ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
2002
PLAN
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY
BLUE MOUNTAINS
CITY COUNCIL
2002
Blue Mountains City Council
Environmental Management Plan 2002
Residential Development Strategy
Supporting
Draft Local Environmental Plan 2002
Sustainable Environmental & City Planning
City Sustainability Group
Endorsed by Blue Mountains City Council
at its meeting of 10 September 2002
for the purpose of public exhibition
Printed by Blue Mountains City Council
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, its 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.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
iii
PART 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES
Purpose and structure of this Report
Local Setting
Background: 1996 Residential Development Strategy
Principles of this Strategy
1
1
1
2
3
PART 2
2.1
POLICY CONTEXT
State Policies
4
4
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.2
Metropolitan strategies
State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 – Metropolitan Residential
Development
State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 – Housing for Older People or
People with a Disability
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation
(Redevelopment of Urban Land)
Ministerial direction under S.117 - residential zones
Conclusion
4
4
5
5
6
6
Local Policies
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
7
Local environmental plans
Draft LEP 1997
Draft LEP 2002 - review of draft LEP 1997
7
7
8
PART 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
The Natural Environment
Bushfire Risk
Retention of Town Character
Services and Infrastructure
9
9
11
11
12
PART 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Existing Population and Population Growth
Age Structure
Population Projections
Household Structure
Spatial Distribution of Population
Home Ownership
Income
Cultural Diversity
Conclusion
14
14
15
17
20
23
24
25
27
28
PART 5
5.1
EXISTING HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Profile
29
29
Housing Costs
Public Housing
35
36
5.2
5.3
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
Dwelling stock
Household type by dwelling type
Age by dwelling type
Location of alternative housing
Development approvals
Dwelling commencements
29
31
31
32
33
34
i
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
5.4
Housing Stress & Affordability
37
5.5
Conclusion
40
PART 6
6.1
6.2
HOUSING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
Existing Dwelling Stock and Housing Need
Demand for alternative Housing
42
42
43
PART 7
7.1
7.2
7.3
DRAFT LEP 2002 – HOUSING OUTCOMES
Proposed Land Use Structure
Village Hierarchy
Land Supply
45
45
46
47
Alternative Housing Supply
Comparison of alternative housing opportunities between instruments
Village Housing sites
Potential Population
Conclusion
52
54
54
68
69
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
Calculating housing stress
Housing stress and affordability in the Blue Mountains
Regional policies and strategies
Vacant serviced land
Developed serviced land
Capacity of land supply
37
38
40
48
49
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
71
ATTACHMENT
73
ii
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
ACRONYMS
CPI
Consumer Price Index
DUAP
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
EMP 2
Environmental Management Plan No. 2
GWS
Greater Western Sydney
LEP
Local Environmental Plan
LGA
Local Government Area
MDH
Multi-Dwelling 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
iii
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
PART 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES
PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present the Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS).
In developing this document as a revision of its 1996 RDS, Council has sought to achieve a
balance between meeting the current and future housing needs of its residents, responding
to metropolitan growth strategies and protecting identified values of the natural and built
environment.
The document is presented in eight parts. Following on from this part, which outlines the local
setting and the principles of this RDS, an overview of State Government metropolitan growth
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. Increasingly, these strategies are recognising the limitations of areas like the Blue
Mountains in contributing markedly to growth strategies for western 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.
In recognition of these constraints and in a manner consistent with more recent metropolitan
growth strategies, the RDS focuses on providing increased housing choice to residents,
through the provision of a greater range of well-designed dwelling types. 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 the residential strategy as applied through Draft Local
Environmental Plan (LEP) 2002, as discussed in Part 7. This strategy has been developed to
provide an appropriate range of dwelling types to meet the existing and projected future
demand of the Blue Mountains population.
It is appropriate to apply a RDS within the Blue Mountains that takes these factors into
account, and seeks to mitigate environmental impacts of development whilst enabling
suitable housing options to be made available to the existing population. This RDS
demonstrates that Council has responded to the housing needs and preferences of the Blue
Mountains community, through Draft LEP 2002 by providing suitable opportunities for
alternative housing forms (housing other than detached) within the Blue Mountains.
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 illustrates 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 recently achieved World Heritage
1
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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 HawkesburyNepean 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.
Presently, the estimated resident population for the Blue Mountains in 2002 is 77,898 people
(ABS, 1996). By 2021 the population of the Blue Mountains is projected to reach 84,600,
representing a significant slowing in the growth rate. This figure is dependent upon the
capacity of infrastructure and services to facilitate this growth, the choices that are made in
the type of development undertaken and, importantly in the context of this strategy, the type
and extent of residential development permissible in the planning instruments applying in the
Blue Mountains.
1.3
BACKGROUND: 1996 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
This RDS builds 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, and
provide the basis for a new draft LEP (Draft LEP 2002).
Although the Draft LEP 2002 is consistent with the principles of the 1996 RDS it represents a
substantially different plan to the Draft LEP 1997, which was the proposed vehicle for
exemption to SEPP 53. Accordingly, it is necessary to update the RDS to reflect the current
position of the Council in terms of its residential strategy and to ensure that the RDS and the
Draft LEP reflect a consistent approach to maintaining Council’s exemption to SEPP 53. This
RDS presents the findings of the research, studies and land use strategy that underpin Draft
LEP 2002, as it relates to the residential development provisions and strategies.
2
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
1.4
PRINCIPLES OF THIS STRATEGY
This RDS adopts the set of principles and desired outcomes stated within the 1996 RDS (BMCC,
1996:6-7), 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 multi unit housing which have less emphasis on
the definition of various types of multi unit 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.
3
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
PART 2
2.1
POLICY CONTEXT
STATE POLICIES
2.1.1 Metropolitan strategies
Metropolitan Strategies released by the Department of Urban Affairs and 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 and better access to employment and services. Policies also look to ensuring that
future housing form provides a choice of dwelling types and promotes affordability.
Shaping Western Sydney, the State Government’s planning strategy for the Western Sydney
region, identifies policies and actions to be implemented by State and local governments. It
aims to consolidate residential densities around existing urban areas, reducing the pressure
for new urban release areas on Sydney’s bushland/rural fringe. The strategy aims to:
•
focus any appropriate urban development in non-urban parts of the region on existing
villages with the ability to provide reticulated sewerage and services; and
•
encourage the development of planning controls that respect the integrity of villages
of historic significance; and
•
do not allow urban development west of the Hawkesbury Nepean River, other than
minor expansion of existing towns and villages.
(DUAP, 1998:26)
The Blue Mountains is understood to form part of the bushland/rural fringe of Sydney, as
outlined within the Shaping Western Sydney document. As it is west of the HawkesburyNepean River, the Blue Mountains LGA is not marked for any further urban development
under the Strategy, other than the minor expansion of existing towns and villages, where the
focus is on providing housing choice. This is in accordance with the environmental protection
goals of the Strategy, which seeks to alleviate pressure for urban development in non-urban
and environmentally sensitive areas.
2.1.2 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
4
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
development in existing urban areas, and to restrict residential development on the fringe of
urban areas.
Due to the complex natural environment of the Blue Mountains, and the consequent range
of physical constraints to development, it is considered that the strict application of SEPP 53
to the Blue Mountains is inappropriate. Council is currently exempt from the SEPP on the
grounds of the RDS completed in 1996. This RDS replaces the 1996 Strategy, and seeks to
extend Council’s exemption from the SEPP by applying the aims of the SEPP in a way
compatible with the environmental attributes of the Blue Mountains. In accordance with
SEPP 53, this RDS 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.
2.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 – Housing for Older People or People with a
Disability
The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) has promoted State Environmental
Planning Policy No. 5 (SEPP 5) as a principal method for encouraging alternative housing
provision across New South Wales. SEPP 5 aims to increase the availability and diversity of
accommodation for older people and people with a disability. The SEPP allows higher
density residential development to occur more widely than is generally permitted, by
overriding 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 sound urban design principles, and attempts to ensure that development
provides access to appropriate support services.
Within the Blue Mountains, it is considered that SEPP 5 is not sufficiently responsive to local
issues. Given the limitations to the provision of social support infrastructure, environmental
constraints and an underlying imperative to preserve identified character values within the
LGA, the generalised application of SEPP 5 may result in the inappropriate development of
urban and fringe land. Council has therefore sought exemption from SEPP 5, on the basis that
the Draft LEP 2002 will make suitable provision for this form of housing, by way of introducing
‘accessible housing’.
The approach to accessible housing in Draft LEP 2002 is detailed in the Accessible Housing
Strategy (BMCC, 2002a). For the purposes of this RDS, accessible housing has been included
in the yield calculations for alternative dwellings within village centres.
2.1.4 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 ensure
that ‘urban land suitable for multi-unit housing and related development is made available
for that development in a timely manner’ (SEPP 32 cl.2(2)(a)).
5
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
2.1.5 Ministerial direction under S.117 - residential zones
The s.117 Direction G9 - Residential Zones directs councils in respect to certain matters
concerning residential development within draft LEPs. Without considering each aspect of
the Direction, it is relevant to this RDS to note that the direction requires that a draft LEP shall:
•
retain existing provisions enabling a dwelling house to be erected on an existing
allotment.
•
not increase provisions relating to the minimum lot size for a dwelling house.
•
not contain provisions that result in a reduction of the permissible residential density.
•
as much as practicable and in a manner compatible with the environmental quality of
the area, provide for a variety of housing forms and increase the permissible residential
density.
•
not require development consent for the purpose of a dwelling house.
•
not increase standards relating to residential flat buildings.
•
retain provisions to allow dual occupancy of dwelling houses, except outside the
Sydney region where LEPs may contain such provisions.
Through the development of this RDS, the EMP 2002 document and through the statutory
process that gives rise to LEP 2002, Council will demonstrate that its inconsistency with a
number of aspects of this direction is justified on the basis of local planning and
environmental conditions.
2.1.6 Conclusion
These State based 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. Rather the Blue
Mountains should remain a subject of consolidation policies only in so far that it forms a part
of the bushland fringe of Sydney, the values of which are to be protected as a key tenet of
consolidation practices.
It is particularly important in this context to ensure that State policies are applied in a manner
that accounts for local environmental constraints and opportunities, rather than allowing the
indiscriminate application of these policies at a local level. There is scope for a moderate
approach that aims to achieve a range of housing types, creating affordable and
appropriately designed dwellings that satisfy housing needs within the existing towns and
villages. Increasingly, these directions are being realised through government policy.
Such an approach was expressed in correspondence from the Department to Council of 30
December 1999, in which the Director of Sydney Region West stated that:
My view is that the Blue Mountains is a unique local government area with sensitive
areas of environmental significance and on the fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area.
It therefore should not be expected to accommodate metropolitan growth pressures.
Planning for the area should have regard to the housing requirements of the population
of the Mountains and provide as far as possible for this, having regard to the area’s
environmental limitations.
6
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
(DUAP, 1999)
It is considered that the appropriate response to multi-dwelling housing in the Blue Mountains
is to provide sufficient opportunity for such housing to meet the needs of the local population,
whilst recognising the environmental constraints to development. This is the approach
adopted by Draft LEP 2002, and its achievement is demonstrated in this RDS.
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 4 (gazetted in 1982) and LEP 1991 (gazetted in 1991). LEP 4 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 the bushland interface with the National Park.
The update and review of LEP 4 is a priority of Council in order to ensure that a contemporary
planning instrument is in place that assists in the appropriate management of development,
which meets community expectations and Council’s responsibility in protecting key
environmental and cultural assets within the Blue Mountains.
2.2.2 Draft LEP 1997
As noted previously, the Draft LEP 1997 was developed to replace LEP 4 and was based on
EMP 2. The public exhibition of Draft LEP 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, 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 the
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.
7
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
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.
2.2.3 Draft LEP 2002 - review of draft LEP 1997
In response to the Commissioner’s recommendations Council has undertaken 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.
Draft LEP 2002 has identified a limit to 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.
A place-based approach was adopted for the core villages across the LGA, providing sitespecific 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.
8
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
PART 3
3.1
CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
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 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River
(SREP 20) and SEPP 58 – Drinking Water Catchments. 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 SubCatchments, which have been identified as being particularly sensitive.
Draft LEP 2002 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 Draft LEP 2002. 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 to Draft LEP 2002. 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
9
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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 Draft LEP 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 Draft LEP 2002 has assisted in defining an urban
footprint and limiting the expanision 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.
Draft LEP 2002 proposes 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. The lands zoned Rural A3 under LEP 4 are
identified as being within SREP 20 Conservation Area Sub-Catchments. SREP 20 imposes
limitations on rezoning and development of all uncleared land within Conservation Area SubCatchments, effectively marking this land as unsuitable for development. This reinforces the
proposed Draft LEP 2002 zoning of this land as Environmental Protection – Open Space, and
the proposed acquisition of these lands by Council.
10
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
3.2
BUSHFIRE RISK
Past bushfire history indicates that the Blue Mountains is a special risk area in New South
Wales. Since 1911, 580 houses within the City of Blue Mountains have been destroyed by fire
and in the last thirty years more than three hundred bushfires have occurred, with significant
loss of life and property.
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. Higher density 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 low-density zones are applied in areas subject to extreme and high
bushfire risk to minimise exposure.
3.3
RETENTION OF TOWN CHARACTER
The character and streetscape attributes of towns and villages are a distinctive feature of the
Blue Mountains. On an annual basis, some 35 per cent 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 Draft LEP 2002.
