residential development strategy 2002 · 4.3 population projections 17 4.4 household structure 20...

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

2 0 0 2

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

2 0 0 2

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

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.

i

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS iii PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES 1

1.1 Purpose and structure of this Report 1 1.2 Local Setting 1 1.3 Background: 1996 Residential Development Strategy 2 1.4 Principles of this Strategy 3

PART 2 POLICY CONTEXT 4 2.1 State Policies 4

2.1.1 Metropolitan strategies 4 2.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 – Metropolitan Residential

Development 4 2.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 – Housing for Older People or

People with a Disability 5 2.1.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation

(Redevelopment of Urban Land) 5 2.1.5 Ministerial direction under S.117 - residential zones 6 2.1.6 Conclusion 6

2.2 Local Policies 7 2.2.1 Local environmental plans 7 2.2.2 Draft LEP 1997 7 2.2.3 Draft LEP 2002 - review of draft LEP 1997 8

PART 3 CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT 9 3.1 The Natural Environment 9 3.2 Bushfire Risk 11 3.3 Retention of Town Character 11 3.4 Services and Infrastructure 12

PART 4 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 14 4.1 Existing Population and Population Growth 14 4.2 Age Structure 15 4.3 Population Projections 17 4.4 Household Structure 20 4.5 Spatial Distribution of Population 23 4.6 Home Ownership 24 4.7 Income 25 4.8 Cultural Diversity 27 4.9 Conclusion 28

PART 5 EXISTING HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 29 5.1 Housing Profile 29

5.1.1 Dwelling stock 29 5.1.2 Household type by dwelling type 31 5.1.3 Age by dwelling type 31 5.1.4 Location of alternative housing 32 5.1.5 Development approvals 33 5.1.6 Dwelling commencements 34

5.2 Housing Costs 35 5.3 Public Housing 36

ii


5.4 Housing Stress & Affordability 37 5.4.1 Calculating housing stress 37 5.4.2 Housing stress and affordability in the Blue Mountains 38 5.4.3 Regional policies and strategies 40

5.5 Conclusion 40 PART 6 HOUSING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES 42

6.1 Existing Dwelling Stock and Housing Need 42 6.2 Demand for alternative Housing 43

PART 7 DRAFT LEP 2002 – HOUSING OUTCOMES 45 7.1 Proposed Land Use Structure 45 7.2 Village Hierarchy 46 7.3 Land Supply 47

7.3.1 Vacant serviced land 48 7.3.2 Developed serviced land 49 7.3.3 Capacity of land supply 50

7.4 Alternative Housing Supply 52 7.5 Comparison of alternative housing opportunities between instruments 54 7.6 Village Housing sites 54 7.7 Potential Population 68 7.8 Conclusion 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY 71 ATTACHMENT 73

iii


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

1


PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES

1.1 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

2


listing in recognition of this significance. Approximately 69 per cent of the LGA comprises Blue Mountains National Park, which is reflected in the description of the Blue Mountains as “The City within a World Heritage National Park”. The LGA is also located within the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, necessitating careful management of drainage and water resources to prevent pollution.

Figure 1: Blue Mountains LGA in a regional context

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

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.

3


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.

4


PART 2 POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 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 Hawkesbury-Nepean 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

5


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)).

6


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.

7


(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.

8


• 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 site- specific provisions to those areas where multi-dwelling housing could occur. This approach was informed by consultation workshops with the community, which gave rise to statements of desired future character, and provides detailed design guidelines for the development of this land.

9


PART 3 CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT

3.1 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Blue Mountains comprises an outstanding natural environment, the value of which has been recognised through its inclusion on the World Heritage List. The NSW Government is endeavouring to protect the natural environment of the Blue Mountains through a range of environmental planning instruments that both direct and mirror Council’s planning activities. These include the 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 Sub-Catchments, 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

10


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 Sub-Catchments, 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.

11


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;

12


• 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

13


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.

