14th November, 2024.
I speak in support of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Western Sydney Aerotropolis) Bill 2024, which aims to fix the concerns and frustrations I have regarding the restrictions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts—Western Parkland City) 2021, or Western Parkland City SEPP, and the effect this SEPP has on many residents in Wollondilly. To quickly summarise and allay some fears, this amendment is not about pushing for mass development or trying to intensify land use. Anyone can already subdivide in some of those areas. This is about the rights that landowners had prior to the SEPP 2021 coming into existence to build granny flats in their own backyards.
We are not talking about tiny blocks, not 400 metres squared or even the old half an acre. Many of these properties, some of which are 20 or 30 acres, cannot have a granny flat built on them since the introduction of the policy in 2021, but they can still have a 20-bedroom home right now, today. These restrictions, enforced as a ban on any new noise-sensitive developments—including residential secondary dwellings, as informed by the Australian Noise Exposure Concept [ANEC] contour mapping of the draft environmental impact assessment—have resulted in significant consequences for residents and the local economy.
The impacts of the SEPP restrictions have already been felt by the residents of Wollondilly in suburbs such as Silverdale, Warragamba, Werombi, Wallacia, Theresa Park and Orangeville. Since it was enacted, individuals have been unable to construct secondary dwellings on their properties. Some of them bought their properties specifically to build a dwelling for themselves and a granny flat for their parents. The SEPP was literally introduced overnight with absolutely no warning to people who had plans drawn up ready to submit. This also has had a cascading effect on local tradespeople, who find themselves with reduced opportunities for work in the area and amounts to what I have previously labelled in this place a "tradies tax". Locals in Wollondilly have long distances to travel already. Forcing them to travel out of the area for work is unfair and unsustainable.
To give members an idea of the area size I am talking about, Wollondilly council area is as big as the entire Sydney metropolitan area. The area that this SEPP covers is a circle with a radius of about 30 kilometres. If we applied that to Sydney airport, it would take up all areas of the city and over the harbour. Imagine only one dwelling on each parcel of land there. The restrictions on secondary dwellings also represent a missed opportunity in not allowing second residences to be built as well as limiting truly affordable housing options and alternatives in an area where the population is growing rapidly. Due to Wollondilly's location and potential, it can provide some of the housing to meet some of the needs of a growing Greater Sydney population. Infill housing of smaller dwellings such as granny flats in well‑located, developed areas with existing infrastructure is an opportunity to meet some of the housing goals to deliver a range of housing, and the SEPP restrictions make no sense at a time when there is a great need for housing.
Secondary dwellings can allow young families to save, grandparents to downsize and help look after children, and assist on small-acreage properties with onsite living—to name but a few benefits. The restrictions of the SEPP currently have one exception at 6 Walmsley Crescent, Silverdale, where a single secondary dwelling has been permitted. An amendment to the Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan Amendment (Precincts—Western Parkland City) 2022 grants this one individual address within the restricted area an exemption, while all others have been subject to the restrictive planning policies. If the SEPP was able to be reversed by the head of the department of planning—as it has been in this one instance—then, given the far-reaching benefits of allowing secondary dwellings, the same right to build could be granted to all residents as a matter of urgency.
Since being elected in March 2023, I have spent my time working with the Government on this matter. Unlike some members, I do not seek to introduce many bills or move amendments in this place. The Government and the Opposition know and understand my position. I am here to work with any and all parties for the long‑term best interests of Wollondilly. My age, my previous career in politics and how I have acted regarding Government amendments should show that this is only as a last resort. Unfortunately, other work I have done with the Government since has not led to much progress on this issue. I have had many meetings with the planning Minister about the matter. It was referred to Federal Minister King, who said she had no real responsibility for or opinion on the matter.
We then had the Premier visit Lisa Osborn of Silverdale. The Osborn family appreciated his visit as it allowed him to see the situation they were caught in. He sat next to her shed and caravan, where two families live, which are on a massive block of land, cleared of previous farming activity. The Premier said that he had the will to fix the matter as soon as possible if he could. I understand that will is probably still there, but the family and I are yet to see any action. I have been told that this has something to do with the Western Sydney City Deal. Having been the lead mayor on the negotiations around this deal, I assure all members that it has nothing to do with the imposition of this SEPP on some of my community.