Based on the findings of this study, a range of measures has been incorporated in Draft LEP
2002 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;
11
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
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 recognised that it must
target certain district centres for the provision of key services and facilities (BMCPSC, 1995).
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, whilst infrastructure within these centres may currently be under stress,
the optimum response in terms of sustainable development 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.
Extensive discussions have been conducted between Council officers and Sydney Water
throughout the preparation of Draft LEP 2002. These discussions ensured that the capacities
of sewerage pumping stations and water reservoirs could accommodate proposed
residential densities. It was identified that there were servicing constraints relating to:
•
the capacities within localised water reservoirs;
•
the potential for local system deterioration, particularly sewage overflows from
individual pump stations; and
•
the capacity of local sewer infrastructure in some villages.
These constraints were considerations in the application of residential zones. Generally, the
capacity of sewage treatment plants is sufficient to supply the proposed residential areas
under Draft LEP 2002.
The main exceptions to this are servicing constraints in the Upper Blue Mountains in Mount
Victoria and Blackheath. The capacity of the reticulated sewer system (including the
sewage treatment plants) in these areas is a considerable constraint, and the potential for
12
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
servicing of additional densities is limited. However, these areas along with Medlow Bath are
subject to a proposal to enhance the capacity of the existing system. The enhanced system
will be capable of servicing the proposed zonings under Draft LEP 2002.
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
is a problem in peak seasons. The zoning pattern proposed under Draft LEP 2002 responds so
as not to place unacceptable demand on the trunk water supply system.
13
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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 1: Area Planning in the Blue Mountains
Area
Towns
Area 1
Area 2
Blackheath (Service Centre), Mount Victoria, Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine, Mount Tomah,
Bell
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 estimated resident population for the Blue Mountains Statistical Local Area (SLA) in the
year 2002 is 77,898 people (ABS, 1996). Of the total Blue Mountains population, 28.3 per cent
reside in Area 4 and a further 25.6 per cent reside in Area 5. The main population centres in
Areas 4 and 5 are Springwood, Winmalee and Blaxland. A further 25 per cent of the
population reside in Area 2, where Katoomba is the main population centre. Areas 1 and 3
respectively comprise 7.6 per cent and 13.5 per cent of the total Blue Mountains population.
The population has been increasing steadily at a rate of approximately one per cent each
year for the inter-censal period 1991 – 1996. Growth has varied between the Lower
Mountains (particularly Warrimoo to Lapstone), which has a static or declining population,
and the Upper and Mid Mountains which have experienced steady population growth.
Population growth across the Blue Mountains is shown in Table 2. The table illustrates that the
population within the Blue Mountains continues to increase, but at a declining rate.
Table 2: Population Change by Town 1981 – 1996 in the Blue Mountains
Township
Bell (including Mounts)
Mount Victoria
Blackheath
Megalong Valley
Planning Area 1
Medlow Bath
Katoomba
Leura
Wentworth Falls
Planning Area 2
Bullaburra
Lawson
Hazelbrook
1981
1986
1991
1996
187
607
3 027
68
3 609
270
7 322
3 078
3 542
14 212
703
1 837
2 657
172
600
3 599
148
4 519
340
7 812
3 368
4 447
15 967
873
2 081
3 567
167
906
3 757
112
4 942
376
8 297
3 622
4 998
17 292
938
2 234
4 133
303
900
4 119
163
5 485
448
8 544
3 777
5 379
18 148
1,018
2 250
4 333
Annual Average
Growth 86-91
(%)
-0.6
10.2
0.9
-4.9
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.5
2.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
3.2
Annual Average
Growth 91-96
(%)
*16.3
-0.1
1.9
9.1
2.2
3.8
0.6
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.7
0.1
1.0
14
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Township
1981
1986
1991
Woodford/Linden
1 167
1 474
1 979
Planning Area 3
6 433
7 959
9 284
Faulconbridge
2 636
3 027
3 394
Springwood
5 844
6 439
6 829
Winmalee
5 030
6 131
6 883
Yellow Rock/ Hawkesbury
172
505
946
Heights
Valley Heights
1 015
1 178
1 186
Planning Area 4
14 712
17 280
19 238
Warrimoo
1 958
2 016
2 208
Blaxland
5 862
6 502
6 878
Mount Riverview
3 367
3 406
3 408
Glenbrook
4 315
4 553
5 088
Lapstone
1 203
1 225
1 113
Planning Area 5
16 695
17 702
18 695
Total
55 661
63 427
69 452
Mainly due to development in the Mounts and not at Bell
1996
2 182
9 783
3 793
7 112
7 323
1 143
1 175
20 546
2 180
7 041
3 245
5 059
1 019
18 544
72 506
Annual Average
Growth 86-91
(%)
6.9
3.2
2.4
1.2
2.5
Annual Average
Growth 91-96
(%)
2.1
1.1
2.4
0.8
1.3
17.5
0.1
2.3
1.9
1.2
0.0
2.4
-1.8
1.1
1.9
4.2
-0.2
1.4
-0.3
0.5
-1.0
-0.1
-1.7
-0.2
0.9
Source: ABS, 1996; Holloway and Woods, 2001:9
As identified in Table 2, Planning Area 1 (Bell to Megalong Valley/ Blackheath) has
experienced relatively high annual population growth since 1991 of 2.2 per cent. Most of this
is due to development in Megalong Valley and the Mounts. Other villages such as Medlow
Bath, Yellow Rock, Hawkesbury Heights and Faulconbridge have experienced strong growth
during this period.
Declining population levels have been identified since 1986 in the village of Lapstone, with
population levels in other Lower Mountains towns such as Mount Riverview, Glenbrook and
Warrimoo being in slight decline.
Comparisons with the Sydney region indicate that population growth in the Blue Mountains is
significantly lower with an increase of 3,054 people or 4.4 per cent between the 1991 and the
1996 Census. Over the same period the Greater Sydney Region had a growth rate of 5.7 per
cent.
4.2
AGE STRUCTURE
Population projections for the Blue Mountains LGA 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 accommodation prices
have dramatically increased in recent years, prices are still lower than many areas in Sydney
(ABS, 1996).
15
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Age
90+
85-89
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Total % of Females
Total % of Males
Figure 2: Age Structure Blue Mountains 1996 (ABS, 1996)
Age
90+
85-89
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Total % of Males
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Total % of Females
Figure 3: Age Structure Sydney SD 1996 (ABS, 1996)
A comparison of the age structures of the Blue Mountains and Sydney SD reveals a marked
contrast in the proportion of the population aged between 20 and 35 years. Whilst the
Sydney SD population peaks at this point, the Blue Mountains population peaks between the
ages of 0-14 and 35-49. The Blue Mountains demonstrates an opposite trend to Sydney in this
regard, with the greatest proportion of its population aged either over 35 or under 14 years
and those aged between 20 and 35 occupying a comparatively small proportion of its
population.
Although there will be a range of factors contributing to this trend, the relatively limited
access to employment and educational opportunities, and to certain services, would be key
considerations. 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
16
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
with a wider employment base. The lack of suitable housing options for young people within
the Blue Mountains may also be a factor.
The profile supports the notion that the Blue Mountains is a popular location for raising young
families, which partially explains the concentration of the population around the older (35-45)
and younger (14 years and below) age groups.
Table 3 shows the age structure of the Blue Mountains population by town, based on the 1996
census.
Table 3: Age structure by town*
Town
0–14
15–24
Bell (incl.
Mounts)
Mount
Victoria
Blackheath
Megalong
Valley
Total Area 1
Medlow Bath
Katoomba
Leura
Wentworth
Falls
Total Area 2
Bullaburra
Lawson
Hazelbrook
Woodford/Lin
den
Total Area 3
Faulconbridg
e
Springwood
Winmalee
Hks’bury Hts
/Yellow Rock
Valley Heights
Total Area 4
Warrimoo
Blaxland
Mount
Riverview
Glenbrook
Lapstone
Total Area 5
Total
Sydney SD
54
17
23
7
80
25
82
26
75
24
314
221
24
111
12
300
33
201
22
74
8
907
881
50
21
31
394
12
10
8
1 264
44
30
27
939
31
23
19
680
24
16
15
4 158
161
1 206
108
1 765
725
1 157
22
24
22
20
21
540
38
1 023
475
539
10
8
12
13
10
1 688
134
2 524
998
1 443
31
30
31
27
27
1 253
104
1 727
890
1 252
23
23
21
24
23
853
68
1 182
638
1 006
15
15
14
17
19
5 540
452
8 221
3 726
5 397
3 755
256
584
1 175
554
21
25
26
27
25
2 075
100
236
483
241
12
10
11
11
11
5 099
343
686
1 405
747
29
34
30
32
34
3 973
206
435
858
503
22
20
19
20
23
2 894
115
302
427
185
16
11
14
10
8
17 770
1 020
2 243
4 348
2 230
2 569
1 001
26
26
1 060
538
11
14
3 181
1 134
32
30
2 002
796
20
21
1 029
341
11
9
9 841
3 810
1 619
1 991
367
23
27
32
849
1 027
136
12
14
12
1 804
2 172
436
25
30
38
1 423
1 483
145
20
20
13
1 412
606
54
19
8
5
7 107
7 279
1 138
272
5 250
540
1 705
700
23
26
24
25
22
186
2 736
291
1 067
570
16
13
13
15
18
357
5 903
724
2 070
846
31
29
33
30
26
259
4 106
443
1 514
881
22
20
20
22
27
93
2 506
211
561
215
8
12
10
8
7
1 167
20 501
2 209
6 917
3 212
1 237
168
4 350
17 130
763 144
25
16
24
24
20
711
153
2 792
9 203
548 816
14
15
15
13
14
1 561
247
5 448
21 319
1 184 595
31
24
30
30
30
1 067
327
4 232
15 566
770 065
21
32
23
22
20
418
129
1 534
8 816
438 913
8
13
8
12
11
4 994
1 024
18 356
72 034
3 905 533
%
25–44
%
45–64
%
Over 65
%
Total
(100%)
%
Source: ABS 1996
*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.
The breakdown in Table 3 demonstrates the divergence between the age structures in the
Upper Mountains (Areas 1 and 2) and the Lower and Mid Mountains (Areas 3, 4 and 5).
Population trends in the Lower and Mid Mountains generally reflect trends within the Sydney
SD, whereas there are some marked differences within the Upper Mountains. In general there
is a greater proportion of young children (0–14 age group) in the Blue Mountains than in the
Sydney SD. There is a slightly higher proportion of older people (over-65 age group) in the Blue
Mountains than in the Sydney SD; however, the majority of these are concentrated in the
Upper Mountains (16 per cent in Area 2 and 15 per cent in Area 1) compared to 11 per cent
in the Sydney SD.
17
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
4.3
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
By 2021 the Blue Mountains population is projected to reach 84,600, a growth rate of 16.6 per
cent since 1996. This contrasts with a growth rate of 98 per cent for the equivalent period
from 1971 to 1996.
Figure 4 shows population growth rates between 1947 and 1996, against projected growth to
the year 2021. 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 opportunities provided by private motor vehicles. The dwindling
availability of good building land in the Mountains has resulted in a substantially slower
growth rate in recent years. Growth is projected to remain at a slow rate to the year 2021.
90,000
80,000
Population
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1947 1954 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Year
Figure 4: Projected Population Growth (derived from ABS, various census years)
Proposed land use zones and permissible development densities under Draft LEP 2002 are
broadly consistent with these projections, and tend to have a restrictive effect on population
projections because they limit urban expansion and land supply. It is a recognised strategy of
Council to identify limits to growth and place a limit on the extent of the potential urban
footprint in the Blue Mountains.
Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 show the percentage change in age cohorts over the years
1991 to 1996, and projected percentage change over the years 1997 to 2002, and 2003 to
2008.
Percentage change
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
Age group
65+
18
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Figure 5: Population Change by Age Group, 1991-1996 (ABS, 1996)
25
Percentage change
20
15
10
5
0
-5
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
-10
Age group
Figure 6: Projected Population Change by Age Group, 1997-2002 (ABS, 1996)
Percentage change
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Age group
Figure 7: Projected Population Change by Age Group, 2003-2008 (ABS, 1996)
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 demonstrate a considerable aging of the Blue Mountains
population. The number of residents within the 45-64 age bracket continues to increase as a
proportion of the population up to 2008, albeit at a slower rate than in previous periods. In
the years 1991-1996, the proportion of the Blue Mountains population in this age bracket
increased by almost 26 per cent. It is estimated that the proportion of Blue Mountains
residents in this age bracket will increase by 21 per cent in the years 1997-2002, slowing to an
increase of 12.5 per cent between the years 2003-2008.
Conversely, the rate of growth amongst those aged 65 and over is set to increase to 2008.
This age group increased its share of the population with eight per cent growth in the years
1991-1996 and an estimated five per cent growth in the years 1997-2002; and it is estimated to
increase at a rate of 9.9 per cent during the period 2003-2008.
Patterns of decline in the younger age groups reinforce the overall trend of an aging
population. The 0-14 age bracket is set to decrease its share of the population at an
increasing rate. The rate of decline within this age group is 2.3 per cent in the years 19911996, compared to 5.6 per cent between 1997-2002 and 5.8 per cent between 2003-2008.
19
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
The 15-24 age bracket is currently experiencing growth, and is set to grow at a rate of 4.4 per
cent between 1997-2002. However this group is also likely to experience decline in the future,
with an estimated rate of one per cent decrease over 2003-2008.