14


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 Blackheath (Service Centre), Mount Victoria, Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine, Mount Tomah,

Bell Area 2 Wentworth Falls, Leura, Katoomba (Service Centre), Medlow Bath Area 3 Bullaburra, Lawson (Service Centre), Hazelbrook, Woodford, Linden Area 4 Valley Heights, Winmalee, Yellow Rock, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood (Service

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

4.1 EXISTING POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH

The 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 1981 1986 1991 1996 Annual Average

Growth 86-91 (%)

Annual Average Growth 91-96

(%) Bell (including Mounts) 187 172 167 303 -0.6 *16.3 Mount Victoria 607 600 906 900 10.2 -0.1 Blackheath 3 027 3 599 3 757 4 119 0.9 1.9 Megalong Valley 68 148 112 163 -4.9 9.1 Planning Area 1 3 609 4 519 4 942 5 485 1.9 2.2 Medlow Bath 270 340 376 448 2.1 3.8 Katoomba 7 322 7 812 8 297 8 544 1.2 0.6 Leura 3 078 3 368 3 622 3 777 1.5 0.9 Wentworth Falls 3 542 4 447 4 998 5 379 2.5 1.5 Planning Area 2 14 212 15 967 17 292 18 148 1.7 1.0 Bullaburra 703 873 938 1,018 1.5 1.7 Lawson 1 837 2 081 2 234 2 250 1.5 0.1 Hazelbrook 2 657 3 567 4 133 4 333 3.2 1.0

15


Township 1981 1986 1991 1996 Annual Average Growth 86-91

(%)

Annual Average Growth 91-96

(%) Woodford/Linden 1 167 1 474 1 979 2 182 6.9 2.1 Planning Area 3 6 433 7 959 9 284 9 783 3.2 1.1 Faulconbridge 2 636 3 027 3 394 3 793 2.4 2.4 Springwood 5 844 6 439 6 829 7 112 1.2 0.8 Winmalee 5 030 6 131 6 883 7 323 2.5 1.3 Yellow Rock/ Hawkesbury Heights

172 505 946 1 143 17.5 4.2

Valley Heights 1 015 1 178 1 186 1 175 0.1 -0.2 Planning Area 4 14 712 17 280 19 238 20 546 2.3 1.4 Warrimoo 1 958 2 016 2 208 2 180 1.9 -0.3 Blaxland 5 862 6 502 6 878 7 041 1.2 0.5 Mount Riverview 3 367 3 406 3 408 3 245 0.0 -1.0 Glenbrook 4 315 4 553 5 088 5 059 2.4 -0.1 Lapstone 1 203 1 225 1 113 1 019 -1.8 -1.7 Planning Area 5 16 695 17 702 18 695 18 544 1.1 -0.2 Total 55 661 63 427 69 452 72 506 1.9 0.9

Mainly due to development in the Mounts and not at Bell

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).

16


Figure 2: Age Structure Blue Mountains 1996 (ABS, 1996)

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

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

Total % of Males

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-89

90+

Total % of Females

Age

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

Total % of Males

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-89

90+

Total % of Females

Age

17


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 25–44 45–64 Over 65 Total

(100%) % % % % %

Bell (incl. Mounts)

54 17 23 7 80 25 82 26 75 24 314

Mount Victoria

221 24 111 12 300 33 201 22 74 8 907

Blackheath 881 21 394 10 1 264 30 939 23 680 16 4 158 Megalong Valley

50 31 12 8 44 27 31 19 24 15 161

Total Area 1 1 206 22 540 10 1 688 31 1 253 23 853 15 5 540 Medlow Bath 108 24 38 8 134 30 104 23 68 15 452 Katoomba 1 765 22 1 023 12 2 524 31 1 727 21 1 182 14 8 221 Leura 725 20 475 13 998 27 890 24 638 17 3 726 Wentworth Falls

1 157 21 539 10 1 443 27 1 252 23 1 006 19 5 397

Total Area 2 3 755 21 2 075 12 5 099 29 3 973 22 2 894 16 17 770 Bullaburra 256 25 100 10 343 34 206 20 115 11 1 020 Lawson 584 26 236 11 686 30 435 19 302 14 2 243 Hazelbrook 1 175 27 483 11 1 405 32 858 20 427 10 4 348 Woodford/Linden