The Osborns sold their previous home to live with their sons on the same property, to build two brand‑new forever homes and to enjoy everything Wollondilly has to offer. I am sure they had hoped by this stage to have planted gardens and to be continuing to work on the bushland and their property. Instead, they are waiting for the slow wheels of government to turn. They live in a shed and a caravan, waiting patiently but with incredible and growing frustration. And they are but one example. I have been told consistently throughout this process that we need to wait for the final mapping of flights to and from the airport. That will not make any difference at all. The airport is being built, the runways are in place, trial flights are happening and the homes are still there. In case some members think this is being stopped because of noise, I might add that that is incorrect because none of these particular homes or dwellings are part of programs for noise abatement alterations.
To add insult to injury, just over the border the Luddenham Village—which is much closer to the airport—has protection, with a line allowing for additional dwellings; my villages do not. This has to be due to the laziness of former members or the sloppiness of contact with the council. I do not know who is to blame. Ultimately, my community, Lisa Osborn and I do not really care. We just want this matter fixed. I have written to the public and parliamentary inquiries at both State and Federal levels about the issue. Again, my community, residents like Lisa Osborn and I wait. My suggested amendments to this SEPP also include a full list of localities affected by the same restrictions, including Silverdale, Warragamba, Werombi, Wallacia, Theresa Park and Orangeville, and would be in keeping with the other limited localities covered by the same SEPP. However, the difficulties in sub‑localities means it is easier to mention the full council area. I am happy for others to ask for the inclusion of their own affected council areas. As an Independent MP, my focus is on my own community; I do not see that it is my place, or purpose, to make amendments for others.
There is also a lack of consideration for financial compensation or support in areas where SEPP restrictions are applied. Specifically, the current mapping used to enforce the construction restrictions differs from that used to indicate financial compensation for measures such as double glazing to mitigate noise impacts on affected properties. It is perplexing that individuals who have been restricted from constructing secondary dwellings, supposedly due to the mapping and the noise, are not afforded the benefits of any compensation for noise reduction measures. This inconsistency in the application of policies seems unjust, especially considering the broader economic and social impacts on the affected residents. The Government maps showing the ANEC 20 boundary line as the outermost coloured line on the flight path maps, indicating residences that are eligible for treatment for noise mitigation, contrast greatly with the area impacted by restrictions on building secondary dwellings, which apply to the entire 30‑kilometre radial zone surrounding the airport—except Luddenham and that one specific address.
It is time to lift the SEPP restrictions in Wollondilly, taking into account the hardships faced by property owners and the local workforce. While I understand the planning Minister's position on fundamentally not supporting private members' amendments to SEPPs—he has told me that—anyone can see that this matter needs to be fixed in some way. The conversation about the airport will last for generations, and now is not the time to shut the door. Additionally, I recommend reconsideration of the allocation of financial compensation for noise mitigation measures, ensuring a fair and equitable distribution of benefits for all affected parties. That is outside the scope of this amendment but something I am looking to have some impact on. I cannot wait to hear from the Federal candidates in the new bellwether electorates in the Macarthur region about what they are doing with noise mitigation for residents in our area.
Wollondilly has all the downsides of the new airport but none of the employment opportunities, as the distance to travel for residents is unrealistic for a daily commute. It is over a bridge that floods regularly, which makes access impossible. All of those new jobs are sitting just over the bridge. Furthermore, returning to the SEPP, the restrictions that defer development until the completion of information regarding the new airport have no end date. It is interesting to note that the affected properties will not be able to construct attached dwellings; boarding houses; dual occupancies; group homes; hostels; multi‑dwelling housing; residential flat buildings; rural workers' dwellings; secondary dwellings, commonly known as granny flats; semi-detached dwellings; seniors housing; or shop-top housing.