The 25-44 age bracket similarly experienced decline at a rate of 3.3 per cent during the years
1991-1996. The rate of decline is estimated to have been 4.8 per cent between 1997-2002,
and will decrease to 2.9 per cent between 2003-2008. This may potentially plateau in the
future, resulting in a stable population between the ages of 25 and 44.
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 demonstrate a disproportionate increase in the population
aged 55 and over. By 2017 it is estimated that those over 55 will comprise 33 per cent of the
total Blue Mountains population. Currently, 20.2 per cent of the Blue Mountains population is
older than 55 years. This is higher than the proportion in this age cohort for WSROC (15.9 per
cent), and similar to that for the Sydney SD (19.7 per cent) (ABS, 1996).
Percentage of population
The increasing share of the population occupied by those aged 55 and over is illustrated in
Figure 8.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-54 yrs
55+ yrs
1996
2000
2011
2017
Year
Figure 8: Percentage of population aged 55 and over (ABS, 1996)
The projected increase of those aged 55 and over in the Blue Mountains has not been
forecast beyond 2017. However, even if the proportion of older people reaches a plateau at
33 per cent of the population, and the population grows at the moderate levels shown in
Figure 4, this will impact on the provision of housing and social services in the Blue Mountains.
The impacts of an older population are discussed in the Accessible Housing Strategy (BMCC,
2002a).
4.4
HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE
The pattern of household structures emerging in the 1996 Census for the Blue Mountains
considered as a whole was similar in most respects to that of the Sydney SD. However, as
Figure 9 illustrates there are considerable disparities between planning areas within the LGA.
20
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
50
Area1
Area 2
45
Area 3
Percentage of population
40
Area 4
Area 5
35
Blue Mountains LGA
30
Sydney (SD)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Couple with
Children
Couple
without
Children
One Parent
Families
Lone Person
Household
Group
Household
Other
Household structure
Figure 9: Comparative Household Structure - Sydney and Blue Mountains (ABS, 1996)
The Upper and Mid Mountains generally have higher proportions of lone person households.
In locations such as Springwood, Lawson, Wentworth Falls, Leura and Blackheath a
considerable amount of these lone person households comprise people over 65 years of age.
This is reflected in Table 4.
Table 4: Lone Person Households & Average Household sizes in the Blue Mountains
Township
Lone Person Households
% Households
% Comprising
Persons Aged >65
years
Average
Household
Size
Mount Victoria
25.8
31.0
2.5
Blackheath
Katoomba
27.5
32.7
40.9
36.5
2.5
2.5
Leura
Wentworth Falls
29.5
24.7
40.1
42.9
2.8
2.6
Lawson
28.8
42.1
2.6
Hazelbrook
Springwood
23.7
26.0
37.0
60.2
2.7
2.8
Winmalee
Blaxland
14.2
15.5
44.3
35.7
3.1
2.9
Glenbrook
15.9
44.4
3.0
Blue Mountains LGA
22.5
41.3
2.7
Source: ABS, 1996; Holloway and Wood, 2001:12, 17
Disparities within the LGA include that the highest proportion of couple only families was
found in Area 1, and a significant proportion of sole parent families was found in Area 2.
Areas 4 and 5 have a much greater proportion of couples with children than Areas 1 and 2.
Couples without children comprise approximately one quarter of populations in all Areas,
slightly above the Sydney SD.
21
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Sole parent families, lone person households and group households all comprise a greater
proportion of the population in Areas 1 and 2 than in any other area, particularly reflecting
the disparity between the Upper and Lower Mountains. Compared to the Sydney SD, Areas
1, 2 and 3 have a greater proportion of residents in lone person households, which may be
partially explained by the older population. All Areas have a lower proportion of group
households than the Sydney SD, apart from Area 2 which is equivalent to Sydney. This may
reflect the relative lack of diversity in housing types.
Table 4 shows that the Lower Mountains suburbs of Winmalee, Blaxland and Glenbrook have
comparatively large households with averages around three people per household. These
suburbs also have a comparatively small proportion of lone person households, comprising
14.2 per cent of the population in Winmalee, 15.5 per cent in Blaxland and 15.9 per cent in
Glenbrook. Those towns with the smallest household sizes are Katoomba, Blackheath and
Mount Victoria, with an average of 2.5 people per household; these towns also have
between 27 and 33 per cent of their population living in lone person households. In view of
the fact that only 3.7 per cent of the population is living in townhouses, flats or units (ABS,
1996), there appears to be a lack of housing options for lone person households.
The average household size in the Blue Mountains is 2.7 people. This varies between towns, as
shown in Table 4. Average household size also varies according to dwelling type, as
illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5: Persons per household, 1996
Location
Separate Houses
Semi-Detached
Flats
Average
Blue Mountains
2.7
1.9
1.5
2.7
WSROC
Sydney SD
3.2
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.2
1.9
3.0
2.7
Source: Derived from Holloway and Wood, 2001:10
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 comparable to those in Sydney and smaller
than those in WSROC. However, the average size of households living in semi detached
dwellings and flats is much smaller than that for the Sydney SD and WSROC. In the Blue
Mountains an average 1.9 persons live in semi detached dwellings and 1.5 live in flats. In
contrast, WSROC has an average 2.6 persons living in semi detached dwellings and 2.2 in
flats, while the Sydney SD has an average 2.4 persons living in semi detached dwellings and
1.9 in flats (Holloway and Wood, 2001:11). These figures show that the Blue Mountains has
smaller household sizes in flats and semi detached dwellings even than the Sydney SD.
Across the Blue Mountains, the number of people per household has decreased from 3.0 in
1981 to 2.7 in 1996. Also, since 1991 the number and proportion of lone person households
and couples without dependants has significantly increased.
Generally there has been a two to four per cent increase in lone person households across
various townships of the LGA between 1991 and 1996. In 1991, 20.6 per cent of households in
the Blue Mountains were lone person households. This has increased to 22.5 per cent in 1996,
and compares with 16 per cent for WSROC and 21.5 per cent for Sydney SD at the 1996
census (Holloway and Wood, 2001:13). Lone person households are increasing in the Blue
Mountains, and comprise a significantly greater proportion of the population than in WSROC
and a slightly greater proportion of the population than in the Sydney SD. Projected growth
in lone person households in the Blue Mountains is disproportionately higher than that
projected in WSROC and the Sydney SD.
Couples without dependants have also increased from 23.2 per cent of households in 1991 to
23.6 per cent in 1996. In 1999, it is estimated that couples without dependants comprised 34
per cent of all families in the LGA. By 2019 they are expected to comprise 41.0 per cent of all
22
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
families, an increase of seven per cent. This compares to an increase of 3.7 per cent in
WSROC and 2.9 per cent in the Sydney SD. A corresponding decrease has been seen in the
number and proportion of couples with dependants, from 41.8 per cent of households in 1991
to 36.6 per cent in 1996. Single parent families have increased slightly from 9.6 per cent in
1991 to 9.7 per cent in 1996 (Holloway and Wood, 2001:17). These factors contribute to the
general decrease of household sizes across the LGA.
It is estimated that these key trends will continue into the foreseeable future. Lone person
households and couples without children are expected to increase as a proportion of all
households, and couple families with children are expected to decrease. This is seen in
comparison to WSROC and the Sydney SD in Table 6.
Table 6: Household and Family Projections
Blue
Mountains
(%)
1999
WSROC
(%)
2019
WSROC
(%)
Sydney SD
(%)
Blue
Mountains
(%)
Sydney SD
(%)
48.1
24.7
58.0
18.6
51.7
20.6
Couple family
Couple without children
55.6
19.2
62.4
15.1
55.6
17.7
One parent family
10.2
11.7
10.5
9.1
11.1
10.0
Other family
Group household
1.3
2.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
4.0
1.2
2.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
3.8
Lone person household
Other
8.9
2.0
5.5
1.3
8.2
1.8
11.5
2.7
6.9
1.6
9.6
2.1
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Derived from Holloway and Wood, 2001:35
The total number of households in the LGA is expected to have increased by 7,000 between
1999 and 2019, which is a 43 per cent increase since 1996. Much of this growth is explained
by the increase in lone person households and couples without children, each expected to
increase by 3,000 (Holloway and Wood, 2001:35-36).
4.5
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. Primary concentrations of people in the Lower
Mountains are within, or in the vicinity of, the towns of Springwood, Winmalee, Blaxland and
Glenbrook, which have populations ranging from 5,000 to 7,500.
With a population of 8,544 in 1996, Katoomba is the largest settlement overall, and serves as
the District Centre for the Upper Mountains. Winmalee is the next largest town, with a
population of 7,323. However, Springwood (population 7,112) is the district centre for the
Lower Mountains, given its range of services and more central location on the train line and
Highway.
Other large centres include Blaxland (7,041), Wentworth Falls (5,379) and
Glenbrook (5,059).
Figure 10 shows that the population of Blue Mountains LGA has a number of concentrations,
particularly in the Lower Mountains and in the Katoomba-Leura and Wentworth Falls districts.
However the remaining population outside these centres is spread over a considerable
distance and in numerous towns and villages. Of the 26 towns in the Mountains, 11 had
populations over 3,000 in 1996.
23
Lapstone
Glenbrook
Mount Riverview
Blaxland
Warrimoo
Winmalee
Yellow Rock &
H'Heights
Valley Heights
Springwood
Faulconbridge
Woodford/Linden
Lawson
Hazelbrook
Bullaburra
Wentworth Falls
Leura
Katoomba
Medlow Bath
Megalong Valley
Blackheath
Mount Victoria
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Bell & Mounts
Population
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Town
Figure 10: Distribution of Population Across the Blue Mountains Towns and Villages (ABS, 1996)
4.6
HOME OWNERSHIP
The Blue Mountains local government area (LGA) 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 7. In 1996, 43.1 per cent of households were owner-occupiers,
compared with 37.9 per cent in WSROC and 40.3 per cent in the Sydney SD. A further 32.5
per cent of households were purchasing their dwelling in 1996, compared with 28.7 per cent
in WSROC and 23.1 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.
It follows that the Blue Mountains has a significantly lower rate of households in rental
accommodation. In the Blue Mountains, 16.5 per cent of all households are renting from
private sources, compared to 19.6 per cent in WSROC and 23.6 per cent in the Sydney SD.
Comparatively, as little as 1.3 per cent of households in the LGA are renting from the
Department of Housing, compared to 7.5 per cent in WSROC and 5.5 per cent in the Sydney
SD.
Table 7: Number of Households by Tenure, 1996
Fully Owned
(%)
Being
Purchased
(%)
Renting from
State Housing
Authority (%)
Renting from
other sources
(%)
Not Stated
Blue Mountains LGA
WSROC
43.1
37.9
32.5
28.7
1.3
7.5
16.5
19.6
6.6
6.3
Sydney SD
40.3
23.1
5.5
23.6
7.5
Source: Derived from Holloway and Wood, 2001:28
It should be noted that a large proportion of housing stock in the LGA is used as holiday or
weekend accommodation only. This decreases the availability of housing for purchase or
rental.
24
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
4.7
INCOME
The average annual individual after tax income for Blue Mountains residents in 1997/98 was
$25,278, slightly lower than the NSW average of $26,354 (CRRI, 2001). The Western Sydney
Affordable Housing Study (Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999:160) found that
in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury LGAs there were a disproportionately high number of
individuals earning more than $52,000 per annum, and a disproportionately low number of
households earning less than $41,548 per annum, compared to the WSROC area. Overall,
incomes in the Blue Mountains/Hawkesbury sub-region were better than average for WSROC.
However, the report also stated:
Blue Mountains/Hawkesbury is in the ‘mid range’ for income characteristics in Western
Sydney but with highest concentrations of low income households, probably due to the
significant proportion of retirees living in the Mountains and has the second highest
concentrations of households earning less than $41,548 p.a.
(Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999:161)
Although average incomes in the Blue Mountains/Hawkesbury were not considered low,
there were a significant proportion of low-income households in the area.
Weekly household incomes for the Blue Mountains in 1996 are shown in Figure 11. In 1996,
19.0 per cent of households within the LGA were earning less than $300 per week.
Percentage of population
18
16
14
12
Blue Mountains LGA
10
Sydney SD
8
6
4
2
Not stated
$2,000 or more
$1,500 - $1,999
$1,000 - $$1,499
$700 - $999
$500 - $699
$300 - $499
$120 - $299
$1 - $119
Negative or nil
0
Income category
Figure 11: Weekly Household Income (ABS, 1996)
Figure 11 compares weekly household incomes for the Blue Mountains to those for the Sydney
SD. The Blue Mountains has proportionately more people earning weekly wages of between
$120 and $700 per week than Sydney, and proportionately less people earning $1000 and
above per week. Generally, it can be seen that households of the Blue Mountains have
lower weekly incomes than households of the Sydney SD. However, it should also be noted
that the proportion of the population on a negative or nil income is less than that for the
Sydney SD, and the proportion of earners in the lowest wage bracket ($1 - $119) is equivalent
to the Sydney SD.
25
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Percentage of population .