554 25 241 11 747 34 503 23 185 8 2 230

Total Area 3 2 569 26 1 060 11 3 181 32 2 002 20 1 029 11 9 841 Faulconbridge

1 001 26 538 14 1 134 30 796 21 341 9 3 810

Springwood 1 619 23 849 12 1 804 25 1 423 20 1 412 19 7 107 Winmalee 1 991 27 1 027 14 2 172 30 1 483 20 606 8 7 279 Hks’bury Hts /Yellow Rock

367 32 136 12 436 38 145 13 54 5 1 138

Valley Heights 272 23 186 16 357 31 259 22 93 8 1 167 Total Area 4 5 250 26 2 736 13 5 903 29 4 106 20 2 506 12 20 501 Warrimoo 540 24 291 13 724 33 443 20 211 10 2 209 Blaxland 1 705 25 1 067 15 2 070 30 1 514 22 561 8 6 917 Mount Riverview

700 22 570 18 846 26 881 27 215 7 3 212

Glenbrook 1 237 25 711 14 1 561 31 1 067 21 418 8 4 994 Lapstone 168 16 153 15 247 24 327 32 129 13 1 024 Total Area 5 4 350 24 2 792 15 5 448 30 4 232 23 1 534 8 18 356 Total 17 130 24 9 203 13 21 319 30 15 566 22 8 816 12 72 034 Sydney SD 763 144 20 548 816 14 1 184 595 30 770 065 20 438 913 11 3 905 533

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.

18


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.

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

1947 1954 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

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.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+Age group

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

19


Figure 5: Population Change by Age Group, 1991-1996 (ABS, 1996)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Age group

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

Figure 6: Projected Population Change by Age Group, 1997-2002 (ABS, 1996)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Age group

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

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 1991-1996, compared to 5.6 per cent between 1997-2002 and 5.8 per cent between 2003-2008.

20


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).

The increasing share of the population occupied by those aged 55 and over is illustrated in Figure 8.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1996 2000 2011 2017Year

Per

cent

age

of p

opul

atio

n

0-54 yrs55+ yrs

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.

21


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Couple withChildren

Couplewithout

Children

One ParentFamilies

Lone PersonHousehold

GroupHousehold

Other

Household structure

Perc

enta

ge o

f pop

ulat

ion

Area1Area 2Area 3Area 4Area 5Blue Mountains LGASydney (SD)

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

Lone Person Households Township % Households % Comprising

Persons Aged >65 years

Average Household

Size

Mount Victoria 25.8 31.0 2.5 Blackheath 27.5 40.9 2.5 Katoomba 32.7 36.5 2.5 Leura 29.5 40.1 2.8 Wentworth Falls 24.7 42.9 2.6 Lawson 28.8 42.1 2.6 Hazelbrook 23.7 37.0 2.7 Springwood 26.0 60.2 2.8 Winmalee 14.2 44.3 3.1 Blaxland 15.5 35.7 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.

22


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 3.2 2.6 2.2 3.0 Sydney SD 3.1 2.4 1.9 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

23


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

1999 2019 Blue

Mountains (%)

WSROC (%)

Sydney SD (%)

Blue Mountains

(%)

WSROC (%)

Sydney SD (%)

Couple family 55.6 62.4 55.6 48.1 58.0 51.7 Couple without children 19.2 15.1 17.7 24.7 18.6 20.6 One parent family 10.2 11.7 10.5 9.1 11.1 10.0 Other family 1.3 1.9 2.2 1.2 1.8 2.2 Group household 2.8 2.1 4.0 2.7 2.0 3.8 Lone person household 8.9 5.5 8.2 11.5 6.9 9.6 Other 2.0 1.3 1.8 2.7 1.6 2.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100


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.