As I stated, the flight paths have now been released, and it is not viable to hold off all development within the SEPP-identified area beyond the local vicinity for the estimated 30 years that it will take to complete for the full capacity. Further studies will not find some magic solution, and the information based on building requirements and planning could be put in place today to allow for the development. Landowners had these rights until 2021, and removing the rights of landowners to submit applications will favour large enterprises that will landlock small owners, who are then likely to be forced out while waiting to build their own home. It will inevitably lead to housing that is not in keeping with the strategy to consolidate growth, and it is not supported by Wollondilly Shire Council. However, additional dwellings are not opposed by councillors, and it is not an issue that metropolitan councils are facing with neighbour conflicts.
The very large block sizes in Wollondilly in rural settings could easily accommodate additional small dwellings such as secondary dwellings, seniors housing and attached dwellings. There is a need for this change, as residents are being restricted and there is no end point to when the restriction will be lifted. I have pointed this out to the Government, acknowledging the concerns of both the New South Wales and Federal governments, particularly their concern that additional dwellings and development within the area could potentially cause a negative impact to residents. If it is "intensification" that the Government does not want under the airport, there is a grave misunderstanding that additional dwellings means mass development. That is not the case. However, the limitation for the New South Wales Government and what I have requested to be lifted is technically defined as "secondary dwellings". It is not "residential intensification", as referred to in Minister King's letter.
The reference in the response that new owners or renters could be affected assumes that there are new blocks. There will be no new blocks. The Minister is mistaken and does not recognise the limitations of the SEPP on current owners and that my request was not for additional subdivision rights to be restored. "Residential accommodation" and "additional dwellings", as defined in the SEPP, affect both potential new blocks as well as current, which removes the potential rights that were in place for those owners. In effect, the SEPP has stopped someone with a consent from building a secondary dwelling—as we know, commonly known as a granny flat—on their property.
Residential accommodation, as defined within the SEPP, has the same meaning as in the standard local environmental planning instrument prescribed by the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. That instrument defines residential accommodation to include attached dwellings, boarding houses, co‑living housing, dual occupancies, dwelling houses, group homes, hostels, multi-dwelling housing, residential flat buildings, rural workers' dwellings, secondary dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, seniors housing and shop‑top housing. It does not include tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks. The list is permissible on blocks with consent and is limited to a single or one additional dwelling through the secondary dwelling path. That was allowable until the SEPP came into play.
Whilst I again acknowledge the concern of the Federal Minister in raising experiences with overflight noise in both Brisbane and Melbourne, that is not a question for the blocks that are under the flight paths in my electorate. My request is not to remove the restriction for subdivision potential. Rather, it is the restoration of the rights for additional dwellings as defined above, allowing the construction of a granny flat on a rural block instead of restricting an owner to build a larger, unsightly home or to live in a shed without consent. In both instances, the people are the same and the number of rooms is the same. Therefore, there is no concern with potential renters or new owners.
The Minister has noted that there is a large number of potential secondary dwellings. These blocks have rights to extend their homes to the same size as a granny flat. This would also require the same type of council consent. The limitation that has been set by the SEPP forces landowners to not have the same right as all other landowners in New South Wales. It has affected my residents because they are unable to build affordable additional dwellings for elderly parents or children on their blocks. Now that the flight paths are released, the restrictions for the SEPP should be lifted to allow additional-dwelling applications to be lodged. With the Government requiring housing, it makes no sense to prohibit smaller landowners in Wollondilly from building an additional dwelling such as a small, two-bedroom granny flat on a 20-acre block. However, they are allowed to build a single dwelling such as a 20-bedroom house if there is no housing on the block. As I said, lifting the SEPP would cover some of the housing supply issues in the State and Wollondilly.
Noise is not the issue; a 20-bedroom home could be built today. Water is not even the issue. We have capacity problems in the eastern side of my electorate that limits any construction in many areas, because apparently it is okay to approve developments there without a sewer connection. But one cannot build a granny flat 20 minutes from the airport. This shows an inconsistency, and I cynically question why only major developers seem to get approvals. Why is it that 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 homes can be approved with the click of someone's mouse and a signature on paper but private owners with existing rights who want to build two dwellings instead of one are treated with contempt? It does not pass the pub test. I hope that the Government considers this issue very carefully. I ask all members to support the bill to fix the concerns and frustrations caused by the introduction of the State environmental planning policy and halt the unfair, unjust effect on the residents on the northern end of the Wollondilly electorate.