Conservation or Living – Bushland Conservation zones of the LEP 2005 by town and Planning Area, based on the above assessment of vacant and developed land, based on realisation of all subdivision opportunities.


Table 36: Residential land stock available under LEP 2005, following subdivision (2005 analysis)

Town Vacant land that cannot be subdivided

Additional land after subdivision

Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels Planning Area 1 Bell 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 102 206 Blackheath 456 280 736 Total 560 382 942

Planning Area 2 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 367 800 Leura 280 159 439 Wentworth Falls 263 379 642 Total 976 905 1 881

Planning Area 3 Bullaburra 56 53 109 Lawson 131 84 215 Hazelbrook 171 157 328 Woodford 91 37 128 Linden 13 0 13 Total 462 331 793

Planning Area 4 Faulconbridge 49 191 240 Springwood 97 362 459 Valley Heights 25 4 29 Winmalee 95 114 209 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Total 266 671 937

Planning Area 5 Warrimoo 35 30 65 Blaxland 36 286 322 Glenbrook 42 168 210 Lapstone 4 0 4 Mount Riverview 18 30 48 Total 135 514 649

LGA TOTAL 2 399 2 803 5 202

The resulting notional land supply figures were intended to give an indication of the potential land supply for additional development under the assumption that the housing market would realise all development opportunities. This is highly unlikely and is certainly an upper limit. A total of 2803 of additional allotments could be created by the subdivision of existing allotments within the Living – General, Living – Conservation and Living – Bushland Conservation zones under the LEP 2005. Thus, the 2002 Residential Development Strategy land assessment found that the land to be affected by then proposed LEP 2005 had the potential, when subdivided, to accommodate a total of 5202 new dwelling houses.

A more realistic assumption would be to assume that over the medium term, a maximum of 20 per cent of subdivision opportunities on existing developed land would be realised (even that figure is probably optimistic). If that revised assumption is applied, the potential number of new dwelling lots would decrease from 5202 to 3198, a reduction of 2004 dwellings, or 38.5%.


Offsetting the reduction in potential new dwellings as a result of the subdivision of developed land is the continued supply of lots from land affected by the LEP 1991. Each year an average of 66 construction certificate approvals for new dwellings have been granted on land in the Residential Bushland Conservation and Bushland Conservation zones of LEP 1991 since 2000/1. As assessment of the capacity of LEP 1991 lands to supply land for residential development is beyond the scope of this Report, but should be carried out because of its continuing role in supplying land for housing.


7.4 LAND AND DWELLING DEMAND

2002 Projections

The 2002 Residential Development Review assessed housing demand based on 1998 rates of development, and determined that the land stock proposed under the then proposed LEP would allow for the development of new detached dwellings until 2019. In 2019 the capacity of the Blue Mountains urban land stock was forecast to be exhausted. There was some variation between the Planning Areas, with Planning Area 4 reaching capacity in the year 2012.

The 2002 Review concluded that after 2019 the majority of additional residential development potential would be in the form of the redevelopment of existing residential areas for smaller housing options, particularly as the demographics of the population change and the demand increases for other housing options.

Table 37: 2002 projections of Residential Land Supply Over Time

Planning Area Land Stock under LEP 2005* Indicative year when capacity reached Number Lots Rate per year**

Planning Area 1 942 45 2019

Planning Area 2 1 881 110 2016




Total 5 202 305 2019

Adjusted total with reduced subdivision of developed land***

3 198 305 2012

Note: * this table does not include residential land supply by LEP 1991 lands; **the rate per year used was based on 1998 approvals; ***the adjusted total assumes only 20% of developed land subdivision potential is realised

2009 Demand Analysis

Table 38 shows the number of construction certificates approved in each Planning Area over the past 9 years for the LEP 2005 and LEP 1991 lands. It should be noted that there is a small amount of double counting in these figures due to approvals being issued to some developments on land which is affected by two zones and the inclusion of a relatively small number of alternative housing approvals, thus these figures represent a slight over count, not an undercount, of actual approvals. It can be seen that actual average demand is 229 new dwelling approvals each year. This is considerably less than the 305 approvals per year assumed by the 2002 analysis. Only Planning Area 5 has exceeded the 2002 estimates by a small margin.

Table 38: Construction Certificate approvals by Planning Area by Year

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total Average Area 1 38 34 37 48 39 16 19 15 18 264 29

Area 2 84 118 102 94 70 61 52 33 40 654 73

Area 3 55 48 39 53 44 29 27 27 21 343 38

Area 4 43 74 101 72 39 21 35 24 20 429 48

Area 5 41 44 45 86 39 22 45 24 28 374 42

Total 261 318 324 353 231 149 178 123 127 2064 229

Source: BMCC 2009


The above figures count only construction certificate approvals, not dwelling completions. This is because some approved dwellings do not proceed to construction. In addition, the above figures do not take into account new dwellings which might replace existing dwellings (“knock down, rebuilds”).

The total number of construction certificates for new dwellings is the LGA is the sum of construction certificate approvals in the LEP 1991 and LEP 2005 lands. The average number of construction certificates approved for detached dwellings in the LEP 1991 lands is 66 per year, and in the LEP 2005 lands it is 163 per year, making a total of 229 detached dwellings approved each year.

The remaining capacity of land for detached dwellings in the LEP 2005 lands can be calculated dividing the number of potential dwelling lots by the average number of construction certificates approved each year, as follows: Potential detached housing lots in 2002 3198 Average detached dwelling construction certificates approved per year in LEP 2005 lands 163 Years of supply from 2002 until capacity is reached= 3198/163 19.6

Existing capacity will be reached in 2022, on this basis

If only undeveloped serviced land (i.e. subdivision of existing developed land is not included) is considered:

Potential lots on undeveloped serviced land 2697 Average detached dwelling construction certificates approved per year in LEP 2005 lands 163 Year of supply from 2002 until capacity is reached= 2697/163 16.5

Existing capacity will be reached in 2019, on this basis

Note: this is an estimate based on a range of assumptions which may or may not eventuate; accordingly it should not be used as definitive or upon which to base investment decisions.

This means that there is around 10‐13 years supply of land for new detached housing remaining in the LEP 2005 lands. The LEP 1991 lands would provide a further supply. However the extent of this supply has not as yet been evaluated.

The table below is based on net new water connections. Thus, it only counts completed dwellings and only counts additions to the detached dwellings stock. Multiunit (alternative) dwellings will be considered in the next section of this Report. Over the period 1998/98‐2007/08 the average net additional detached houses has been 151 per year. This is half the figure assumed in the 2002 analysis and less than the number of construction certificates approved. Because net connections counts actual connections, not approvals, it provides a more accurate count of the net addition to dwelling stocks. In the past 5 years the rate of connections has slowed, with only 107 net additional connections to detached dwelling houses per year, which is one third the demand estimated in 2002. This means that the supply of land for housing is likely to last longer than the estimates calculated above.