40
35
30
Lower
25
Mid
20
Upper
Total LGA
15
Total Sydney SD
10
5
<$83,656
<$47,279
<$30,798
<$18,403
<$7886
0
Income category
Figure 12: Annual Income Variables (ABS, 1996)
The income of households in the Blue Mountains varies considerably between the Lower, Mid
and Upper Mountains. Figure 12 compares annual incomes for each of the Lower, Mid and
Upper Mountains against those for the LGA as a whole, and the Sydney SD. This comparison
demonstrates that the Lower Mountains (Glenbrook to Faulconbridge) has a considerably
higher household income level, with 36 per cent of households earning less than $84,000 per
annum, and 12 per cent of households earning less than $7,000 per annum. The median
household income in the Lower Mountains is also higher than that for the Sydney SD.
In the Mid Mountains (Linden to Bullaburra), 20 per cent of households are earning less than
$84,000 per annum, the majority earning between $18,000 and $47,000 per annum. In
contrast, the Upper Mountains, from Wentworth Falls to Mount Victoria, has 17 per cent of
households earning a wage of less than $84,000 per annum and 23 per cent earning less than
$8,000 per annum.
This indicates the variance between the sub regions of the Blue Mountains. Clearly there is a
larger proportion of high-income households in the Lower Mountains, whereas income levels
in the Upper and Mid Mountains are significantly lower than the Sydney SD average. This has
implications for retailing in the Upper Mountains and the potential for Katoomba to develop
as a sub-regional centre. The spatial differentiation also has ramifications for the expenditure
captured within the Blue Mountains LGA. The location of higher income households in the
Lower Mountains enables greater leakage of expenditure from the Blue Mountains LGA to the
regional centre of Penrith.
The above graphs indicate that incomes in the Blue Mountains are lower on average than
those in the Sydney SD. However, a comparison between 1991 and 1996 income statistics
reveal that incomes in the Blue Mountains are generally increasing at a faster rate than those
in the Sydney SD.
The median weekly household income for the Blue Mountains in 1996 was $702, compared to
$762 in the Sydney SD. In 1991, the median weekly household income in the Blue Mountains
was $621, whereas for Sydney SD it was $682. Although these incomes have not been
adjusted for CPI, a comparison of the rates of growth of incomes in Sydney and the Blue
Mountains can be made. Between 1991 and 1996, the median weekly household income in
the Blue Mountains increased by 13.0 per cent, whilst that for the Sydney SD increased by 11.7
26
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
per cent. The median weekly household income for the Blue Mountains remains lower than
that for the Sydney SD, but between 1991 and 1996 increased at a faster rate.
In evaluating the 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. As one benchmark, the Green Square LEP adopts levels which indicate
that households that earn less than 80 per cent of the annual median household income are
considered to be very low and low income households, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Income ranges adopted by the Green Square Local Environmental Plan
Income range designation
Very Low Income Household
Low Income Household
Moderate Income Household
Percentage of median household income
Less than 50%
50 or more but less than 80%
80-120%
Source: South Sydney City Council 1999
However, setting such figures needs to take account of the cost of living, particularly as it
relates to costs of providing accommodation. Accordingly it is to be recognised that the cost
of living in the Blue Mountains is less than that of Sydney, which is an important qualifier in
developing valid comparisons of income between the two areas.
Subject to these limitations concerning the cost of living, consideration has been given to
setting a low income range for the purpose of this study. Should a figure be set at 65 per cent
of the median household income for Sydney (within the range set in Table 8), a household
earning less than $26,000 per annum would be considered to be very low income or low
income. 29.5 per cent of households in the Sydney SD fell within this category in 1996,
compared to 33.2 per cent of households in the Blue Mountains.
Such a pattern appears to hold to a similar comparison based on 1981 data. In 1981 low
income households were considered to be all those earning less than $8,000 per annum. In
the Blue Mountains, 31.9 per cent of households were in this category, compared to 27.8 per
cent of households in Sydney.
4.8
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
The Blue Mountains is less culturally diverse than the Sydney region in general. The ethnic
makeup of the Blue Mountains is relatively homogeneous with only 4,528 people (6.25%)
being from a non-English speaking background (NESB)1. This compares to the Sydney
Statistical Division where 31 per cent of the population is from a NESB.
The Blue Mountains also stands out in regional indicators of cultural diversity. The University of
Western Sydney Census Summary for Greater Western Sydney (GWS) found that the
population of GWS was 35 per cent overseas born, compared to 30 per cent for NSW and 36
per cent for the remainder of Sydney. As one indication of multiculturalism, this indicates that
GWS is as multicultural as the rest of Sydney. The proportion of Blue Mountains residents born
overseas is significantly lower than the regional average, at 17.3 per cent. The University of
Western Sydney Census Summary found that larger LGAs, with a population of 80,000 or
more, tended to be more multicultural than smaller LGAs, and this may account for the
relative lack of diversity in the Blue Mountains (CRRI, 2001).
The 1996 Census indicated that the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has
increased from 340 people in 1991 (0.5% of the population) to 702 people in 1996 (0.97%). This
represents a 108 per cent increase between 1991 and 1996. It is generally agreed that this
increase is due to an increasing number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who
1
2,548 people (3.51%) were not stated, with 0.7% being overseas visitors
27
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
are identifying as indigenous people. Of the Indigenous population in the Blue Mountains, 45
per cent live in Katoomba.
4.9
CONCLUSION
The above overview highlights several key points about the Blue Mountains population:
•
Although the population is currently growing at a rate of one per cent per annum, the
rate of growth is declining.
•
The population peaks between the ages of 0-14 and 35-49, with a relative decline in
those aged 20-34.
•
It is projected that the proportion of the population aged 55 years and over will
increase in the future, whilst those aged 0-14 and 15-24 are projected to decrease their
share 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.
•
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.
•
The majority of Mountains residents are from English-speaking backgrounds.
Each of these factors has, to a varying degree, a bearing on the types of housing required in
the LGA. A declining rate of growth suggests that the Blue Mountains needs not so much to
expand its provision of dwelling stock, but rather to target dwelling stock to certain elements
of the population. The low and declining numbers of residents between the ages of 20 and
35 suggest a lack of opportunity for this age group in the area, one factor in which may be a
lack of housing opportunities, such as rental accommodation. Housing targeted to the
expanding proportion of older persons within the population is addressed in the Accessible
Housing Strategy (BMCC, 2002a).
Smaller household sizes in the Upper Mountains point to a potential demand for smaller
dwelling types in these areas, while larger household sizes in the Lower Mountains suggest
that the existing stock of detached dwellings may meet the needs of the majority of residents.
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, a relatively low disposable income of households in the
LGA, and especially within the Upper Mountains, suggests that it is appropriate to investigate
whether housing costs 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 is not a significant
factor in housing policy in the LGA.
28
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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 is 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; also referred to as
“split housing”.
•
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
5.1.1 Dwelling stock
Residential dwellings in the Blue Mountains are predominantly single detached dwellings.
Detached dwellings comprise 90.9 per cent of housing stock, with a further 2.2 per cent of
housing stock being semi-detached and 3.9 per cent being flats and units. The Blue
Mountains has a much higher proportion of detached dwellings than WSROC, where 79.3 per
cent of dwellings are detached, and the Sydney SD, where 63.5 per cent of dwellings are
detached. Semi-detached dwellings, flats and units comprise a combined total of 17.6 per
cent of dwellings in WSROC and 32.8 per cent of dwellings in the Sydney SD, compared with
6.1 per cent of dwellings in the Blue Mountains (Holloway and Wood, 2001:25).
Table 9 describes the number and proportion of households within each dwelling type in the
Blue Mountains by town.
Table 9: Dwelling Type by Selected Township
Township
Separate House
Semi-detached
townhouse, flats or
units
Other or Not
Stated
Total (100%)
Bell (inc. Mounts)
No.
189
%
96.9
No.
0
%
0.0
No.
6
%
3.1
Megalong Valley
83
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
83
485
93.3
6
1.2
29
5.6
520
Blackheath
2 194
91.8
75
3.1
120
5.0
2 389
Total Area 1
Medlow Bath
2 951
236
92.6
96.7
81
4
2.5
1.6
155
4
13.7
1.6
3 187
244
Katoomba
3 394
79.6
653
15.3
217
5.1
4 264
Leura
1 674
89.1
145
7.7
60
3.2
1 879
Wentworth Falls
2 323
92.0
104
4.1
98
3.9
2 525
Total Area 2
7 627
85.6
906
10.2
379
13.8
8 912
Mount Victoria
195
29
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Township
Bullaburra
Lawson
Separate House
Semi-detached
townhouse, flats or
units
Other or Not
Stated
No.
474
%
97.1
No.
14
%
2.9
No.
0
%
0.0
Total (100%)
488
942
92.4
52
5.1
26
2.5
1 020
Hazelbrook
1 641
93.3
32
1.8
86
4.9
1 759
Woodford /
Linden
834
94.3
18
2.0
32
3.6
884
Total Area 3
3 891
12
2.8
0.9
144
Faulconbridge
93.7
98.5
116
1 342
3.5
0.7
1 363
Springwood
2 275
82.5
440
15.9
44
1.6
2 759
Winmalee
2 434
97.3
25
1.0
43
1.7
2 502
351
95.9
3
0.8
12
3.3
366
405
91.4
32
7.2
6
1.4
443
6 807
512
105
7 433
Yellow Rock /
Hawkesbury
Heights
Valley Heights
Total Area 4
9
4 151
815
91.6
97.1
21
6.9
2.5
3
1.4
0.4
Blaxland
2 336
93.9
120
4.8
32
1.3
2 488
Mount Riverview
1 046
96.2
18
1.7
23
2.1
1 087
Glenbrook
1 658
93.9
68
3.9
39
2.2
1 765
377
95.4
8
2.0
10
2.5
395
Warrimoo
Lapstone
Total Area 5
Blue Mountains
LGA
Sydney (SD)
839
6 232
94.8
235
3.6
107
1.6
6 574
27 508
90.9
1 850
6.1
899
3.0
30 257
905 647
63.5
467 656
32.8
15 015
1.1
1 426 266
Source: ABS, 1996
The average household size in single detached dwellings is 2.7 persons. The average
household size of those in semi-detached dwellings is 1.9 people, while in flats it is 1.5 people
(Holloway & Wood, 2001). Alternative dwellings, often smaller in size than detached
dwellings, are dominated by smaller households and particularly lone person households.
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. Detached
dwellings in the Blue Mountains declined as a proportion of dwelling stock by 1.8 per cent
over the period 1981 to 1996, compared with a decline of 5.4 per cent in WSROC and 3.2 per
cent in the Sydney SD. Other residential accommodation increased by 1.1 per cent as a
proportion of total dwelling stock over the same period. This compares to an increase of 5.1
per cent in WSROC and 2.8 per cent in the Sydney SD (Holloway and Wood, 2001:25).
The increase in alternative housing throughout the Sydney SD is a relatively recent
phenomenon, occurring mainly over the past ten 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 proportion of new homes in NSW comprising multiunit dwellings increased from 27 per cent in 1988 to 54 per cent in 1998, with a correlated
increase in the population of Sydney’s middle and inner-ring suburbs and a decreasing
reliance on outer suburbs for new housing (DUAP, 1998).
30
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
5.1.2 Household type by dwelling type
A comparison of types of households by the type of dwelling indicate potential discrepancies
in household composition and dwelling stock of the Blue Mountains. Up to 82.3 per cent of
lone person households reside in detached dwellings, while a further 10.9 per cent reside in
flats and 4.5 per cent reside in semi-detached dwellings. This contrasts to WSROC, where 25.1
per cent of lone person households reside in flats and 9.8 per cent reside in semi-detached
dwellings. Sydney provides a stronger contrast, with 42.5 per cent of lone person households
in flats and 12.6 per cent in semi-detached dwellings.
Lone person households are not the only households types in which this trend is evident. Of
couples without dependants in the Blue Mountains, 94.2 per cent reside in detached
dwellings while a further 4.1 per cent reside in semi-detached dwellings or flats. In Sydney,
66.3 per cent of couples without dependants live in detached dwellings, and a further 30.9
per cent live in semi-detached dwellings or flats. Similar statistics describe the living
arrangements of single parent families (Holloway and Wood, 2001:30).
This is illustrated by Figure 13, which compares the proportion of the main household types
living in alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains, Sydney and WSROC.
60
% of households
50
40
Blue Mountains
WSROC
Sydney SD
30
20
10
0
Couples with
children
Couples
without
children
One parent
families
Lone person
households
Figure 13: Proportion of households in alternative dwellings (derived from Holloway and Wood, 2001:30)
5.1.3 Age by dwelling type
Similar results emerge when the age of residents is compared against the type of dwelling
they occupy. Those aged 0-14 and 35-54 years are the main occupiers of detached
dwellings, with approximately 30 per cent of each age bracket in this type of
accommodation. Those aged 15-34 are fairly evenly spread between detached dwellings,
semi-detached dwellings, and flats and units. There is a concentration of those aged 55 and
over in semi-detached dwellings and flats, with 31.8 per cent of this age group in semidetached dwellings and 44.0 per cent in flats (Holloway and Wood, 2001:31-32). These
figures are shown for alternative dwellings, in comparison to WSROC and the Sydney SD in
Figure 14.
31
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
70
% of age cohort
60
50
Blue Mountains
WSROC
Sydney SD
40
30
20
10
0
0-14
15-24
25-34
35-54
55-64
65+
Age
Figure 14: Proportion of age cohort in alternative dwellings
As would be expected, WSROC and the Sydney SD have a greater proportion in all age
brackets from 0-54 years living in alternative dwellings. WSROC in particular has a higher
proportion of those aged 0-14 in alternative dwellings than the Blue Mountains LGA, and the
Blue Mountains has a particularly low proportion of those aged 25-34 in alternative dwellings,
compared to WSROC and the Sydney SD.