24


0100020003000400050006000700080009000

Bel

l & M

ount

s

Mou

nt V

icto

ria

Bla

ckhe

ath

Meg

alon

g V

alle

y

Med

low

Bat

h

Kat

oom

ba

Leur

a

Wen

twor

th F

alls

Bul

labu

rra

Law

son

Haz

elbr

ook

Woo

dfor

d/Li

nden

Faul

conb

ridge

Spr

ingw

ood

Win

mal

eeY

ello

w R

ock

&H

'Hei

ghts

Val

ley

Hei

ghts

War

rimoo

Bla

xlan

d

Mou

nt R

iver

view

Gle

nbro

ok

Laps

tone

Town

Pop

ulat

ion

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 43.1 32.5 1.3 16.5 6.6 WSROC 37.9 28.7 7.5 19.6 6.3 Sydney SD 40.3 23.1 5.5 23.6 7.5


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.

25


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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Neg

ativ

e or

nil

$1 -

$119

$120

- $2

99

$300

- $4

99

$500

- $6

99

$700

- $9

99

$1,0

00 -

$$1,

499

$1,5

00 -

$1,9

99

$2,0

00 o

r mor

e

Not

sta

ted

Income category

Perc

enta

ge o

f pop

ulat

ion

Blue Mountains LGASydney SD

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.

26


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<$78

86

<$18

,403

<$30

,798

<$47

,279

<$83

,656

Income category

Perc

enta

ge o

f pop

ulat

ion

.

LowerMidUpperTotal LGATotal Sydney SD

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

27


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

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

28


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.

29


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%)

No. % No. % No. % Bell (inc. Mounts) 189 96.9 0 0.0 6 3.1 195 Megalong Valley 83 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 83 Mount Victoria 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 2 951 92.6 81 2.5 155 13.7 3 187 Medlow Bath 236 96.7 4 1.6 4 1.6 244 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

30


Township Separate House Semi-detached townhouse, flats or

units

Other or Not Stated

Total (100%)

No. % No. % No. % Bullaburra 474 97.1 14 2.9 0 0.0 488 Lawson 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 93.7 116 2.8 144 3.5 4 151 Faulconbridge 1 342 98.5 12 0.9 9 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 Yellow Rock / Hawkesbury Heights

351 95.9 3 0.8 12 3.3 366

Valley Heights 405 91.4 32 7.2 6 1.4 443 Total Area 4 6 807 91.6 512 6.9 105 1.4 7 433 Warrimoo 815 97.1 21 2.5 3 0.4 839 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 Lapstone 377 95.4 8 2.0 10 2.5 395 Total Area 5 6 232 94.8 235 3.6 107 1.6 6 574 Blue Mountains LGA

27 508 90.9 1 850 6.1 899 3.0 30 257

Sydney (SD) 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 multi-unit 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).

31


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.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Couples withchildren

Coupleswithoutchildren

One parentfamilies

Lone personhouseholds

% o

f hou

seho

lds

Blue MountainsWSROCSydney SD

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 semi-detached 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.

32


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-14 15-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Age

% o

f age

coh

ort

Blue MountainsWSROCSydney SD

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.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Mt V

icto

ria

Blac

khea

th

Kato

omba

Leur

a

W'w

orth

Fal

ls

Bulla

burr

a

Law

son

Haz

elbr

ook

Faul

conb

ridge

Sprin

gwoo

d

Win

mal

ee

Blax

land

Mt R

iver

view

Gle

nbro

ok

Blue

Mtn

s

Sydn

ey S

D

% o

f To

tal

Dw

ellin

gs

Figure 15: Alternative Housing Types as a Proportion of Existing Dwellings in Blue Mountains (ABS, 1996)

33


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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Dwelling House 422 482 493 620 445 444 Dual Occupancies 24 21 3 4 0 1 Residential Flat Buildings & Aged Units* 7 15 17 28 16 18 Additions to dwelling 553 432 431 598 377 543 Total Approvals 1 007 954 946 1 250 684 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

Detached dwelling houses Flats and units* Year Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5

1996 66 124 43 85 37 0 8 2 9 3 1997 61 132 40 143 38 0 2 0 0 1 1998 68 159 69 133 53 0 6 1 3 4 1999 98 154 101 99 53 0 11 1 5 0 2000 72 114 81 76 58 0 5 3 7 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

34


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.