Table 39: Net Water Connections by Planning Area by Year 1998/9 1999/0 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Total Av

Area 1 27 33 33 19 21 15 13 8 15 11 194 19Area 2 53 74 64 55 59 26 34 18 46 32 461 46Area 3 33 51 64 33 22 19 16 21 31 18 308 31Area 4 62 57 37 31 45 24 19 17 19 25 336 34Area 5 29 16 21 21 16 10 53 9 21 14 210 21Total 204 231 218 159 163 93 135 73 132 100 1,509 151

Source: BMCC, 2009


7.5 ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SUPPLY

The provision of an increased range of housing choice across the Blue Mountains is an important objective of LEP 2005. The 2002 RDS sought to promote opportunities for greater housing choice in locations close to local and district service centres, which have access to an appropriate range of services and facilities. These opportunities aimed to allow for larger scale redevelopment, particularly on large vacant lands, as well as fine‐grained infill development within existing residential areas and promotion of opportunities for re‐use of existing housing stock.

Elements of LEP 2005 and “overriding” State Government SEPPs that address alternative housing provision include the following:

• Dual occupancy development (attached and detached) is permissible in the Village Town Centre, Village Tourist, Village Housing, Living General and Employment Enterprise zones. This allows for the redevelopment of residential areas in close proximity to local service centres and facilities. Controls on the form and location of dual occupancies encourage the retention of streetscape dominated by single detached houses and the retention of a range of housing types. Since the gazettal of LEP 2005 the State Government has introduced the Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) which has extended the ability to develop infill housing and secondary dwellings to all residential zones, provided they meet certain criteria.

• “Granny flats” are a permissible use in all Living and Village zones, excluding the Village Neighbourhood Centre zone. Additionally they are permissible in the Employment Enterprise zone. This promotes the re‐use and modification of the existing housing stock to meet the housing needs of residents in a small scale way. The State Government’s Affordable Rental Housing SEPP has extended the ability to develop secondary dwellings to all residential zones, provided they meet certain criteria.

• Provision is made for housing for older people and people with a disability in a number of defined ‘Accessible Housing Areas’ surrounding the major service centres in the Blue Mountains, including areas within the Village Town Centre, Village Tourist, Village Housing, Living General zones. In addition, a limited number of larger self‐contained developments are permissible in other locations. The State Government’s SEPP for Seniors and People with a Disability has extended the ability for housing developments for this target group to be approved in any residential zone if they meet the SEPP guidelines.

• Boarding houses are permitted in all Village zones as well as the Living‐ General zone. The State Government’s Affordable Housing SEPP extends the ability of Boarding Houses to be approved in all residential and some business zones, provided they meet certain criteria.

• Multiunit dwellings (including medium density housing) are permissible in the Village‐Town Centre, Village‐ Tourist, and Village Housing zones. These zones are located so as to be easily accessible to the local and district centres, and will allow for their redevelopment at greater residential densities. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP has extended the ability of infill multiunit dwellings to be approved in all residential zones, provided they meet certain criteria.

• The Village Town Centre zoning promote opportunities for mixed‐use residential and commercial development and alternative housing types within the village centres.


• Village‐specific development control provisions‐ “locality provisions”‐ have been prepared to enable the cohesive development of villages as these zones are applied.

Table 40 shows notional figures based on scenarios of maximum possible development or 100 per cent take‐up rate. The table has been updated to show the actual numbers of alternative new dwellings which have been developed. The rate of development of alternative dwellings has been an average of 58 dwellings per year over the last ten years. This is a low rate of development.

Table 40: Potential yield and actual development of alternative housing under LEP 2005

Town Dual Occupancies

(Dwellings)

Accessible Housing / Multi

dwelling housing (No. of dwellings)

Total potential alternative housing

capacity (No. of dwellings)

Alternative dwellings

developed

1998‐2008

(net new connections)

Average alternative dwellings developed per year

1998‐2008

(rounded) Mount Victoria 54 23 77 0 0 Blackheath 9 238 247 5 1 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 0 0 Katoomba 101 635 736 111 11 Leura 26 225 251 90 9 Wentworth Falls 3 130 133 65 7 Bullaburra 0 0 0 1 0 Lawson 14 171 185 7 1 Hazelbrook 5 173 178 31 3 Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 Linden 0 0 0 0 0 Faulconbridge 161 0 161 6 1 Springwood* 98 945 1043 166 17 Winmalee 57 30 87 13 1 Yellow Rock/ Hwksby Hts 0 0 0 0 0 Valley Heights 0 0 0 3 0 Warrimoo 16 0 16 4 0 Blaxland 250 363 613 45 5 Mount Riverview 22 0 22 0 0 Glenbrook 14 55 69 38 4 Lapstone 0 0 0 2 0 TOTAL 830 2988 3818 581 58

*Includes St Columba's site

The 2002 RDS noted that the take‐up rate for alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains has been considerably below the level expected. It also identified that the opportunities for alternative housing development under the then existing planning instrument (LEP 4) were significantly higher than that permitted under the proposed LEP 2005. Under LEP 4 there was total area of 2,377,057m2 where alternative housing could be approved compared to 821,179m2 proposed under LEP 2005. The 2002 RDS concluded that the rate of development of alternative development was function of demand and net returns based on land value and unit price, and that if land supply became further restricted, and demographic shifts altered housing demand, the take‐up rate was likely to increase.

To date, the conclusion of the 2002 RDS in relation to the rate of development has not been reflected in actual development trends. The production of alternative dwellings has stayed at low levels (if not declined) despite the good performance of the Blue Mountains housing market (relative to the Sydney market) and the demography of the LGA.

This outcome has occurred despite the broad development capability assessment of the total area zoned for alternative housing forms that was undertaken during the preparation of LEP 2005. It indicated that some 218,948m2 was available for alternative housing development in the Village


zones. This assessment is reviewed below in the light of the actual development that has occurred since the LEP 2005 was gazetted.

The low take up of alternative dwelling development opportunities is a matter of considerable concern. There appears to be a serious mismatch between housing supply and demand in the Blue Mountains, and existing policy settings do not appear to be rectifying the problem.

7.6 VILLAGE HOUSING SITES

The Village‐Housing zone of LEP 2005 identifies sites suitable for the development of alternative forms of housing at higher densities. Sites that are vacant or under developed have site‐specific provisions that aim to ensure development responds to the particular characteristics and constraints of the locality.

The following section and analysis draws heavily on that undertaken in preparation for the LEP 2005, and reviews this information to test is current validity.

The cumulative research, consultation, public inquiry and review process that underpinned LEP 2005 Village‐Housing sites were based on land suitability and capability. These factors were based on both environmental and locational constraints, including:

• Slope • Drainage • Significant flora and fauna habitats • Infrastructure provision • Proximity to a town centre • Proximity to an employment node • Proximity to public transport.

The Village Housing sites are located within a walkable catchment of the ten major town centres, thereby being close to services, facilities and public transport. The sites all have characteristics that will lend themselves to the development of a range of housing types, and will go some way to meeting the housing needs of the Blue Mountains community, and consistent with State policy. Site specific or place‐based provisions exist to guide the detail of development in each of the precincts.

Potential yields are indicative and are based on a number of key assumptions. The methodology adopted involved first calculating the total zoned area for each precinct, as shown below. Certain areas needed to be excluded from the total zoned areas, being sites that either cannot, or are highly unlikely to be, developed for the purposes of alternative housing.

The following lands were excluded from yield calculations:

• well established residential areas, where it was considered unlikely that widespread redevelopment would take place due to the value of existing dwellings and the extent of existing development;

• heritage items and conservation areas, in which redevelopment and infill development are restricted by the need to preserve heritage buildings;

• Protected Areas; • areas of existing higher density housing, which are unlikely to be redeveloped in the near

future; • areas of recognised housing character; and • roads.