This pattern is broken in the 55 years and over age bracket, where substantially more in the
Blue Mountains are living in semi-detached dwellings and flats when compared to Sydney
and WSROC. This anomaly is discussed in detail in the Blue Mountains Accessible Housing
Strategy (BMCC, 2001).
5.1.4 Location of alternative housing
The district centres of Springwood and Katoomba are the most densely settled villages within
the Blue Mountains, and between them account for 60 per cent of the total alternative
housing stock in the Blue Mountains. Within these town centres there are limited opportunities
for the provision of additional alternative housing stock, due to geographical constraints.
% of Total Dwellings
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
Sydney SD
Blue Mtns
Glenbrook
Mt Riverview
Blaxland
Winmalee
Springwood
Faulconbridge
Hazelbrook
Lawson
Bullaburra
W'worth Falls
Leura
Katoomba
Blackheath
Mt Victoria
0.0
Figure 15: Alternative Housing Types as a Proportion of Existing Dwellings in Blue Mountains (ABS, 1996)
32
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Figure 15 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 15 per cent of all dwellings. In the Lower
Blue Mountains the concentration of alternative housing surrounds Springwood, where it
comprises 16 per cent of all dwellings.
5.1.5 Development approvals
Council records of the number of development approvals issued for detached dwelling
houses, flats and units provide an indication of the likely rate of residential development in
the Blue Mountains.
Although independent building certifiers have been issuing
development approvals since October 2000 for complying development, Council still
processes all applications for new dwellings, thus its figures give a good indication of
development activity in the LGA. Council approvals for residential construction, in terms of
new dwellings and alterations and additions to existing dwellings, are shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Approvals for residential development and additions/alterations in the Blue Mountains
Development Type
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancies
Residential Flat Buildings & Aged Units*
Additions to dwelling
Total Approvals
1996
422
24
7
553
1 007
1997
482
21
15
432
954
1998
493
3
17
431
946
1999
620
4
28
598
1 250
2000
445
0
16
377
684
2001
444
1
18
543
1 006
*No. of developments, not number of flats or units in each development.
Source: BMCC, 2002b
The 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 1996 and 2001 the number of approvals for detached dwelling houses ranged
between approximately 420 and approximately 620 per year, not including additions to
dwellings. In contrast, between 1996 and 2001 the number of approvals for alternative
residential dwellings has ranged between 16 and just over 30 approvals per year.
Council figures show that the majority of dwelling approvals were contained within Area 2
and Area 4, indicating a greater rate of development in these areas, and particularly around
the main centres of Springwood and Katoomba. These centres also account for the majority
of development approvals for alternative residential dwellings. This is reflected in Table 11.
Table 11: Development approvals for detached dwelling houses and unit/flat developments by
planning area
Year
Detached dwelling houses
Flats and units*
1996
Area 1
66
Area 2
124
Area 3
43
Area 4
85
Area 5
37
Area 1
0
Area 2
8
Area 3
2
Area 4
9
Area 5
3
1997
1998
61
68
132
159
40
69
143
133
38
53
0
0
2
6
0
1
0
3
1
4
1999
2000
98
72
154
114
101
81
99
76
53
58
0
0
11
5
1
3
5
7
0
0
2001
54
111
65
65
49
0
2
0
4
3
Total
419
794
399
601
288
0
34
7
28
11
*Includes the number of developments, not number of flats or units in each development.
Source: BMCC, 2002b
As would be expected, building approvals for detached dwelling houses comprise a
significantly greater proportion of all building approvals in the Blue Mountains than in WSROC
or the Sydney SD. These areas have a comparatively higher proportion of building approvals
for alternative residential dwellings, and approvals have increased proportionately at a much
33
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
greater rate than for the Blue Mountains, from 1990 to the present (Holloway and Wood,
2001:37-39).
Figure 16 shows the rise and fall in the total value of both residential and non-residential
building construction approvals between 1996 and 2000. The value of building approvals
varies depending on market patterns and various government policies.
$(m)
140
120
100
80
60
40
2000
1999
1998
1997
0
1996
20
Year Ending
Residential
Non-residential
Figure 16: Value of building construction approvals in the Blue Mountains
In 1999 over 60 per cent of all building construction approved in the Blue Mountains Local
Government Area was for residential building activity (BMCC, 2000). Substantially increased
level of demand in 1999 is attributed to the influence of the GST, which encouraged
development prior to the introduction of this tax that would increase construction costs.
5.1.6 Dwelling commencements
Commencements of the construction of dwellings within the Blue Mountains give an
indication of the likely rate of development that is occurring. The commencement of
building for dwellings and alterations and additions to dwellings are identified in Table 12.
Table 12: Residential Commencements and additions to dwellings in the Blue Mountains
Development Type
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancies
Residential Flat
Buildings & Aged Units2
Additions to dwelling
Total Commencements
1996
422
24
7
1997
482
21
15
1998
493
3
17
1999
620
4
28
2000
445
0
16
2001
444
1
18
553
1 007
432
954
431
946
598
1 250
377
684
543
1 006
Source: BMCC, 2002b
Commencements for detached dwellings and additions to dwellings outnumber
commencements for any other kind of dwelling. Commencements for residential flat
buildings and aged units have increased from a small base up to 1999, however declined in
2000, possibly reflecting the pre-GST building boom in 1999. Commencements for dual
occupancies have substantially declined since 1997, when they became a prohibited land
use in the LGA. Commencements for alternative dwellings comprised 3.1 per cent of all
commencements in 1996, and increased to 3.8 per cent in 1997. Commencements for
2 These figures refer to the number of development commencements, not the number of units within those
developments.
34
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
alternative dwellings have decreased proportionally since this time, comprising 2.1 per cent in
1998, 2.5 per cent in 1999, 2.3 per cent in 2000 and only 1.9 per cent in 2001 of all dwelling
commencements.
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 at present.
In the context of the Western Sydney region, median dwelling prices in the Blue Mountains /
Hawkesbury area remain lower than those for other sub-regions of Western Sydney, including
Baulkham Hills / Parramatta and Blacktown / Fairfield. Between 1996 and 1998 median prices
for detached dwellings increased more slowly in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury sub-region
than elsewhere in Western Sydney, whereas unit prices increased at a rate of over 16 per
cent, faster than other sub-regions in Western Sydney excluding Baulkham Hills / Parramatta.
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).
This statement must be qualified by making a distinction between price increases in 19911996, and 1996-1998. Between 1991 and 1996, the real (after inflation) median unit price in
the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury decreased by 10 per cent, and the real median house
price increased by only four per cent. In the same period, the real median unit price in the
Sydney SD increased by approximately eight per cent, and the real median house price
increased by approximately 15 per cent. Between 1996 and 1998 however, the real median
unit price in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury increased by 15 per cent, and the real median
house price increased by approximately eight per cent. In the Sydney SD between 1996 and
1998, the real median unit price increased by almost 22 per cent, and the real median house
price increased by 20 per cent (Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999:166).
Table 13 shows that over the years 1997-1999, the median residential sales price in the Blue
Mountains increased at a rate of 26 per cent, higher than the Sydney SD rate of 20 per cent.
Seen another way, in 1997 the median sales price in the Blue Mountains was 60.7 per cent of
that in Sydney. By 1999, this proportion had increased to 65.6 per cent.
Table 13: Median Sales Price by Year 1997-1999 Based on Median Sales Price September Quarter for all
Dwellings
Year
Median Sales Price
Blue Mountains
% Annual Increase
Sydney SD
Blue Mountains
Sydney SD
1997
$156 000
$257 000
5.3
9.0
1998
$177 000
$273 000
10.7
2.2
1999
$197 000
$300 000
9.8
8.9
Source: NSW Department of Housing, 2000
Rental costs in the Blue Mountains have not increased at the same rate as rental costs in the
Sydney SD, as shown in Figure 17. The median rental price for dwellings of one or two
bedrooms in the Blue Mountains has increased an average of 4.2 per cent annually over the
last five years (NSW Department of Housing, 2000).
35
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
250.0
Median rent ($)
200.0
150.0
135
195
187
177
138
145
145
235
222
207
152
162
100.0
50.0
Blue Mountains median rent
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
0.0
Sydney SD median rent
Figure 17: Median Weekly Rent 1994-1999 Based on the Median Rent for the December Quarter for all
Dwellings with 1-3 Bedrooms (NSW Department of Housing, 2000).
The NSW Rent Report summary for the December Quarter 2000 indicates that rent prices
continue to increase in the Blue Mountains. Rental costs for smaller one bedroom units
increased by 16 per cent for the year 1999, above the State average of 11 per cent. At the
same time the number of rental properties is decreasing in the Blue Mountains, with a
decrease of 8.2 per cent in the number of bonds held. The average weekly rent for a three
bedroom dwelling in the Blue Mountains was $200 at the end of the December quarter of
2000 (NSW Department of Housing, 2000).
Rental properties comprise 18 per cent of dwelling stock in the Blue Mountains, which is well
below their proportion of dwelling stock in the Sydney SD (30%). The vacancy rate for Outer
Sydney (of which the Blue Mountains is a part) for July 2001 was 3.3 per cent. This is below the
vacancy rate for the Sydney total for the same period, which was 3.8 per cent. Community
organisations and real estate agents have recently reported rental accommodation
vacancy rates of 2.9 per cent across the Blue Mountains (Real Estate Institute NSW,
pers.comm., 2001).
Discussions with the Real Estate Institute of NSW (2001) indicate that these figures point
towards a steady increase in rental prices, but are not considered to be optimal for investors.
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 increase, in view of the limited supply
of public rental accommodation and the long waiting lists.
5.3
PUBLIC HOUSING
The Department of Housing presently has 444 property assets in the Blue Mountains (NSW
Department of Housing (Acting Regional Director), 2000). These assets are primarily located
in Katoomba, with limited properties located in the Lower Mountains. In general the existing
public housing assets are single detached houses located within Residential A1 zones under
Blue Mountains LEP 4. A misalignment of housing stock to housing demand is occurring for
the Department, with an oversupply of bed-sitters and three bedroom dwellings. Typically,
public housing applicants require one and two bedroom dwellings and this component of
the housing stock should be increased. Coupled with this, there is a need to allow for public
housing stock to be redeveloped in response to the aging nature of public housing, with 41
36
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
per cent of stock being over 20 years old (NSW Department of Housing (Acting Regional
Director), 2000).
Over the last five years there has been a 25 per cent increase in the demand for public
housing in the Blue Mountains. In the same period, the supply of public housing stock has
increased by only 13 per cent. 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. This is considerably
lower than the proportion of public housing across NSW, which comprises on average 6.1 per
cent of the total housing stock.
There are a total of 1,150 households on the waiting list for public housing within the Blue
Mountains LGA. Of these, 401 households are on the waiting list for pensioner housing (NSW
Department of Housing (Acting Regional Director), 2000).
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. The National Housing Strategy undertaken in 1991-92
defined housing stress as a situation in which a household spends more than 30 per cent of its
income on housing (Burgess and Skeltys, 1992).
A great deal of debate has been generated by definitions of housing stress (see King, 1994).
The main points of debate are:
•
Most definitions do not take into account the quality or appropriateness of housing.
Housing that does not meet basic standards in the provision of bathroom and kitchen
facilities, or is overcrowded, is considered equal to housing that does meet these
standards.
•
The definition of income must take into account a wide range of factors, for instance
the inclusion of non-cash assets such as shares and property investments. A person on
a low income with considerable investments in shares may not be considered to need
low cost accommodation or assistance, however an elderly home-owner who is unable
to make rates payments may be considered to need some kind of assistance.
•
There is a need to account for spatial variation in housing and living costs. The price of
the same dwelling will vary depending on location. The cost of living also varies
depending on location, consequently affecting the amount needed after paying for
housing to meet other basic needs. This may be partly accounted for by subtracting an
allowance for proximity to transport and town centres from housing costs, and/or
adding to the cost of living where costs of transport to the nearest employment centre
are high.
•
Some people spend a large proportion of their income on housing out of choice. The
National Housing Strategy considered only those on the lowest 40 per cent of incomes,
to exclude high income earners who make this choice.
37
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
An income unit does not necessarily equate to a household, and there are blurred
distinctions between people who are in the same household and comprise separate
income units. One example is children living at home who earn separate incomes and
pay board, but are dependant on their parents for some other living costs.
A calculation of housing stress requires complex analysis. Without the necessary data on
incomes and assets, income units within households, and even with the limited availability of
data on income after the 1996 ABS Census, it is impossible to gain an accurate picture of
affordability. Due to these data limitations, a definitive measure of housing stress will not be
attempted in this strategy for the Blue Mountains LGA, but will be addressed in future policy
and strategy development.
5.4.2 Housing stress and affordability in the Blue Mountains
The above overview 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 and home purchase prices in the Blue Mountains are
increasing. The median sales price of dwellings, whilst still below that of the Sydney SD, is
increasing at a faster rate than in the Sydney SD. Residential sales prices experienced a 26
per cent increase for the Blue Mountains between 1997 and 1999, compared to a 20 per
cent increase for 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. Blue Mountains residents have incomes that are on average well below the
average weekly income for Australia and Sydney, however median weekly household
incomes across the LGA increased by 13 per cent between 1991 and 1996, a faster rate than
those for the Sydney SD which increased by 11.7 per cent over the same period.