020406080

100120140$(m)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

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 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Dwelling House 422 482 493 620 445 444 Dual Occupancies 24 21 3 4 0 1 Residential Flat Buildings & Aged Units2

7 15 17 28 16 18

Additions to dwelling 553 432 431 598 377 543 Total Commencements 1 007 954 946 1 250 684 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.

35


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 1991-1996, 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

Median Sales Price

% Annual Increase Year

Blue Mountains

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).

36


138 145 145 152 162177 187 195

207222

235

135

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Med

ian

rent

($)

Blue Mountains median rent 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

37


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.

38


• 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.

39


• 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

40


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.

41


• 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.

42


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

43


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

44


sustainability in current growth patterns. These aims are reflected in the objectives of Council’s Draft LEP 2002.

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 owner-occupiers within the City.

• The forecast increase in older persons and lone person households in particular will create an increased demand for alternative housing in the LGA. By 2021, Holloway and Wood 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.

45


PART 7 DRAFT LEP 2002 – HOUSING OUTCOMES

7.1 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.

LBC

LG VH/ VT

VTC

LC

EPOS

ROAD/ RAIL CORRIDOR

NATIONAL PARK

NATIONAL PARK

VTC VH LG LC LBC EPOS NATIONAL PARK

Figure 18: Concentric model of urban development in the Blue Mountains

KEY TO ZONES

Village – Town Centre

Village – Housing

Living – Genera l

Living – Conserva tion

Living – Bushland Conserva tion

Environmenta l Protec tion – Open Spac e

46


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

47


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

48


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

3 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.

49


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

Land that cannot be subdivided

Subdividable land Total land Town

Parcels Parcels Yield after subdivision

Parcels Yield after subdivision

Bell 0 0 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 2 7 106 111 Blackheath 456 9 40 465 496 Total Planning Area 1 560 11 47 571 607 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 13 38 446 471 Leura 280 9 19 289 299 Wentworth Falls 263 15 62 278 325 Total Planning Area 2 976 37 119 1 013 1 095 Bullaburra 56 0 0 56 56 Lawson 131 8 20 139 151 Hazelbrook 171 4 12 175 183 Woodford 91 1 2 92 93 Linden 13 0 0 13 13 Total Planning Area 3 462 13 34 475 496 Faulconbridge 49 3 7 52 56 Springwood 97 8 21 105 118 Valley Heights 25 1 3 26 28 Winmalee 95 1 2 96 97 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 0 0 Total Planning Area 4 266 13 33 279 299 Warrimoo 35 0 0 35 35 Blaxland 36 8 18 44 54 Glenbrook 42 6 47 48 89 Lapstone 4 0 0 4 4 Mount Riverview 18 0 0 18 18 Total Planning Area 5 135 14 65 149 200 TOTAL 2 399 88 298 2 487 2 697

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.

50


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

Land that cannot be subdivided

Subdividable land Town

Parcels Parcels Yield after subdivision Bell 0 0 Mount Victoria 283 36 95 Blackheath 1 914 84 240 Total Area 1 2 197 120 335 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 3 182 114 329 Leura 1 622 77 140 Wentworth Falls 1 940 122 317 Total Area 2 6 744 313 786 Bullaburra 386 34 53 Lawson 968 42 64 Hazelbrook 1 607 66 145 Woodford 544 18 35 Linden 53 0 0 Total Area 3 3 558 160 297 Faulconbridge 1 160 48 184 Springwood 2 634 87 341 Valley Heights 357 1 1 Winmalee 1 944 37 112 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Total Area 4 6 095 173 638 Warrimoo 809 4 30 Blaxland 2 400 92 268 Glenbrook 1 681 82 121 Lapstone 346 0 0 Mount Riverview 1 093 8 30 Total Area 5 6 329 186 449 TOTAL 24 923 952 2 505

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.