Once these excluded lands were calculated, the total exclusions were deducted from the total area, resulting in the gross available area for each town. The gross available area was then multiplied by the floor space ratio (FSR) prescribed by the locality provisions within LEP 2005. The resulting figure is termed the gross useable area (GUA), and represents the total floor space available for alternative housing in each precinct.

In some cases, it was difficult to clearly determine the excluded area. An assumption was made on the amount of land likely to become available for development. This assumption factored in parameters such as proximity to a town centre, expected demand for alternative housing in the area, and opportunities to consolidate small lots to achieve an optimum development area.

From this point two main assumptions were used to calculate the number of housing units that could be developed in each precinct. Firstly, the GUA is likely to be reduced by a number of factors specific to each site, such as stairwells, lift wells, and other common requirements for such developments. To take this variable into account, a deduction of 10 per cent was made from the GUA, resulting in an estimated net useable area (NUA) for each precinct. The NUA was used to generate a maximum unit yield, based on an assumed average unit size of 115m2. The average unit size was the second main assumption, and is based on a standard figure for unit size, determined through discussions and consultation with assessment staff.

The resulting figure is the maximum unit yield likely to occur in each town, given the constraints to development posed by existing land uses and zonings, heritage, protected areas, FSR and site‐specific development requirements. The maximum yield represents the full extent of alternative housing possible in each precinct under the LEP 2005. Actual take‐up rates are likely to be much less than this, because of owners may not have propensity to develop the site, and wider housing market fluctuations, local and regional trends, and changing housing demands, to name but a few factors.

The Village Housing precincts are listed and discussed below individually. Note: North is always to the top of the maps.

VH‐BH01

Situated adjacent to Blackheath Village, this precinct is also close to the railway station. The precinct is unconstrained by slope, heritage, vegetation and other factors, and is an appropriate location for further development. The majority of properties are currently developed, although there are a small number of vacant sites.

Potential Yield

Zoned site area: 13,511m2

FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 No FSR. Max site coverage 50%)

Net unit yield: 17

Actual 2009

One 2 storey development 4 units. The Department of housing is constructing a 7 unit development.


VH‐BH02

This precinct is situated within walking distance of Blackheath Village, and opposite a large park. Currently on the site are a multi‐unit Department of Housing development and a large private residence. The site has no major constraints and is well placed for alternative housing development. Potential Yield

Zoned site area: 1,716m2

FSR: 0.5:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 1:1)

Net unit yield: N/A Actual 2009

Built out except for single storey shop in the lot at the corner of Hat Hill Rd and Wentworth Street

VH‐KA01 – Orient Street

Situated within level walking distance of Katoomba town centre, this site is vacant land within a prominent location on the eastern approach to Katoomba. The location and relatively unconstrained nature of the land presents as an opportunity to provide well placed alternative housing forms. Potential Yield

Zoned Site Area: 4,007m2

FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.6:1)

Net Yield: 18 units Actual 2009

Vacant site. Now affected by road works.


VH‐KA02 – Great Western Highway

This area has a number of vacant parcels of land. There are minimal environmental constraints and the precinct is within level walking distance to Katoomba Town Centre. The sloping nature of the land allows for development to be staggered, thereby minimising the bulk and scale of future development. Sensitive redevelopment of this area may improve the eastern approach to Katoomba. The site presents as a contained precinct, due to the topography and a variety of adjoining land uses. Urban form is encouraged to respond to the topography and the existing period housing within the area, through design controls. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.6:1)


No alternative housing development. Either vacant or older development, largely detached houses Currently affected by roadworks along Great Western Highway frontage. One vacant site has approval for a single detached dwelling

VH‐KA03 –Dora Street

Adjoining Precinct VH‐KA02, this precinct is set within a valley. The land is already cleared, and contains a mix of housing forms of various periods and a number of vacant lots. The precinct is adjoined by a number of existing multi‐unit dwellings. The site is within close proximity to public transport services and Katoomba town centre. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 0.6:1)


A single storey occupy development of two detached dwellings, and a multiple occupancy development of four single storey detached dwellings


VH‐KA04 – Renaissance Centre

There is a large area of undeveloped land at the rear of the Renaissance Centre/ Edge Cinema. This area is relatively level and is within close proximity to Katoomba Town Centre. The Renaissance Centre is a heritage item and new development on the site must be responsive to the prominence of the building and the positive amenity that the building imparts to adjoining areas. Any development should not obscure the highly articulated facades and turrets of the heritage building. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.8:1 (LEP 2005 0.8:1)


Undeveloped. Largely occupied by vacant school premises

VH‐KA05 – Lurline and Vale Streets

A portion of this precinct is zoned EP in recognition of steep slopes. This is one instance where Commissioner Carleton’s recommendation in relation to Village Housing application has been overridden, due to site attributes that outweigh slope conditions on the site. The slope within the vicinity is not accompanied by additional environmental factors such as watercourses or significant vegetation. The site is adjacent to Katoomba Town Centre, and adjoins a precinct predominated by three storey guesthouses. The site’s location adjacent to a park provides mutual benefits in terms of amenity for residents and increased safety for park users, due to observation opportunities from living areas of the village housing development. Potential Yield Zoned Site Area: 9,341m2 FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 0.6:1) Net Yield: N/A Actual 2009 Three multiple dwelling developments on three larger lots. Three small lots adjacent to William St remain to be redeveloped.


VH‐KA06 – Lurline Street

This area adjoins Katoomba Town Centre. The precinct contains a number of higher density housing forms with idiosyncratic themes, many being boarding houses or guest houses built in the 1920s and 1930s. There remain a few opportunities for consolidated development within this area. This represents an efficient use of services and infrastructure. Potential Yield


FSR: 1:1 (LEP 2005 1:1)


No new development apparent.

VH‐KA07Cascade & Parke Street

This area adjoins the western edge of Katoomba Town Centre and presents a lower scale form of residential development. The area can be considered a transitional zone with a number of professional offices scattered within the precinct. There are a number of vacant sites that present good opportunities for the location of alternative housing forms in close proximity to shops and infrastructure. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.5:1 (LEP 2005 0.5:1)


One development between Park and Cascade Streets consisting of six semi‐attached dwelling units (note: this development is pre LEP 2005)

VH‐KA08 Cnr Great western Highway and Camp St Precinct

This site is largely occupied by the Alpine Motor Inn and associated buildings

Not included in 2002 assessment Potential yield

LEP 2005 Max site coverage 50% Actual 2009

No redevelopment


VH‐LE01 – Grose Street

This site is within a short level walk to Leura shops, is part of a transitional area between residential and business land uses, and has deep level lots. There are no environmental constraints on the land. Provisions within Draft LEP 2002 require that the existing residential character at the front of the lots be maintained. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 0.6:1)


Most of the site has been redeveloped and is occupied by a cluster housing development of eight two storey detached and duplex style dwellings

VH‐LE02 – Wascoe Street

This site adjoins the rear of Leura shops. The site has been reduced from the Multi‐unit housing site proposed in the area under Draft LEP 1997. This is due to the presence of a hanging swamp to the north of the site and recommendations from Commissioner Carleton. The precinct area contains Protected Areas, and provisions and management measures will serve to provide a buffer for the hanging swamp and watercourses within the area. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 0.6:1)


Most of this area has not been redeveloped.