It is difficult to draw any conclusions as to a measure of affordability from this limited
information. It can be stated that both the cost of housing and the ability of residents to
meet housing costs based on income are increasing at faster rates in the Blue Mountains LGA
than in the Sydney SD. However, the rates of increase for housing costs and incomes are not
directly comparable, and are measured across different time frames. It cannot be
determined from this analysis whether the increase in incomes compensates for the increase
in housing costs.
There are, however, four main implications of these trends. 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. Draft LEP 2002 acknowledges these constraints by protecting town
character, 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 is currently under-provided, and
there are dwindling opportunities for its future provision. As well as being characterised
by rental housing, lower cost accommodation is typically located in alternative
dwellings such as flats and units.
38
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
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 dependant children, and a subsequent increase in smaller household types,
including lone person households, ageing households and single parent families.
These restrictions tend to indicate that the level of affordability of housing in the Blue
Mountains will decrease relative to current levels. However, as discussed below, such
assessments need to be considered within a regional context, which suggests that the Blue
Mountains is likely to remain more affordable than the remainder of Western Sydney.
Supplementary research
The findings of a number of reports on affordability within the Blue Mountains are useful to
supplement this information.
The Western Sydney Affordable Housing Study (Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver,
1999) found that the ability of those on low incomes or government assistance to buy or rent
in the Blue Mountains had significantly decreased. The annual household income required in
order to purchase a house in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury area at the median house
price ($158,000 for 1998) was $42,500, while that required to purchase a unit at the median
unit price ($108,000 for 1998) was $29,000. The median annual household income in 1998 was
estimated at $38,500, meaning that any household with equal to or less than the median
household income could not afford to purchase a dwelling in the Blue Mountains without
spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. However, the Blue Mountains /
Hawkesbury sub-region remains the least costly area to buy housing out of all sub-regions in
Western Sydney.
The Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver also found that over the period 1995 to 1998,
rental prices for three bedroom houses in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury became more
affordable, since ‘rent increases were less than both average weekly ordinary time earnings
increases and inflation’ (1999:168). However, over the same period rental prices for one
bedroom units became moderately less affordable, since rents increased by an average of
3.3 per cent per annum. Overall, rental accommodation in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury
is considerably more affordable than purchasing a dwelling for the majority of households.
Even so, less than 46 per cent of all private renters in Western Sydney could afford to rent a
three bedroom house at the median rental price in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury area.
Approximately 66 per cent of all private renters in Western Sydney could afford to rent a one
bedroom unit at the median rental price in the Blue Mountains / Hawkesbury area (Planning
Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999:168-169).
The Blue Mountains Housing Needs Research Report (Whittington, 1993) also states that the
ability of low-income earners to afford housing in the Blue Mountains has declined
significantly in recent years. Nevertheless, it would seem that low income households
continue to be attracted to the Blue Mountains because housing is relatively cheaper than in
the Sydney Metropolitan Area. Particular groups of low-income earners include pensioners,
young people and single parent families. Whittington (1993) highlights an insufficient supply
of medium density, low-cost rental, community and supported accommodation, and other
affordable housing types to address the housing needs of these groups.
Whittington (1993) showed that between 1987 and 1992 the price of a three bedroom
cottage in Blaxland rose by $50,000 or 40 per cent, and the price of a three bedroom
cottage in Katoomba rose by $46,000 or 46 per cent. During this period, the average full time
weekly wage rose by only 25.7 per cent. Whittington’s research implies that there have been
significant decreases in the level of affordability of housing in the Blue Mountains, relative to
income.
Council’s Residential Development Strategy (1996) found that there were a number of unmet
housing needs within the Blue Mountains that included an insufficient supply of affordable
39
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
medium density housing, low cost rental housing, public housing, housing for aged and
disabled people in close proximity to services, and housing for young people.
A brief review of relevant research has reinforced the findings of this Strategy. The
affordability of housing in the Blue Mountains is generally declining relative to incomes,
especially with regard to home purchase prices. However the Blue Mountains remains a
location for cheaper rental and purchase accommodation, as prices are considerably lower
than in Sydney and lower than the majority of areas in Western Sydney. It is considered likely
that the level of affordability across the whole of Western Sydney has decreased in recent
years (Planning Research Centre and Scott Carver, 1999).
5.4.3 Regional policies and strategies
Regions within Sydney display an acute lack of affordable housing far above that
encountered within the Blue Mountains. The NSW Housing Indicators Report (DoH, 1999)
shows that purchase affordability, defined as the proportion of dwellings sold that are
affordable to low income households, continues to decline. For the December quarter 1999,
10 per cent of dwellings sold in the Sydney SD were affordable, compared to the December
1998 quarter when 14 per cent of dwellings sold were affordable.
Action has been taken by a number of Councils in an attempt to alleviate the problem. A
Draft Affordable Housing SEPP is in the process of being developed by DUAP. This SEPP
suggests methods of levying developers for funds to contribute towards affordable housing
projects, or requiring that proposed developments incorporate a component of affordable
housing. These solutions are more applicable to large scale multi-unit developments, and are
not necessarily applicable to the Blue Mountains, given the lack of developable land and the
largely infill and small scale nature of new development that occurs in the LGA.
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 (90.9%). This is a higher proportion than in Sydney or WSROC. A further 2.2 per
cent of dwellings in the Blue Mountains are semi-detached and a further 3.9 per cent
are flats or units.
•
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.
•
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 has been increasing since
1996, with a peak in 1999 attributed to the pre-GST boom.
•
The majority of building approvals have occurred in the urban areas of the LGA, and
have been for detached dwellings.
•
Dwelling commencements primarily comprise commencements for detached
dwellings or alterations and additions. Commencements for alternative dwellings have
comprised less than three per cent of all dwelling commencements since 1997.
40
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
Median sales prices in the LGA increased by 26 per cent between 1997 and 1999, a
rate of increase higher than that for the Sydney SD.
•
Rental costs have increased at an average of 4.2 per cent per annum over the last five
years, however rental costs for one bedroom units increased by 16 per cent in 1999.
Rental properties in the Blue Mountains have lower vacancy rates than those in the
Sydney SD.
•
Although the proportion of the Blue Mountains population experiencing housing stress
has not been established, 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.
41
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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. It has been
demonstrated that 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 couple 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 more to an aging
population and decreasing household sizes than to population increases. Future housing
provision therefore needs to promote the flexibility to re-use and realign the existing 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 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.
Increases in lone person households are also expected to result in greater competition for
42
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
alternative housing in the Mountains, which will see some people continuing to live in housing
which does not meet their needs.
The shortage of public 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
public 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. However it is unlikely that the Department of
Housing or Council will provide more public housing in the foreseeable future, and alternative
mechanisms will need to be examined to meet this need.
The current occupation of alternative dwellings gives some indication of components of the
population whose needs are not catered for by the current dwelling stock. Of those living in
semi-detached housing in the Blue Mountains, 31.8 per cent are aged 55 and over. This is a
much higher proportion than both Sydney (18.6%) and WSROC (13.9%). A similar trend
emerges with respect to older people living in flats, with 44.0 per cent of those living in flats in
the Blue Mountains being 55 and over, compared to 20.1 per cent in Sydney and 17.0 per
cent in WSROC (Holloway and Wood, 2001).
The implications of this trend for older persons are discussed in the Blue Mountains Accessible
Housing Strategy. For the purposes of identifying the need for alternative housing, this may
indicate that other components of the population such as couples without children and
younger lone person households have difficulty accessing alternative housing. It may also
indicate that there is a shortage of alternative housing to meet their needs as opposed to the
needs of older persons.
The limited supply of land will prevent further urban expansion. 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 will result in house price increases. Increased housing
costs are particularly likely to be reflected in the cost of alternative housing, for which there is
projected to be an increase in demand. Unless more alternative housing is provided, the Blue
Mountains is likely to face a housing shortage that will 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.
6.2
DEMAND FOR ALTERNATIVE HOUSING
Metropolitan 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, and to address the lack of
43
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
sustainability in current growth patterns.
Council’s Draft LEP 2002.
These aims are reflected in the objectives of
However, given the situation of the Blue Mountains both in terms of geography and
demography, questions remained about the level of demand that may exist for this type of
housing in the LGA. Prior to advancing with longer-term housing strategies, Council needed
to gain a more detailed understanding of the relationship between local demographic
trends and housing demands.
Accordingly, 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.
The UFP research reviewed available census data and developed a multiple regression
equation that can be used to predict the demand for alternative housing in the Blue
Mountains. Multiple regression selects a number of independent variables that best predict
variation in a dependent variable (in this case, demand for alternative housing). This was
developed using a wide range of variables from the 1996 ABS Census. Twenty variables with
some relevance to alternative housing demand were selected, and were culled to the most
relevant variables by a process involving both stepwise regression and backwards regression.
The resulting equation explains 56 per cent of variance in the demand for alternative housing
in the Blue Mountains.
Key findings from this research include:
•
The level of demand for alternative housing increases with an increase in the following
demographic groups within the City:
−
−
−
Lone person households,
High income households,
Persons aged over 65.
•
The level of demand for alternative housing decreases with an increase in owneroccupiers 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 predict that there will 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.
•
The projected demand for alternative housing units by UFP has been a key
consideration in the formulation of this residential development strategy.
44
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
PART 7
7.1
DRAFT LEP 2002 – HOUSING OUTCOMES
PROPOSED LAND USE STRUCTURE
Draft LEP 2002 is based on a strategy of implementing ecologically sustainable development.
A number of practical land use planning measures have been incorporated into the plan to
achieve this aim. The form of future development in the Blue Mountains must consider the
protection of the environment and the management of eco-systems and natural resources in
order to achieve improved social and economic development.
Draft LEP 2002 identifies a limit to growth through the zoning of land. 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. This land 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.
The identification of town and residential character has also been intrinsic to the application
of land use zones, as it contributes 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.
Draft LEP 2002 adopts a concentric approach to the application of zones as represented in
Figure 18. 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 reducing the density of future development within the urban/bushland fringe.
NATIONAL PARK
EPOS
LBC
LC
LG
VH/ VT
VTC
ROAD/ RAIL
CORRIDOR
KEY TO ZONES
Villa g e – Tow n Ce ntre
Villa g e – Ho using
Living – Gene ra l
NATIONAL PARK
Living – Co nse rva tio n
Living – Bushla nd
Co nse rva tio n
Enviro nme nta l
Pro te c tio n – Op en
Sp a c e
VTC
VH
LG
LC
LBC
EPOS
NATIONAL PARK
Figure 18: Concentric model of urban development in the Blue Mountains
45
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
This is particularly evident in the larger district centres, where services and facilities are easily
accessed. This strategy will encourage more sustainable land use patterns, reduced reliance
on private transport, increased accessibility, and increased activity within town centres. Draft
LEP 2002 aims to promote a mix of uses within town centres and encourages the provision of
appropriately 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 no constraints on land in
terms of the environment, residential character or infrastructure, have been 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 have been
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 intensification of 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.
7.2
VILLAGE HIERARCHY
As discussed in Part 3 of this report, the linearity of development in the Blue Mountains makes
it difficult for Council and other government and community agencies to adequately service
community support infrastructure 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.
Ten primary townships, or Designated Service Centres (DSCs), have been identified as a part
of Council’s residential strategy, building on concepts developed in Blue Mountains
Community Plan (BMCC, 1995). These represent the optimal centres in which key facilities
and services may be provided. The ten DSCs are:
•
Blackheath;
•
Katoomba;
•
Leura;
•
Wentworth Falls;
•
Lawson;
•
Hazelbrook;
•
Springwood;
•
Winmalee;
•
Blaxland; and
•
Glenbrook.
These are identified in Figure 19.
It has long been recognised that the commercial centres of Katoomba and Springwood
provide for citywide services and facilities, responding to the natural tendency for district
centres to develop to serve the Upper and Lower Mountains respectively. One major service
46
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
centre has been identified for each of the community planning areas. Minor service centres,
capable of meeting the social and physical support needs of residents, have also been
identified.
Figure 19: Major local and district service centres in the Blue Mountains
Council’s selection of DSCs is confirmed by the Integrating Land Use and Transport guidelines
(2001), as endorsed by DUAP, RTA and Transport NSW. A key principle in the integration of
land uses and transport nodes is the concentration of key higher density land uses in centres,
within walking distance of transport nodes. Centres should contain ‘the highest appropriate
densities of housing, employment, services and public facilities’ within an acceptable walking
distance of major public transport nodes, such as railway stations and high frequency bus
routes (2001:8). 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 Guidelines also encourage 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 DSCs in the Blue Mountains. All DSCs (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 DSCs 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, Accessible Housing Areas have been applied to each of the DSCs, in
order to provide accessible housing in close proximity to key facilities and services. These are
described in more detail in Part 8.2 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 proposed provisions of Draft LEP 2002 has
47
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
been undertaken. This involves an investigation of the supply of vacant and partially
developed land that could accommodate future development.
While such assessments are important in determining the broad outcomes of proposals for
urban management, it is emphasised that such assessments evaluate the maximum possible
development in the future or “highest and best use” in economic terms.
Rather than attempting to predict likely development scenarios or estimating activity in the
housing market over the longer term, the study is intended to provide notional land supply
outcomes. These are summarised in the sections below by town and planning area. In
making assumptions as transparent as possible, the methodology for this study is outlined
below and mirrors that used in Council’s Residential Subdivision Study.