51


Table 16: Residential Land Stock Available under Draft LEP 2002, Following Subdivision

Vacant land that cannot be subdivided

Additional land after subdivision

Total land supply Town

Parcels Parcels Parcels Bell 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 102 206 Blackheath 456 280 736 Total Area 1 560 382 942 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 367 800 Leura 280 159 439 Wentworth Falls 263 379 642 Total Area 2 976 905 1 881 Bullaburra 56 53 109 Lawson 131 84 215 Hazelbrook 171 157 328 Woodford 91 37 128 Linden 13 0 13 Total Area 3 462 331 793 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 Total Area 4 266 671 937 Warrimoo 35 30 65 Blaxland 36 286 322 Glenbrook 42 168 210 Lapstone 4 0 4 Mount Riverview 18 30 48 Total Area 5 135 514 649 TOTAL 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.

52


Table 17: Projected Residential Land Supply Over Time

Land Stock under Draft LEP 2002 Planning Area Number Lots Rate per year

Indicative year when capacity reached

Planning Area 1 942 45 2019 Planning Area 2 1 881 110 2016 Planning Area 3 793 44 2017 Planning Area 4 937 71 2012 Planning Area 5 649 35 2017 Total 5 202 305 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.

53


• 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 Dual Occupancies (Dwellings)

Accessible Housing / Multi dwelling housing (No. Units)

Total

Mount Victoria 54 23 77 Blackheath 9 238 247 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 101 635 736 Leura 26 225 251 Wentworth Falls 3 130 133 Bullaburra 0 0 0 Lawson 14 171 185 Hazelbrook 5 173 178 Woodford 0 0 0 Linden 0 0 0 Faulconbridge 161 0 161 Springwood* 98 945 1 043 Winmalee 57 30 87 Yellow Rock/ Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Valley Heights 0 0 0 Warrimoo 16 0 16 Blaxland 250 363 613 Mount Riverview 22 0 22 Glenbrook 14 55 69 Lapstone 0 0 0 TOTAL 830 2 988 3 818

*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

54


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) Draft LEP 2002

(m2) Village -Housing

zone Village -Tourist

zone Total Mount Victoria 54 652 0 53 018 53 018 Blackheath 277 794 13 370 0 13 370 Total Area 1 332 446 13 370 53 018 66 388 Medlow Bath 46 347 0 16 703 16 703 Katoomba 831 251 132 201 199 981 332 182 Leura 363 551 37 410 68 850 106 260 Wentworth Falls 140 420 18 700 0 18 700 Total Area 2 1 381 568 188 311 285 534 473 845 Bullaburra 6 053 0 0 0 Lawson 154 970 46 586 0 46 586 Hazelbrook 164 770 12 100 0 12 100 Total Area 3 325 793 58 686 0 58 686 Faulconbridge 17 738 0 0 0 Springwood 227 892 129 422 0 129 422 Valley Heights 27 918 0 0 0 Total Area 4 273 548 129 422 0 129 422 Blaxland 62 161 92 838 0 92 838 Glenbrook 0 0 0 0 Lapstone 1 542 0 0 0 Total Area 5 63 703 92 838 0 92 838 Total 2 377 057 482 626 338 553 821 179

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

55


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.

56


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

57


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

58


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

59


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

60


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 home-based employment activities. There are no slope or vegetation constraints on the precinct, however the majority of existing dwellings are listed heritage items. Future development in the precinct will need to allow sufficient curtilage to protect the significance of heritage items. Potential Yield Zoned Site Area: 15,990 m2 FSR: 0.6:1 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

61


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

62


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

63


VH-SPGEN – General Village Potential Yield Zoned Site Area: 57,260m2 FSR: 0.6:1 Net Yield: 0 units

N/A

VH-SP01 – Ferguson Road This precinct is situated between the Great Western Highway and railway line and is adjacent to the Springwood Town Centre. No significant constraints apply to the site. Potential Yield 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

64


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 multi-unit 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

65


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.

66


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

67


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

68


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.

4 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.

69


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.

70


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:

71


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.

72


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.

73


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.

residential development strategy 2002 · 4.3 population projections 17 4.4 household structure 20...

Documents