A two storey development of five attached dwelling units in Wascoe Street (with approval for an additional eight units), and a two storey development of three attached dwellings in Quinns Lane.


VH‐LE03 – Eastern Edge

This precinct defines the eastern edge of the Leura Village centre and serves as a transition between the retail core and adjacent residential areas. It accommodates a mix of land uses, including commercial and home‐based employment activities. There are no slope or vegetation constraints on the precinct; however the majority of existing dwellings are listed heritage items. Future development in the precinct will need to allow sufficient curtilage to protect the significance of heritage items.

Potential Yield

Zoned Site Area: 15,990 m2

FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 50% site coverage)

Net Unit Yield: 17

Actual 2009

No redevelopment

VH‐WF01 – Adele Street

The Adele Street site is currently vacant and provides a rare opportunity for development within close proximity to the village. The site is unconstrained by environmental factors and is within walking distance of the town centre. Provisions for the site require the retention of the existing pines, in order to maintain the vegetated presentation of the site to the highway.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.5:1 9 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.5:1)

Net Yield: 33 units

Actual 2009:

The site is vacant


VH‐WF02 – Page Street

This precinct contains a number of existing multi unit housing developments. There are opportunities within the precinct to consolidate this form of land use. Given the restricted opportunities within close proximity for multi unit housing within Wentworth Falls, this presents an efficient use of services and infrastructure. The site is within close proximity to shops and transport. There are opportunities for development to be screened from the Great Western Highway, through the retention of the heritage item and appropriate curtilage to the north of the site.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.5:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.5:1)

Net Yield: 6 units

Actual 2009

Most of the site is occupied by a two storey attached housing development with 15 units, and another of 4 units.

VH‐LA01 – San Jose Avenue

This site contains a significant heritage item and is within a locality with strong historic associations represented through the built form. The site was nominated for Village Housing with a view to promoting its revitalisation through appropriate and sympathetic design. The provisions within the design controls for the precinct reflect the imperative for good design. Commissioner Carleton concurred with the use of the site for multi unit housing. The site is within close proximity to Lawson shops and public transport.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 0.6:1)

Net Yield: 16 units

Actual 2009

The site is vacant


VH‐LA02 – Loftus Street

This site also contains heritage items, and as a result, precinct provisions for design control on the site encourage responsive design that maintains the heritage significance of the buildings. The site is relatively level and within close proximity to shops and transport. The site represents an efficient use of infrastructure and services.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.5:1 (LEP 2005 0.5:1)

Net Yield: 9 units

Actual 2009

The site is vacant

VH‐LA03 – Village Housing

This precinct is situated immediately south of the regional transport corridor in Lawson, on Yileena Avenue and Waratah Street. Some minor slope constraints apply within the precinct; however there are no major development constraints. There are a number of vacant allotments within the precinct.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 50 per cent site coverage)

Net Yield: 54 units

Actual 2009

Little redevelopment.

One medium density development of 13 units between Honour and Yileena Avenues.

One older single storey cluster style development on Waratah St (public housing). One medium density development off Benang Street has been dcommissed by DoH..


VH‐HB01 – Glendarrah Street

The village housing zone in Hazelbrook reflects existing zoning under LEP 4, and the zoning proposed in Draft LEP 1997. The site is relatively level and within close proximity to services, shops and transport. Hazelbrook has a negligible amount of alternative housing types. The local centre facilities are adequate to meet the daily needs of the local community. The proposed zoning provides opportunities for multi‐unit housing in an unconstrained location.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.6:1)

Net Yield: 101 units

Actual 2009

Partial redevelopment

Two cluster style developments including one single storey of six duplexes comprising 12 dwellings, and a single storey development of five duplexes comprising 10 dwellings. It is unlikely to reach the maximum 2002 identified yield.

VH‐HB02 – Addington Road

This precinct is situated on the opposite side of the Highway from the Hazelbrook Village centre, and has good access to the railway station. The precinct has no major constraints and is considered appropriate for further development.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 50% site coverage)

Net Yield: 27 units

Actual 2009

Little redevelopment. One older single storey attached four dwelling development, and one single storey development comprising two duplexes (i.e. 4 dwellings in total)


VH‐SPGEN – General Village Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1

Net Yield: 0 units

N/A

VH‐SP01 – Ferguson Road

This precinct is situated between the Great Western Highway and railway line and is adjacent to the Springwood Town Centre. No significant constraints apply to the site. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 maximum 50 per cent site coverage)

Net Yield: 18 units

Actual 2009

Partial redevelopment has occurred. Two newer and two older style two storey “flat” developments. The area has some mixed use.

VH‐SP02 – Western

This precinct is located immediately west of the railway line on Macquarie Road. Minor slope constraints apply to the easternmost portion of the site; however the site is not affected by any other constraints. Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 Maximum 50 per cent site coverage)

Net Yield: 15 units

Actual 2009

Partial redevelopment. Two developments comprising generally two storey attached dwellings, one development of three dwellings and the other of eight dwellings. Some mixed use in the area. The target net yield will probably be exceeded over time.


VH‐SP03 – Southern

This precinct is situated immediately south of the Springwood town centre and Highway, and south‐east of the railway station. A number of buildings exist in the precinct; however it is dominated by open forest woodlands. A riparian corridor and its ecological buffer area affect the central and south‐western portion of the precinct, and many parts are constrained by slope. The Protected Areas– Ecological Buffer Area and Slope Constraint Area‐ therefore apply to the site, mostly in the central and south‐western portions. Future development of the precinct is to be confined to the street frontage, avoiding disturbance to the steeper wooded slopes.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 30 per cent maximum site coverage)

Net Yield: 47 units

Actual 2009

No redevelopment. Two single level attached dwelling developments are located in Springwood Ave and probably predate the 2005 LEP. About one quarter of the developable part of the site is occupied by a large electricity substation.

VH‐SP04 – Eastern

This precinct is situated adjacent to Buckland Park and forms the eastern gateway to the Springwood town centre. It has immediate access to the Great Western Highway and is within walking distance of the railway station. An Ecological Buffer Area applies to the southernmost edge of the precinct due to its proximity to significant vegetation, and minor slope constraints apply to the northern precinct boundary. The site is currently used for multi‐unit housing and commercial purposes.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 29 units

Actual 2009

The eastern side of Hawkesbury Rd has been redeveloped around the existing church with 11 two storey buildings containing 30 retirement units, and development of 4 units. The western side is occupied by a car yard and a range of other commercial uses.


VH‐BX01 – Layton Avenue

The Layton Avenue site encourages redevelopment of a number of lots in order to provide alternative housing types within a location that is adjacent to the Blaxland commercial centre. Site responsive development may improve the amenity of the location.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 0.5:1)

Net Yield: 48 units

Actual 2009

The southern side of Layton Avenue is occupied by a new Macdonalds outlet. There has been no redevelopment on the northern side of Layton Avenue.

A development of 4 units has been approved.

VH‐BX02 – Wilson Way

The Wilson Way site provides one of the few opportunities left within the Mountains for the development of a large site. The bushland character intrinsic to many Lower Mountains towns is to be protected through provisions requiring low impact design and integration of landscape elements within the site. The site is a rare opportunity for Village housing type developments, being a large undeveloped parcel of land within the suburban footprint of Blaxland. The site is within close proximity to Blaxland East and Blaxland shops, services and transport.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.6:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.6:1)

Net Yield: 99 units

Actual 2009

This site is being redeveloped with 33 lot detached housing estate. The target yield will not be reached.