In assessing residential land supply, assessments were limited to that land proposed to be
within the Living – General, Living – Conservation or Living – Bushland Conservation zones of
the draft plan. This restricts the search to the lower density residential allotments. On this basis
it is assumed that each allotment contains a maximum of one dwelling. The potential supply
of multi-dwelling and other alternative housing under the Draft LEP is covered separately in
Part 7.4 of this report.
The total land stock in these zones was sifted to exclude that land which is not serviced by
sewer.
Although properties currently on the Sydney Water Corporation’s backlog
programme were not included, it is to be noted that they represent an additional 741
allotments that have potential to be developed within the next decade.
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 are
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 are vacant and those which are either partially or fully developed.
This was based on a scan of aerial photographs taken in 19993, cross-checked against
Council’s development records and garbage collection database.
For the purpose of such an assessment, it is typical to assume that the property market will
realise the potential of vacant serviced land over the longer term. In addition the take-up
rate of development opportunities for vacant land could be expected to exceed that for
land that is at present partially developed and/or requiring further subdivision. However in
the Blue Mountains context, this is qualified to some extent by the recognition that some
vacant land may be subject to environmental and/or bush fire constraints that may limit
future development activity.
7.3.1 Vacant serviced land
Vacant serviced land was further divided into that which can be subdivided, based on the
relevant zoning and subdivision controls under Draft LEP 2002, 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 are shown in Table 14.
A total of 2 399 vacant allotments in the LGA cannot be further subdivided, and will
accommodate one dwelling per allotment, irrespective of the relevant zoning and
It is to be noted that a proportion of the sites determined to have been vacant based on the 1999 images will since
have been developed.
3
48
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
subdivision controls under Draft LEP 2002. 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 14: Supply of Vacant Serviced Residential Land under Draft LEP 2002
Town
Land that
cannot be
subdivided
Subdividable land
Total land
Parcels
Parcels
Parcels
Bell
Yield after
subdivision
Yield after
subdivision
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
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
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
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
266
13
33
279
299
Warrimoo
35
0
0
35
35
Blaxland
36
8
18
44
54
Glenbrook
42
6
47
48
89
4
0
0
4
4
18
0
0
18
18
135
14
65
149
200
2 399
88
298
2 487
2 697
Medlow Bath
Bullaburra
Total Planning Area 3
Total Planning Area 4
Lapstone
Mount Riverview
Total Planning Area 5
TOTAL
A further 88 allotments (3.5%) can be further subdivided. It is projected that, based on the
relevant zoning and subdivision controls for each lot under the Draft LEP, these allotments
have the potential to accommodate a total of 298 dwellings after subdivision. In total, there
are 2 487 vacant, serviced, developable allotments in the Draft LEP area, with the potential to
accommodate a total of 2 697 dwellings.
7.3.2 Developed serviced land
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 Draft LEP.
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 is
currently on the allotment, and therefore make no further contribution to the yield
calculations.
49
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
The developed serviced land within the selected residential zones that can be further
subdivided, based on the subdivision provisions and under the Draft LEP, is shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Supply of developed serviced land under Draft LEP 2002
Town
Land that cannot be
subdivided
Subdividable land
Parcels
Parcels
Bell
Mount Victoria
283
Yield after subdivision
0
0
36
95
Blackheath
1 914
84
240
Total Area 1
2 197
120
335
0
0
0
Katoomba
3 182
114
329
Leura
1 622
77
140
Wentworth Falls
1 940
122
317
Total Area 2
Medlow Bath
6 744
313
786
Bullaburra
386
34
53
Lawson
968
42
64
1 607
66
145
544
18
35
Hazelbrook
Woodford
Linden
53
0
0
Total Area 3
3 558
160
297
Faulconbridge
1 160
48
184
Springwood
2 634
87
341
357
1
1
1 944
37
112
Yellow Rock
0
0
0
Hawkesbury Heights
0
0
0
6 095
173
638
Valley Heights
Winmalee
Total Area 4
Warrimoo
809
4
30
Blaxland
2 400
92
268
Glenbrook
1 681
82
121
346
0
0
Lapstone
Mount Riverview
1 093
8
30
Total Area 5
6 329
186
449
24 923
952
2 505
TOTAL
There are 952 developed serviced allotments in the selected zones which may be further
developed, creating the potential for a total of 2 505 additional allotments. The majority of
these allotments are found in Katoomba, Wentworth Falls, Springwood and Blaxland.
Developed serviced land represents 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. It would
be unlikely that possible development scenarios on developed land would be realised and
this assessment therefore represents the upper limit of possible future development.
7.3.3 Capacity of land supply
Table 16 represents the total supply of land available under the Living – General, Living –
Conservation or Living – Bushland Conservation zones of the draft plan by town and planning
area. This is generated from the above assessment of vacant and developed land, based on
realisation of all subdivision opportunities.
50
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Table 16: Residential Land Stock Available under Draft LEP 2002, Following Subdivision
Town
Vacant land that
cannot be subdivided
Additional land after
subdivision
Parcels
Bell
Total land supply
Parcels
Parcels
0
0
0
Mount Victoria
104
102
206
Blackheath
456
280
736
Total Area 1
560
382
942
0
0
0
Katoomba
433
367
800
Leura
280
159
439
Wentworth Falls
263
379
642
Total Area 2
976
905
1 881
56
53
109
Lawson
131
84
215
Hazelbrook
171
157
328
Woodford
91
37
128
Linden
13
0
13
462
331
793
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
937
Medlow Bath
Bullaburra
Total Area 3
Total Area 4
266
671
Warrimoo
35
30
65
Blaxland
36
286
322
Glenbrook
42
168
210
4
0
4
18
30
48
Lapstone
Mount Riverview
Total Area 5
TOTAL
135
514
649
2 399
2 803
5 202
The resulting notional land supply figures are intended to give an indication of the likely
potential land supply for additional development where the housing market realises all
development opportunities. A total of 2803 of existing allotments could be created within the
Living – General, Living – Conservation and Living – Bushland Conservation zones under the
Draft LEP. These allotments have the potential, when subdivided, to accommodate a total of
5 202 new dwelling houses.
By way of comparison, the assessment of possible subdivision under LEP 4, as undertaken in
the Residential Subdivision Study, indicates that there is the potential for 9 296 additional lots.
Under LEP 4 there would be 2121 vacant parcels that could not be subdivided. Therefore,
the notional potential for additional dwelling houses would be approximately 11 417 under
that planning scheme.
The indicative capacity of the proposed land stock in the Blue Mountains is based on a
calculation of the dwellings that were approved for the LEP 4 area in 1998 (as an indicative
year), which identifies the rate of development for detached dwellings. The potential land
supply calculated above has been assessed against this rate of development and an
indicative capacity of the proposed land stock has been identified in Table 17. The rate of
development for 1999 has not been considered as a true indication of the ongoing
development rate due to the impacts of the pre-GST building boom.
51
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
Table 17: Projected Residential Land Supply Over Time
Planning Area
Land Stock under Draft LEP 2002
Number Lots
Planning Area 1
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 3
Planning Area 4
Planning Area 5
Total
Indicative year when
capacity reached
Rate per year
942
1 881
793
937
649
5 202
45
110
44
71
35
305
2019
2016
2017
2012
2017
2019
At 1998 rates of development, the land stock proposed under Draft LEP 2002 will allow for the
development of new detached dwellings until 2019. In 2019 the capacity of the Blue
Mountains urban land stock is forecast to be exhausted. There is some variation between the
Planning Areas, with Planning Area 4 reaching capacity in the year 2012.
These calculations only consider the primary residential area of Draft LEP 2002 and do not
consider the potential additional dwellings within the area zoned under LEP 1991.
Due to the sensitive natural environment within the Blue Mountains there is limited availability
of land for new residential development. Depending on rates of development remaining
constant, the available land stock will reach capacity approximately in the years 2017-2019.
Following this the majority of additional residential development potential will be in the form
of 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.
7.4
ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SUPPLY
The provision of an increased range of housing choice across the Blue Mountains is an
important objective of Draft LEP 2002. This RDS seeks 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. The opportunities will 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 Draft LEP 2002 that address alternative housing provision include the following:
•
Dual occupancy development (attached and detached) will be permissible in the
Village-Town
Centre,
Village-Tourist,
Village-Housing,
Living-General
and
Employment-Enterprise zones. This will generally allow for the re-use of a wide range of
residential areas in close proximity to local service centres and facilities. Controls on the
form and location of dual occupancies will encourage the retention of streetscape
dominated by single detached houses and the retention of a range of housing types.
•
“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 will promote the re-use and modification of the
existing housing stock to meet the housing needs of residents in a small scale way.
•
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. In addition, a limited number of larger self-contained developments will be
permissible in other locations.
•
Village-Housing zones (including medium density housing) have been located so as to
be easily accessible to the local and district centres, and will allow for their
redevelopment at greater residential densities.
52
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
•
A certain proportion of development in the Village-Housing zone is required to have a
smaller floor space, to promote dwellings suitable for smaller households and
encourage greater levels of affordability. In addition, development for the purposes of
re-aligning the public housing stock to smaller housing types is to be permitted in a
greater variety of situations throughout the Blue Mountains.
•
The Village-Town Centre and Village-Neighbourhood Centre zonings promote
opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial development and alternative
housing types within the village centres.
Village-specific development control
provisions have been prepared to enable the cohesive development of villages as
these zones are applied.
Table 18 describes an estimated potential yield of the various alternative housing forms under
the proposed zoning plan of Draft LEP 2002. These notional figures are based on scenarios of
maximum possible development or 100 per cent take-up rate.
Table 18: Potential Yield for Alternative Housing Types under Draft LEP 2002
Town
Mount Victoria
Blackheath
Medlow Bath
Katoomba
Leura
Wentworth Falls
Bullaburra
Lawson
Hazelbrook
Woodford
Linden
Faulconbridge
Springwood*
Winmalee
Yellow Rock/
Hawkesbury Heights
Valley Heights
Warrimoo
Blaxland
Mount Riverview
Glenbrook
Lapstone
TOTAL
Dual Occupancies
(Dwellings)
54
9
0
101
26
3
0
14
5
0
0
161
98
57
0
0
16
250
22
14
0
830
Accessible Housing / Multi
dwelling housing (No. Units)
Total
23
238
0
635
225
130
0
171
173
0
0
0
945
30
77
247
0
736
251
133
0
185
178
0
0
161
1 043
87
0
0
0
363
0
55
0
2 988
0
0
16
613
22
69
0
3 818
*Includes St Columba's site
However, it is emphasised that 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 1272 additional units. Such levels are consistent with the
demand forecasts developed in the demand assessment above. Historically the take-up rate
for alternative dwellings in the Blue Mountains has been considerably below this level. As
discussed below, opportunities for alternative housing development under existing planning
instruments are significantly higher than that permitted under this strategy, and yet take-up
has remained low. This is a function of demand and net returns based on land value and unit
price. As land supply becomes further restricted, and demographic shifts alter housing
demand, the take-up rate is likely to increase.
Although the strategy provides opportunities for limited alternative housing to meet local
housing need, development beyond a 33 per cent take-up rate over a twenty year period is
not sanctioned by this strategy. The role of this strategy is to provide opportunities for
alternative housing within levels commensurate with environmental and infrastructure
53
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
capacity and community expectation. It cannot be said that such opportunities have been
provided if such a strategy would rely on maximum development potential being realised in
all instances. However, such an approach comes with an important corollary; namely, that
the level of alternative housing development requires periodic monitoring. Should levels of
take-up approach those stated above Council would have to re-assess this strategy and its
planning instruments, with a view to evaluating the environmental impacts of existing
development, and ascertaining community aspirations and housing need as it is presented at
that time.
7.5
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN INSTRUMENTS
Table 19 provides the area of land zoned under LEP 4 that permits alternative housing forms
and similarly zoned land (Village-Housing and Village-Tourist) under Draft LEP 2002. Although
the Village-Housing zone is the primary vehicle for permitting alternative housing forms under
Draft LEP 2002, the Village-Tourist zone also permits these opportunities together with tourist
related land uses and is included in the table for completeness.
Table 19 Comparison of land zoned for alternative housing under LEP 4 and Draft LEP 2002
Town
LEP 4
(m2)
Village -Housing
zone
Mount Victoria
Blackheath
Total Area 1
Medlow Bath
Katoomba
Leura
Wentworth Falls
Total Area 2
Bullaburra
Lawson
Hazelbrook
Total Area 3
Faulconbridge
Springwood
Valley Heights
Total Area 4
Blaxland
Glenbrook
Lapstone
Total Area 5
Total
54 652
277 794
332 446
46 347
831 251
363 551
140 420
1 381 568
6 053
154 970
164 770
325 793
17 738
227 892
27 918
273 548
62 161
0
1 542
63 703
2 377 057
0
13 370
13 370
0
132 201
37 410
18 700
188 311
0
46 586
12 100
58 686
0
129 422
0
129 422
92 838
0
0
92 838
482 626
Draft LEP 2002
(m2)
Village -Tourist
zone
53 018
0
53 018
16 703
199 981
68 850
0
285 534
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
338 553
Total
53 018
13 370
66 388
16 703
332 182
106 260
18 700
473 845
0
46 586
12 100
58 686
0
129 422
0
129 422
92 838
0
0
92 838
821 179
The Draft LEP 2002 represents a significant reduction in the area of land available where
alternative housing forms are permissible. Under LEP 4 an area of 2,377,057m2 is available
compared to 821,179m2 proposed under the Draft LEP 2002. Council has taken a deliberate
and fine-grained approach to identifying optimal sites for alternative housing development
to meet the needs of residents and the results of this are represented in the above table.