VH‐BX03 – Hope Street

This site has a current approval for 43 dwellings. The site is within close proximity to services and transport.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.15:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.15:1 Maximum dwellings, 43)

Net Yield: 40 units

Actual 2009

The site has been redevelopment with 39 detached dwellings on small lots.

VH‐BX04 – Village Housing

This precinct is situated on Hope Street opposite the Blaxland Village centre, and has good access to the railway station and Highway. Slope constraints apply to the southern central portion of the precinct, which is also protected by an Ecological Buffer Area due to the presence of open forest and proximity to a riparian corridor. Development and site works will be situated close to Hope Street to protect this area.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 48 units

Actual 2009

Much of the site has been redeveloped with a mixture of one and two storey attached dwellings. It is likely the target yield will be achieved.

Village – Tourist precincts are a similar source of alternative housing, and are considered in tandem with the Village – Housing precincts. The Village – Tourist precincts are listed and discussed below.


VT‐MV01 – Station Street

This precinct comprises a number of land parcels adjacent to Mount Victoria Park and at the intersection of Station Street and Harley Avenue. No major constraints apply to the precinct.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 10 units

Actual 2009

No development has occurred

VT‐MV02 – Harley Avenue

This precinct is situated either side of Harley Avenue and is bounded by the Great Western Highway to the south and the railway to the north. Much of the area is cleared and undeveloped. There are minor slope constraints in parts of the precinct, however there are no other development constraints.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 13 units

Actual 2009

No redevelopment has occurred. Part of the site is occupied by a large electricity substation.


VT‐MB01 – Great Western Highway

This precinct applies to a number of small allotments fronting the Great Western Highway in Medlow Bath, which form a strip along the western Highway boundary opposite Medlow Park. The Hydro Majestic Hotel is the dominant land use within this precinct. Slope constraints apply to the rear of the allotments.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.4:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.4:1)

Net Yield: 0 units

Actual 2009

No redevelopment has occurred.

VT‐KA01 – Lurline Street South

This precinct applies to the blocks immediately east of Katoomba Street between Birdwood Avenue and Merriwa Street. The area is currently dominated by detached residential dwellings. A Period Housing Area applies to the whole of the precinct, and the southernmost allotments are also significant for their visual prominence. A number of properties within the area, particularly those fronting Lurline Street, are heritage items. The area provides a location for the future provision of tourist accommodation and alternative housing.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.35:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.35:1)

Net Yield: 47 units

Actual 2009

Almost no redevelopment has taken place. Any redevelopment appears to have been constructed prior to the LEP2005.


VT‐KA02 – Lurline Street North

This precinct consists of a number of properties fronting Katoomba Street and Lurline Street, between Clissold Street to the north and Coomonderry Street to the south. The precinct has a mixture of commercial and residential land uses, and some allotments fall within a Period Housing Area. Slope constraints also apply to a number of properties, while a number are heritage items or are within the Katoomba Heritage Conservation Area. Consolidation of existing development in the area enables the further provision of alternative housing and encouragement of tourism.

Potential Yield


FSR: 0.8:1 (LEP 2005 FSR 0.8:1)

Net Yield: 14 units

Actual 2009

Very little redevelopment has occurred. There is some redevelopment in the northwestern corner of the precinct, however generally this appears to have been developed prior to the LEP 2005.

Katoomba Precinct VT‐KA03‐ Gang Gang Street East Precinct (not included in 2002 assessment)

LEP 2005 50 per cent maximum site coverage

Actual 2009

No redevelopment. The site is largely occupied by a guest home and an aged persons home.

VT‐LE01 – Leura Gateway

This precinct is situated adjacent to the Great Western Highway and railway, and forms the northern gateway into Leura. Slope constraints apply to a portion of the precinct, and a number of properties are heritage items or are within a heritage conservation area. New development within this precinct is to be sensitive to historic land uses and environmental constraints.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 107 units

Actual 2009

No redevelopment. The site has been affected by road works until late 2009. The southeastern portion of the site has been redeveloped as “The Spires” – serviced apartments


VT‐LE02 – Southern Tourist

This precinct is located south of Leura Mall and north of Bloome Park, and provides a transition between the retail core and adjacent residential areas. The precinct has good transport access. A number of properties within the precinct are heritage items or are in heritage conservation areas, and minor slope constraints apply to the site boundaries. Much of the precinct is currently developed for residential purposes.

Potential Yield



Net Yield: 4 units

Actual 2009

One minor redevelopment (duplex) appears to have occurred.

It can be seen from the individual assessments that very little redevelopment had occurred in the Village Housing precincts by late 2009. In many cases this is because of the fragmentation of land ownership, and the nature of existing uses (such as electricity substations), and the presence of heritage buildings and environmental constraints. In a few cases redevelopment has occurred at densities less than maximum permitted. In one case, detached housing has been developed on land suitable from medium density housing, effectively squandering a scarce resource.

The relatively low land values in the Blue Mountains constrain the investment return of housing developers. Whilst land values will increase over time, and accordingly increase the attractiveness of alternative housing development, it will also have an adverse impact on housing affordability.

7.7 ACCESSIBLE HOUSING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ALTERNATIVE HOUSING

LEP 2005 makes provision for “accessible housing”, which is alternative housing for the aged and for people with disabilities. “Accessible housing” areas are usually found close to town centres and cover a larger area than that in which other alternative housing is permitted. In many locations, the accessible housing areas are an extension of the village housing precincts.

The research undertaken to produce this Report strongly indicates that there is a mismatch between housing supply and demand in the Blue Mountains, and that this mismatch is most evident in the low take up of alternative housing.

One strategy to increase the supply of alternative housing is to permit it over a wider spatial area. This would permit more market choice and allow prospective developers to access a greater range of sites for potential development. Given the constraints to development on many of the sites on which alternative housing is permitted under LEP 2005, such as land ownership fragmentation, existing uses, heritage items and environmental matters, providing a wider range of possible sites for alternative housing would provide more options for the development industry to produce available product.

The accessible housing areas were chosen after considerable research during the development of the LEP 2005. Accessible housing has a similar built form to alternative housing (often it is only the age of the occupants that is the only difference) and accordingly alternative housing should be an


acceptable built form in these locations. The Blue Mountains has a rigorous development assessment procedure and has comprehensive development guidelines contained within the Better Living Development Control Plan which further safeguard the community against inappropriate built form.

7.8 POPULATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DWELLING PRODUCTION AND OCCUPANCY

The average number of people occupying each house in the Blue Mountains is reducing. In 1991 it was 2.78 people per dwelling, in 1996 2.67, in 2001 2.59 and in 2006 2.52. It will continue to decline in the future on the basis of current and likely future trends. Over the past 10 years the occupancy rate of decline has slowed, such that the occupancy rate is likely to decline by 0.06 to 2.46 people per dwelling in 2010.

On the basis of these figures, the rate of decline over the past four years is expected to average 0.015 people per dwelling per year. This means that the LGA dwelling stock of 28309 dwellings will house 1699 less people, or that 690 dwellings will need to be constructed to house the level population that was present in 2006. In other words just over 172 dwellings will need to be constructed each year to house the same population level as in 2006. The average rate of production of housing over the past 4 years is around 150 dwellings per year. If this dwelling production rate is not increased the population of the Blue Mountains will probably decline due to a lack of housing for residents.

The LEP 2005 was intended to provide housing choice consistent with maintaining the social, economic and environmental values of the Blue Mountains. The 2002 Residential Strategy upon which the residential components of LEP 2005 is based was premised on an increased take up of alternative housing forms. Alternative housing development has not occurred to the extent necessary to deliver the population objectives of the Strategy. In turn, this weakens the social and economic objectives of LEP 2005, as will be discussed below.

7.9 CONCLUSION

The 2002 RDS built on the 1997 RDS to promote urban settlement in a manner that achieves a balance between environmental management, character protection and adequate housing provision. It sought to achieve this through the use of improved mapping techniques, character assessment studies and a fine‐grained approach to zoning for higher density residential sites.

The 2002 RDS also sought to assess the supply and demand of sites for detached housing. The 2009 Review found that the actual rate of development has been significantly lower than that projected in 2002. Further, the estimates of potential development sites, particularly subdivision of already developed sites, had been optimistic. Accordingly there is likely to be a much lower availability of land for detached housing than estimated in 2002.

The 2009 Review has also identified that the LEP 1991 lands ‐particularly that zoned Residential Bushland Conservation‐ has supplied an average of close to 30 per cent of the sites upon which dwelling approvals have been made over the past nine years. This was not taken into account in the 2002 RDS analysis.

The 2009 Review of the RDS has confirmed the need to better align the Blue Mountains’ housing stock with changing household structures reflective in population trends.


In the LEP 2005 the Village Housing zone was applied to selected sites that are considered appropriate for higher densities, due to their location and capacity for development. The Village Housing zones are restricted to larger towns, where an appropriate array of services and facilities are available. The aim was more intensive housing within close proximity to existing service centres. The 2009 Review of these sites found that very little (re)development had occurred, and much of the (re)development that was evident has been constructed before the LEP 2005 came into force.

In conclusion, while there were limitations in the methodology on the 2002 RDS, the general conclusions of the 2002 RDS are sound. The Blue Mountains has a very limited supply of new land for housing. The LGA will become increasing dependent on infill and redevelopment to supply housing for its community.

However, the rate of development of alternative housing is low, and this needs to be increased if the LGA is to supply housing to meet the needs of its community, both in terms of a need for new housing and also to realign its housing stock to cater for demographic change.

This 2009 update of the RDS indicates that the Principles of the 2002 RDS (shown below) are still valid, and that they should continue to provide the basis of the residential development strategy for the Blue Mountains. However, the first principle relating to land acquisition is unclear and should be deleted as a principle for future strategy.

The 2002 RDS principles and desired outcomes (BMCC, 1996:6‐7), were as follows:

• There are no large‐scale proposals for the acquisition of land to prevent development, where that land is currently zoned for residential development.

• The strategy will seek to provide for a range of accessible, diverse and affordable housing options to meet the needs of the local community.

• It is not appropriate that the strategy seek to accommodate an increased share of the growth of the Sydney region due to its peripheral location within that region, the sensitivity of the natural systems, and the inadequacies of the urban infrastructure.

• The capacity of the land to accommodate development is primarily based upon the physical characteristics of the land, the character of the landscape and townscape, the availability of service infrastructure, and the location and accessibility of the land relative to village and other uses.

• The strategy seeks to encourage a diverse range of land uses within the town and village centres to facilitate accessibility.

• The strategy provides for the highest population densities in and next to the village centres. This concentration allows the services and facilities available in these centres to be developed to a higher level and to be more fully utilised by the population.

• To provide development guidelines for multiunit housing which have less emphasis on the definition of various types of multiunit housing, but instead concentrate on the quality of design outcomes, including the desired future character of localities.

• Discourage intensification of development in peripheral locations and review the capacity of some of the land in these locations to sustain the level of development currently envisaged.

However, research undertaken to inform the update demonstrates that a number of these policy objectives are not being achieved to an adequate extent. Others, such as the development of new development guidelines (in the form of the Better Living DCP) has been implemented. Action is required to improve the rate of development of alternative housing, and should form the basis of further analysis.


REFERENCES

Australian Building Codes Board 2008 Impacts on Housing Affordability

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006. Various publications and web based data relating to the Census of Population and Housing.

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002a. Accessible Housing Strategy.

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) 2008 Blue Mountains Sewerage Strategy 2008

Blue Mountains City Council 2009 Development Application and construction Certificate Statistics, unpublished.

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002b. Management Reporting of Development Approvals. Unpublished.

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002c. Residential Character Study.

Blue Mountains City Council 2002 Residential Development Strategy

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2000. Management Reporting of Development Approvals. Unpublished.

Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1996. Residential Development Strategy.

Blue Mountains City Council 1991 Local Environmental Plan 1991 as amended

Blue Mountains City Council 2005 Local Environmental Plan 2005 as amended

Blue Mountains City Council 2005 Better Living DCP

Blue Mountains City Council 2009 State of the City Report

Blue Mountains City Council 2004 Towards a Sustainable Blue Mountains‐ A Map for Action

Blue Mountains Community Plan Steering Committee (BMCPSC). 1995. Blue Mountains Community Plan: Report of the Blue Mountains Community Plan Steering Committee.

Burgess and Skeltys. 1992. The Findings of the Housing and Location Choice Survey. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.

Carleton, M. 1998. Report to Blue Mountains City Council: Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997 (DLEP 97) Section 68 Public Hearing EP&A Act 1979. Office of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning: Sydney.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2000. Review of SEPP 5 – Housing for older people and people with a disability: Options for change discussion paper.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1998a. Plans for Action. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning: Sydney.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1998b. Shaping Western Sydney. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning: Sydney.

Department of Planning 2005 Sydney Metropolitan Development Strategy “City of Cities”

Department of Planning 2009 Metropolitan Development Program


Department of Planning Draft North West Metropolitan Subregional Development Strategy

Department of Planning 2009 Supporting Affordable Rental Housing Information Package

Department of Planning 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing)

Department of Planning 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

Department of Planning 2002, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

(Infrastructure) Department of Planning 2008,2009 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes)

Department of Planning 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability)

Department of Planning 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

Department of Planning 1991, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of urban Land)

Holloway, D and M Wood. 2001. City of Blue Mountains Housing Market Study Part One: The Demand for Diverse Housing Options. Urban Frontiers Program: Campbelltown.

Housing NSW 2008 Information on the Blue Mountains Housing Market

Housing NSW, 2000 onwards, Quarterly Rent and Sales Reports

Informed Decisions (id.) Census information and forecasts published on Blue Mountains City Council and Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) websites

Informed Decisions (id.) 2006 Dwelling Opportunities Analysis for Warringah Council

Infrastructure Australia‐ Major Cities Unit 2010 State of Australian Cities 2010

King, A. 1994. Towards Indicators of Housing Stress. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.

NSW Department of Housing. 1999. NSW Housing Indicators Report.

Potato Point and John Nicolades and Associates 2004 City of Blue Mountains Housing Indicators Study : Affordable Housing: Final Draft Report

Sydney Water 2009 New Water Connections statistics for Blue Mountains LGA, unpublished

Whittington, V. 1993. Working Paper No. 1: Blue Mountains Housing Needs Research Report.