However, as indicated below the sites chosen provide viable opportunities for alternative
housing provision. A broad strategic assessment of the total area zoned for alternative
housing forms under Draft LEP 2002, indicates that some 218,948m2 is available for
development.
7.6
VILLAGE HOUSING SITES
The Village-Housing zone of Draft LEP 2002 identifies sites suitable for the provision of
alternative forms of housing at higher densities. Sites that are vacant or under developed
54
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
have site-specific provisions that aim to ensure development responds to the particular
characteristics and constraints of the locality.
As with Draft LEP 1997, the zoning structure and site identification of Village-Housing zones
departs significantly from the “Alternative Housing” sites within the 1996 RDS. In particular,
smaller townships such as Valley Heights and Faulconbridge, where alternative housing
opportunities were identified in the RDS, were not zoned accordingly under Draft LEP 1997 or
Draft LEP 2002. This is consistent with Council’s policy of consolidating development within
existing commercial centres and was a result of improved mapping and site analysis
techniques.
The cumulative research, consultation, public inquiry and review process that underpinned
Draft LEP 2002 identified the need to locate Village-Housing sites in a fine grained and site
specific manner. Each of the Village-Housing sites within Draft LEP 2002 have been selected
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; and
•
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. Site
specific or place-based provisions have been developed for each of the precincts, as
discussed previously.
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.
55
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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). The relevant FSR for each site is prescribed by
locality provisions within Draft LEP 2002. 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 Draft LEP. Actual take-up
rates are likely to vary with market fluctuation, in accordance with local and regional trends
and changing housing demands.
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 Yield0
Zoned site area: 13,511m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net unit yield: 17
56
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Net unit yield: N/A
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
Net Yield: 18 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 18,470m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 62 units
57
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 16,990m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 61 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 27,740m2
FSR: 0.8:1
Net Yield: 54 units
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
Net Yield: N/A
58
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 10,980m2
FSR: 1:1
Net Yield: 29 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 47,470m2
FSR: 0.5:1
Net Yield: 46 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 5,462m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 12 units
59
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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. The proposed
Village Housing site demonstrates an efficient
use of infrastructure and services, being within
close proximity to Leura shops and train station.
Potential Yield
Zoned Site Area: 17,510m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 28 units
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 homebased 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
Net Unit Yield: 17
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
Zoned Site Area: 11,510m2
FSR: 0.5:1
Net Yield: 33 units
60
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 7,191m2
FSR: 0.5:1
Net Yield: 6 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
Zoned Site Area: 3,484m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 16 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 4,573m2
FSR: 0.5:1
Net Yield: 9 units
61
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 38,807m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 54 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 27,270m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 101 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 12,103m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 27 units
62
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
VH-SPGEN – General Village
N/A
Potential Yield
Zoned Site Area: 57,260m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 0 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 12,215m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 18 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 10,752m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 15 units
63
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 33,687m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 47 units
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 multiunit housing and commercial purposes.
Potential Yield
Zoned Site Area: 11,150m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 29 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 10,230m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 48 units
64
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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 tytpe
developments, being a large undeveloped
parcel of land within a the suburban footprint
of Blaxland. The site is within close proximity to
Blaxland East and Blaxland shops, services and
transport.
Potential Yield
Zoned Site Area: 26,280m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 99 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 35,380m2
FSR: 0.15:1
Net Yield: 40 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 31,786m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 48 units
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.
65
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 22,298m2
FSR: 0.3:1
Net Yield: 10 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 33,693m2
FSR: 0.3:1
Net Yield: 13 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 16,700m2
FSR: 0.4:1
Net Yield: 0 units
66
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 173,200m2
FSR: 0.35:1
Net Yield: 47 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 47,130m2
FSR: 0.8:1
Net Yield: 14 units
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
Zoned Site Area: 45,672m2
FSR: 0.6:1
Net Yield: 107 units
67
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
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
Zoned Site Area: 23,174m2
FSR: 0.5:1
Net Yield: 4 units
7.7
POTENTIAL POPULATION
The potential additional land supply under Draft LEP 2002 would allow for an estimated 9 020
additional dwellings, derived from Table 14 and Table 18. This would involve additional
subdivision of land (generally within the existing urban footprint), development of vacant
allotments and the potential for the redevelopment of areas immediately surrounding the
major towns with a wider range and quantity of alternative housing types.
Household sizes vary depending on the type of dwelling, with semi-detached dwellings, units
and townhouses estimated as having a household size of approximately 1.5 persons. This is
lower than the household size for detached dwellings, which for the purposes of this
population assessment have been considered at the average Blue Mountains household size
of 2.7 persons.
The majority of the potential for additional dwelling provision within the Blue Mountains is in
smaller alternative housing types such as aged units, townhouses and units. These dwellings
account for 42 per cent of all potential new dwellings (3,818 dwellings). Potential for
additional detached dwellings under Draft LEP 2002 has been modelled at 5,202 dwellings,
comprising 58 per cent of potential new dwellings. This is based on the need to increase the
range of housing choice in the Mountains, in response to trends for smaller household sizes
and the need for the provision of accessible housing.
The amount of potential new dwellings within the Blue Mountains under Draft LEP 2002 would
allow, as a maximum indicative figure, an increase in population in the order of 19,800
people within the urban areas. However, this is a figure based on the full development of
land under the Draft LEP or 100 per cent take-up. As stated above in 7.4, should take-up
rates approach 25 to 33 per cent in terms of alternative housing, the planning instrument
would have achieved its intended residential outcome and would require review. Subject to
a 25 per cent take up of development potential for alternative dwellings, together with a 25
per cent take up of subdivision opportunities for detached housing, an indicative increase in
population in the order of 9 8004 people would occur.
Spatial distribution of additional land supply and potential additional dwellings under Draft
LEP 2002 will focus on the district centres of Katoomba (1,536 additional dwellings) and
Springwood (1,502 additional dwellings). A high proportion of this increase will be in a form
that promotes greater housing choice and accessibility to housing.
This is a notional figure only as it does not account for net changes in population which occur when multi-dwelling
development replaces existing detached housing, or for the projected decline in household size.
4
68
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
7.8
CONCLUSION
This RDS promotes urban settlement in a manner that achieves a balance between
environmental management, character protection and adequate housing provision. This has
been achieved through the use of improved mapping techniques, character assessment
studies and a fine-grained approach to zoning for higher density residential sites.
The RDS recognises the need to define the urban footprint within the Blue Mountains and to
allow for flexible re-use of existing housing stock, in order to align with changing household
structures reflective in population trends. Important innovations that promote adaptive re-use
of existing housing stock include the permissibility of granny flats in most residential zones. This
form of housing allows existing single dwellings to be split so that two households can make
use of the one dwelling. Dual Occupancies have been reintroduced to the Blue Mountains
as a permissible development within a number of zones, adding to the options for
modification and re-use of housing stock.
The Village Housing zone has been applied to individually 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. This represents a departure from a number of sites selected in the
1996 RDS. The proposed land use framework under Draft LEP 2002 consistently maintains a
philosophy of ecologically sustainable development, promotes higher intensity forms of
development within close proximity to existing service centres, and discourages consolidated
development on the periphery of the urban areas, where the environment is likely to be more
sensitive and development is likely to be more car dependant.
The introduction of precinct controls for Village Housing sites ensures that higher intensity
development forms have more stringent design controls, in order to ensure that large
developments are responsive to the unique character of each town.
Although the provision of opportunities for the development of Multi-Dwelling Housing forms
under Draft LEP 2002 represents a significant reduction on levels permissible under the existing
planning instruments, such a reduction is justified following consideration of demand forecasts
and the increasing priority given to protecting both the natural and built environments.
However, deliberate attempts have been made to respond to changing household
structures within the Blue Mountains population and the need to restrict development at the
fringes of urban areas. The Blue Mountains does not have large urban release areas in which
to house future populations, so provision of a range of housing options within selected sites in
existing town centres is imperative.
69
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1996. 1996 Census of Population and Housing.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002a. Accessible Housing Strategy.
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 (BMCC). 2000. Management Reporting of Development
Approvals. Unpublished.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1996. Residential Development Strategy.
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 Urban Affairs and Planning (Director, Sydney Region West). 1999. Pers.
corresp. (letter), 30 December 1999.
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.
King, A. 1994. Towards Indicators of Housing Stress. Australian Government Publishing
Service: Canberra.
NSW Department of Housing. 1999. NSW Housing Indicators Report.
Real Estate Institute NSW. Pers.Comm, 2001.
Whittington, V. 1993. Working Paper No. 1: Blue Mountains Housing Needs Research Report.
Legislation
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 5 (SEPP 5): Housing for older people and people
with a disability. Available http:
70
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/seppn5hfopopwad873/index.html#s1
Accessed 2001.
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 9 (SEPP 9): Group Homes. Available http:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/seppn9gh516/index.html#s1 Accessed
2001.
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 53 (SEPP 53): Metropolitan Residential
Development. Available http:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/seppn53mrd760/index.html#s1 Accessed
2001.
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 32 (SEPP 32): Urban Consolidation
(Redevelopment of Urban Land). Available http:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/seppn32ucoul815/index.html#s1
Accessed 2001.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan Number 20 (SREP 20): Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2
1997). Available http:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/srepn20hr21997640/index.html Accessed
2000.
71
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 1996
An analysis of the divergence between the Alternative Housing Sites selected within the 1996
RDS and the land use strategy of Draft LEP 2002 is provided below:
•
Blackheath
The Alternative Housing Area situated west of the Great Western Highway in Blackheath
is proposed to be zoned Living – General by Draft LEP 2002, and is subject to minor
slope constraints to the north and west of the block. An alternative block was identified
to the east of the Highway for Village – Housing zoning, close to the area zoned Village
– Town Centre. This block has no major constraints and currently houses a multi-unit
development.
•
Katoomba
The Alternative Housing Area east of Whitton Street was identified as being highly
constrained by slope in Draft LEP 2002. The area between Vale Street and Waratah
Street was nominated by the Character Study undertaken for Draft LEP 2002 as
containing significant and contiguous representations of older housing types. This area
has been identified as a Period Housing Area under Draft LEP 2002. The Character
Housing Area prohibits the demolition of older (pre 1940) building types and
subsequently reduces the opportunity for redevelopment. In addition this area contains
relatively small lots, which again reduces the possibilities of redevelopment.
Alternative locations were identified within Katoomba that present realistic
opportunities for redevelopment. Village – Housing zones were identified immediately
west and east of the town centre, and also to the north of the transport corridor around
Bowling Green Avenue and Orient Street.
•
Leura
There are significant environmental and character issues in Leura that affect the
capacity of the land to accommodate alternative housing forms. The area north east
of Wascoe Street contains a hanging swamp that drains to the north west of Wascoe
Street. These areas have been assigned EP where appropriate.
The area south of Megalong Street between Murray and Wascoe Street contributes to
the overall garden setting character that distinguishes Leura.
•
Wentworth Falls
There is an increase of land for alternative housing in Wentworth Falls as a result of the
inclusion of the Adele Avenue site. This site is not limited by environmental factors and
specific provisions will ensure appropriate development occurs.
•
Lawson
The area north of Wilson Street in South Lawson drains into a creek and there is
significant vegetation at the rear of the site. Higher density development in this area
would have a detrimental impact on the environment.
The area bounded by Wilson Street and Adelaide Street has comparatively small lot
sizes that would restrict redevelopment.
72
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO
DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002
It was considered that higher density development in the area east of San Jose Avenue
would have a detrimental impact on the heritage buildings within that area and affect
the cohesiveness of the San Jose Heritage Conservation Area that is considered to be
of State significance.
An alternative location for Village Housing is identified at Loftus Street, North Lawson.
•
Hazelbrook
The RDS identified a large proportion of land in south Hazelbrook for alternative housing
forms. The majority of this area is proposed to be zoned Village – Housing under Draft
LEP 2002, however a portion to the east of Addington Road is proposed to be zoned
Village – Neighbourhood Centre to reflect the central location and land uses in this
area.
The area north of the transport corridor between Winbourne Rd and Albert Street was
an Alternative Housing Area under the 1996 RDS. This was not identified for Village
Housing due to steep slopes. The blocks immediately west and north of this area are
proposed to be zoned Village – Housing under Draft LEP 2002, and have advantages in
being proximate to the village centre, and being relatively unconstrained.
•
Faulconbridge
The level of services within Faulconbridge is not considered sufficient to support an
increase in residential densities.
•
Springwood
There are limited opportunities for development within Springwood due to the
constrained nature of the topography within the area. Sites identified in the 1996 RDS
that have been excluded from the Village zone (along the Great Western Highway)
were identified as having steep slopes and are adjacent to a watercourse.
•
Valley Heights
The area nominated for alternative housing in the RDS is highly constrained by slope
and significant vegetation. In addition, services are limited in Valley Heights and an
increase in residential densities in this location would be unsustainable.
•
Blaxland
The area for alternative housing forms has been increased in Blaxland.
•
Glenbrook
Extensive consultations within the local community resulted in the removal of multi-unit
housing as a land use in the town due to character issues.
73