Blue Mountains Conversion LEP Attachment 13 – Addendum to RDS 13/138504

1

ADDENDUM TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (2010) DWELLING POTENTIAL IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS PART 1 INTRODUCTION The Residential Development Strategy (RDS) 2010 provided an update of residential land supply for land within LEP 2005 to RDS 2002. The Subdivision Strategy LEP 1991 (2013) gives a corresponding result for all LEP 1991 land. This addendum to the RDS 2010 has been prepared to provide an overview of residential land supply under the existing Local Environmental Plans in the Blue Mountains. PART 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY LEP 2005 RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY As part of RDS 2002 an assessment of the residential land supply under the provisions of LEP 2005 was undertaken. The results of this assessment are still appropriate and have not been altered. A detailed description of the process followed in order to determine the residential land supply under LEP 2005 is contained within RDS 2002 and RDS 2010. Table 1 shows the total supply of land available under the Living – General, Living – Conservation or Living – Bushland Conservation zones of the LEP 2005 by locality, based on the assessment of vacant and developed land under LEP 2005 and the realisation of all subdivision opportunities. Table 1: Residential land stock available under LEP 2005, following subdivision (2005 analysis)

Locality Vacant land that cannot be

subdivided


Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels Bell 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 102 206 Blackheath 456 280 736 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 367 800 Leura 280 159 439 Wentworth Falls 263 379 642 Bullaburra 56 53 109 Lawson 131 84 215 Hazelbrook 171 157 328 Woodford 91 37 128 Linden 13 0 13 Faulconbridge 49 191 240 Springwood 97 362 459 Valley Heights 25 4 29 Winmalee 95 114 209 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Warrimoo 35 30 65 Blaxland 36 286 322 Glenbrook 42 168 210


2

Locality Vacant land that cannot be

subdivided


Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels Lapstone 4 0 4 Mount Riverview 18 30 48 LEP 2005 Total 2,399 2,803 5,202

Please note that the above figures are notional only and intended only to give an indication of the potential land supply for additional development under the assumption that the housing market would realise all development opportunities. This is highly unlikely and is certainly an upper limit. LEP 1991 RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY The Subdivision Strategy LEP 1991 Review 2013 contained an assessment of the residential land supply under the housing and subdivision provisions of LEP 1991. A detailed description of the process followed in order to determine the residential land supply under LEP 1991 is contained within this study. Table 2 shows the total supply of land available under those zones in LEP 1991 that carry a dwelling entitlement, namely Residential Bushland Conservation, Bushland Conservation, Residential Investigation and Rural Conservation zones under LEP 1991, based on the assessment of vacant land under LEP 1991 and the realisation of all subdivision opportunities. Table 2: Residential land stock available under LEP 1991, following subdivision (2013 analysis)

Locality Vacant land that cannot be subdivided


Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels The Mounts1 87 8 95 Bell 14 0 14 Mount Victoria 144 44 188 Blackheath 208 56 264 Megalong Valley1 86 0 86 Shipley1 9 3 12 Medlow Bath 46 0 46 Katoomba 160 6 166 Leura 154 10 164 Wentworth Falls 182 14 196 Bullaburra 81 4 85 Lawson 64 27 91 Hazelbrook 77 23 100 Woodford 30 4 34 Linden 37 5 42 Faulconbridge 81 35 116 Springwood 27 14 41 Valley Heights 11 1 12 Sun Valley1 1 0 1 Winmalee 37 26 63 Yellow Rock 34 37 71 Hawkesbury Heights 3 0 3 Warrimoo 21 44 65 Blaxland 13 36 49 Glenbrook 7 6 13


3



Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels Lapstone 0 0 0 Mount Riverview 0 0 0 LEP 1991 Total 1,614 403 2,017

1 New localities present only in LEP 1991 As with the LEP 2005 numbers, the above figures are notional only and intended only to give an indication of the potential land supply for additional development under the assumption that the housing market would realise all development opportunities. This is highly unlikely and is certainly an upper limit. TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS Table 3 shows the total supply of land available in the Blue Mountains LGA under LEP 2005 and LEP 1991 by locality, based on the assessment of vacant land and the realisation of all subdivision opportunities. Table 3: Residential land stock available across the Blue Mountains



Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels The Mounts 87 8 95 Bell 14 0 14 Mount Victoria 248 146 394 Blackheath 664 336 1,000 Megalong Valley 86 0 86 Shipley 9 3 12 Medlow Bath 46 0 46 Katoomba 593 373 966 Leura 434 169 603 Wentworth Falls 445 393 838 Bullaburra 137 57 194 Lawson 195 111 306 Hazelbrook 248 180 428 Woodford 121 41 162 Linden 50 5 55 Faulconbridge 130 226 356 Springwood 124 376 500 Valley Heights 36 5 41 Sun Valley 1 0 1 Winmalee 132 140 272 Yellow Rock 34 37 71 Hawkesbury Heights 3 0 3 Warrimoo 56 74 130 Blaxland 49 322 371 Glenbrook 49 174 223 Lapstone 4 0 4 Mount Riverview 18 30 48 Total 4,013 3,206 7,219

As with Tables 1 and 2, the above figures are notional only and intended only to give an indication of the potential land supply for additional development under the assumption that the housing market would realise all development opportunities. Again, this is highly unlikely and is certainly an upper limit.


4

CONSTRAINTS TO RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY The assessment of residential land supply under the provisions of LEP 2005 and LEP 1991, as reviewed above, has provided what can only be regarded as notional figures which are highly unlikely to ever be realised. It is necessary therefore to examine the reasons behind the notional development potential which would appear to show that 4,013 lots are currently available for residential development across the LGA and an additional 3,206 lots that could be achieved by further subdivision. LEP 2005 Under LEP 2005 there are some 2,399 lots that are currently vacant which are serviced and it is these lots that are the most likely to be realised for residential development. However, as outlined in RDS 2002, a more realistic assumption would be to assume that over the medium term, a maximum of 20 per cent of subdivision opportunities on existing developed land would be realised (even that figure is probably optimistic). If that revised assumption is applied, the potential number of new dwelling lots would decrease from 5,202 to 3,198 as the upper limit. LEP 1991 Under LEP 1991 there are 1,614 lots that are currently vacant and could theoretically be used for residential development. However significant issues remain around environmental constraints (slope, significant vegetation and riparian buffers), unformed roads and the unavailability of reticulated sewer that need to be taken into consideration in LEP 1991 land areas. The costs of overcoming infrastructure problems often results in these existing lots being unsuitable for residential development. These same issues are influential in realising subdivision potential as well. The actual realistic lot yield is therefore less than that expressed, especially when it is taken into account that the most difficult to develop sites are likely to be represented in the subdivision yields. It is considered more realistic that of the 1,614 vacant lots shown under LEP 1991 around half could be realistically achieved. Of the 403 lots that could be created through subdivision in LEP 1991 it is considered realistic that around 10% of that figure is achievable over time. Planning for Bushfire Issues around environmental constraints and provision of infrastructure in achieving residential development potential have been touched on above. However, there is an issue that falls outside current planning controls, but which nonetheless is a key deciding factor in realising this potential, and that is the requirement for new development on bush fire prone land to comply with the provisions of the NSW Rural Fire Service publication, Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. Bush fire risk must be taken into account when designing a development. Development may also be required to be setback from bushland to reduce the risk of exposure. Landscaping, construction techniques, material requirements and measures required for evacuation of people requirements of emergency services during a bush fire may also apply. The types of requirements that apply depend on the type of development, the degree of bush fire hazard and the distance from the bush fire hazard.


5

The majority of vacant land in the Blue Mountains with residential development potential or subdivision potential, as shown in Tables 1 to 3, needs to meet the requirement of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. The impact of requirements from NSW Rural Fire Service can see notional subdivision yields decrease greatly from what can technically be realised under planning controls under LEP 1991 and LEP 2005. However, as the application of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 is site specific, it has not been possible to quantify the impact of the application of the guideline, but it could be in the order of half the potential yield in many parts of the Blue Mountains. Revised Residential Land Supply It is considered therefore that a more realistic outcome is as shown in Table 4, based on assumptions given above, although these figures are still not a guaranteed outcome. Individual site assessment by qualified professionals remains the most appropriate approach to determining dwelling and subdivision potential in the Blue Mountains. Table 4: Residential land stock available across the Blue Mountains – amended for constraints

Planning instrument Vacant land that cannot be subdivided


Total land supply

Parcels Parcels Parcels LEP 1991 807 40 847 LEP 2005 2,399 799 3,198 Total 3,206 839 4,045

PART 3 LAND AND DWELLING DEMAND IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS RDS 2010 carried out an analysis of land and dwelling demand across the Blue Mountains. This analysis showed an average of 229 new dwelling being approved each year over the period 2000-2009, with 66 being in LEP 1991 land and the remaining 163 in LEP 2005. The RDS 2010 also looked at net new water connections over the period 1998 to 2008, with an average of 151 net additional detached houses per year over this time. Because net connections counts actual connections, not approvals, it provides a more accurate count of the net addition to dwelling stocks. In addition, from 2003 the rate of connections has slowed, with only 107 net additional connections to detached dwelling houses per year. No division between LEP 1991 and LEP 2005 was provided, but a similar split to dwelling approvals would be expected, which would mean 30 new water connections in LEP 1991 and 77 in LEP 2005. Using a rate of 151 new dwellings per year to determine a lower limit on dwelling supply and 107 new dwellings per year as an upper limit, the following table shows land supply in the Blue Mountains projected from 2013. Table 5: 2013 projections of Residential Land Supply over time

Planning instrument

Total land supply

Rate per year Indicative year capacity reached

Parcels Dwelling approvals

Water connections

Dwelling approvals

Water connections

LEP 1991 847 66 30 2025 2041 LEP 2005 3,198 163 77 2032 2054 Total LGA 4,045 229 107 2030 2050


6

The implications of the above table are that current land supply, which includes lots created through subdivision, under existing planning controls in LEP 1991 and LEP 2005 will provide sufficient land for residential development beyond 2030. Any changes in subdivision control, particularly around more lot creation, needs to be considered in this context of the above supply and demand analysis. PART 4 ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SUPPLY The provision of an increased range of housing choice across the Blue Mountains was an important objective of LEP 2005. The assessment of alternative housing supply in RDS 2002 is still appropriate and has not been altered. A description of the process followed in order to determine the alternative housing supply under LEP 2005 is contained within RDS 2002 with yield calculations as below. Table 6: Potential yield of alternative housing under LEP 2005

Town Dual Occupancies (Dwellings)

Accessible Housing/Multi dwelling

housing (No. of dwellings)

Total potential alternative housing (No. of dwellings)

Mount Victoria 54 23 77 Blackheath 9 238 247 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 101 635 736 Leura 26 225 251 Wentworth Falls 3 130 133 Bullaburra 0 0 0 Lawson 14 171 185 Hazelbrook 5 173 178 Woodford 0 0 0 Linden 0 0 0 Faulconbridge 161 0 161 Springwood* 98 945 1,043 Winmalee 57 30 87 Yellow Rock/ Hwksby Hts 0 0 0

Valley Heights 0 0 0 Warrimoo 16 0 16 Blaxland 250 363 613 Mount Riverview 22 0 22 Glenbrook 14 55 69 Lapstone 0 0 0 TOTAL 830 2,988 3,818


In RDS 2002, it was considered the aims of this strategy would be fully realised if development occurred at a take-up rate of 25 to 33 per cent of potential development opportunities, providing between 954 and 1,272 additional units. In RDS 2010 the actual numbers of alternative new dwellings developed in the period of 2000 -2009 from net new water connection was used to update the above table. The rate of development of alternative dwellings has been an average of 58 dwellings per year over the last ten years, which is quite low.


7

Table 7: Potential yield and actual development of alternative housing under LEP 2005 Town Dual

Occupancies

(Dwellings)

Accessible Housing /

Multi dwelling housing (No. of

dwellings)

Total potential

alternative housing capacity (No. of

dwellings)

Alternative dwellings developed 1998-2008 (net new

connections)

Average alternative dwellings developed per year

1998-2008 (rounded)

Mount Victoria 54 23 77 0 0 Blackheath 9 238 247 5 1 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 0 0 Katoomba 101 635 736 111 11 Leura 26 225 251 90 9 Wentworth Falls 3 130 133 65 7 Bullaburra 0 0 0 1 0 Lawson 14 171 185 7 1 Hazelbrook 5 173 178 31 3 Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 Linden 0 0 0 0 0 Faulconbridge 161 0 161 6 1 Springwood* 98 945 1,043 166 17 Winmalee 57 30 87 13 1 Yellow Rock/ Hwksby Hts 0 0 0 0 0

Valley Heights 0 0 0 3 0 Warrimoo 16 0 16 4 0 Blaxland 250 363 613 45 5 Mount Riverview 22 0 22 0 0 Glenbrook 14 55 69 38 4 Lapstone 0 0 0 2 0 TOTAL 830 2,988 3,818 581 58


At a rate of 58 alternative dwellings per year the take-up rate of 25 to 33 per cent of potential development opportunities (between 954 and 1,272 additional dwelling units respectively) would be achieved between 2021 and 2027. Issues around alternative housing need to be examined in more detail in the future to determine what role planning controls play in the take up of these higher density forms of residential development. PART 5 CONCLUSION Any review of residential land supply in the Blue Mountain needs to take into account the reality of residential development in a constrained environment, where issues outside planning controls such as bushfire regulations play a large part in realising the potential for future residential development. Taking issues around environmental constraints (slope, significant vegetation and riparian buffers), unformed roads, the unavailability of reticulated sewer and bush fire planning into account it is likely that an additional 4,045 additional lots is the highest number of lots likely to be available for the purposes of a dwelling in the Blue Mountains. Based on this total, and taking into account past dwelling demand, this land supply will provide sufficient land for residential development well beyond 2030. Any changes in subdivision control, particularly around more lot creation, would need to be considered in this context of the above supply and demand analysis.


8

In terms of alternative forms of residential development, between 954 and 1,272 additional dwelling units are seen as possible, with such numbers being reached potentially between 2021 and 2027. Overall, the total number of additional dwellings units (houses on lots combined with alternative housing potential) likely under existing planning controls in the Blue Mountains is between 4,999 and 5,317 dwelling units.

residential development strategy · 4.1 existing population and population growth 20 4.2 age...

Documents