You may recall the Greater Sydney Commission created by the Baird government back in 2016. There has been plenty of cynicism such as James Valentine and HG Nelson on ABC Radio discussing plans to create an Even Greater Sydney. This body was supposed to provide independent and expert strategy advice. The Minns government decided to abolish this body as not enough action was happening and the role was taken back by the Department of Planning from January 2024.

It seems that the process is still fragmented and duplicative with a multitude of plans and strategies and associated documents. The government has now decided that the coordination of the system has to be updated so a whole new strategy was announced in December 2025 called the Land Use Plan.

The hierarchy of roles and responsibilities will be:

• state plan: sets priorities and policy direction;
• region plans: translate state direction into spatial strategies and sequencing; and
• local government: delivers outcomes on the ground, albeit with their hands tied, through zoning, housing, infrastructure and local plans.

The planning legislation has been radically changed with the introduction of the Transport Oriented Development Program and the Low and Mid-rise Housing Policy in 2024 and then further changes were legislated late in 2025 aimed to speed up development – see this article in STEP Matters, Issue 233.

It is claimed the new plan ‘will provide councils with clearer direction’. But how much power are councils left with when so many developments are covered by proscribed planning policies such as the complying development rules? Their ability to ensure goals such as tree canopy cover and demand for parking have been lost to developers choosing where to put in low and mid-rise housing and dual occupancies. Larger scale developments are controlled by the Housing Delivery Authority.

The elephant in the room, as always, is the growth in population that has to be accommodated.

The planning is centred around four regions – Sydney, Lower Hunter and Central Coast, Illawarra and Shoalhaven and combined other rural areas. The draft Sydney Plan (see below) is the first regional strategic plan being developed under the new framework. It demonstrates how state-wide priorities will be applied at a regional level.

Public consultation is open until 5 pm Thursday 27 February 2026. There a survey that can be completed and submissions can be made.

Visit the NSW Planning Portal to read the full discussion paper, review the draft Sydney Plan and watch a video overview explaining the proposed changes.

Please consider making a submission on the issues you see with the ways that Sydney is changing such as the impact on biodiversity and your local environment.

Sydney Plan

Greater Sydney's population is projected to grow from 4.9 million in 2021 to 6.3 million people by 2041. That's 1.4 million more people, up 28% over 20 years.

By 2041, Greater Sydney will be home to 63% of all people living in NSW. 

The discussion paper describes the Sydney Plan as:

It is a practical plan and grounded in reality, spelling out what is needed to accommodate more people fairly and equitably, and ensuring everyone has the infrastructure and services to live well.

The intention is that the studies and plans prepared over the next five years will inform approaches over the next 20 years.

The press release notes key objectives of improvement in the planning system are:

• Better aligning infrastructure to planned growth for both infill and greenfield development.
• Increasing the supply of well-located jobs by delivering more guidance to councils on employment categories that suit their area.
• Protecting and enhancing the natural environment by bringing contemporary environmental management approaches into the planning process early and delivering more urban greening.
• Making affordable housing contribution schemes mandatory for all councils, so every part of Sydney is doing its part to create a more affordable city.

Time will tell whether execution meets these ambitious objectives.

Basic information is missing, e.g. how many new dwellings?

The Sydney Plan supposedly provides a 20-year vision but there are no statistics provided of how many new houses are expected to be needed over the next 20 years. It only covers data under the National Housing Accord of the number of new dwellings that should be completed between 2024 and 2029. The figures are 7,600 for Ku-ring-gai and 5,500 for Hornsby. There is also data, that is nothing new, of the number of new dwellings that are expected to be achieved (timeframe unknown) via the rezonings under the Transport Oriented Development Program of 24,700 dwellings in Ku-ring-gai and 6,000 in the central Hornsby accelerated precinct and state assessed rezoning for 9,350 dwellings in Cherrybrook (Appendix D of the plan document).

The outcome from the other main plans to increase housing density, the Low and Mid-rise Housing Policy and dual occupancy provisions are very much an unknown as they depend on individual landowners and developers choosing where to act and being able to afford to redevelop existing housing. The main activity that is being observed is the knocking down of older houses and replacing them with large ‘McMansions’ with no increase in the actual number of dwellings at the cost of a heavy use of construction resources.

Priorities under the Sydney Plan

The plan defines objectives using catchphrases such as ‘prosperous’, ‘resilient’, ‘liveable’ as they apply to housing targets, infrastructure, employment etc. These are translated into responses planned to be implemented over the next five years. The responses are in the form of priorities such as designation of open space, flood prone land, industrial land and the blue-green grid. Each of the priorities are addressed with specific policy and planning responses. Sydney region councils are expected to align their local planning with the priorities and policy responses done through their local strategic planning and local environmental plans.

Examples of the responses include creation of specific entertainment precincts or new public transport or blue-green grid initiatives. The only plans for the latter for northern Sydney are improvement in the connections between Eastwood to Macquarie Park and along the Lane Cove River.

No doubt there will be more detailed plans provided to councils than are not shown in the Sydney Plan document.

Tree canopy target

There is a problem that many of the policy responses can only work in new greenfield areas. The most obvious issue is dealing with the heat island effect. A target of tree canopy of 40% by 2036 is expected. Councils will be responsible for setting canopy and urban greening targets for both public and private land in their local area.

How can this be met in all those recently developed suburbs with no space for a garden let alone a tree? Many of the existing complying development parameters do not allow sufficient space for trees.

Councils could try to make up the shortfall with street trees but few existing streets are wide enough for a nature strip that provides room for decent sized trees. In streets with higher density development driveways occupy a large part of any nature strip. Tree height growth is often constrained by power lines.

Urban greening targets

The Department of Planning will continue to support councils in developing their targets, and is preparing an Urban Greening Guide for councils, industry and stakeholders to support early consideration of urban greening in land use planning. Good luck with this! The current trend is reductions in tree canopy cover.

Low and mid-rise tree canopy guide

A Tree Canopy Guide for Low and Mid Rise Housing has been published. Even for the larger blocks only medium size trees are required such as crepe myrtles or maples.

Note:    Spanish Moss loves these trees!

The guide is not at all consistent with the 40% tree canopy objective. For example:

A dual occupancy on 1,000 m² is required to have at least 25% deep soil and only at least 5 medium trees that equates to only 250 m² assuming the trees are allowed to reach maturity. Other guidelines equate to less than 25% coverage. That is nowhere near the 40% objective.

Climate change impacts

The Sydney Plan draws on a range of data sources and climate modelling to analyse likely scenarios and impacts of climate change on the region. Understanding the challenges and risks of a warming climate has influenced many strategic directions in the plan, including:

• the proposed draft urban footprint and broad settlement pattern;
• areas proposed for housing growth;
• directions on managing natural hazards, including heat; and
• directions for open space and the blue-green grid.

The environment

The plan mentions the need for improving biodiversity and conservation planning within the urban footprint. However, the immediate action plans are restricted to urban heat (tree canopy targets), natural hazards (avoid flood prone land), waterway health and construction standards.

The Australian government’s Centre for Population published its annual update, the 2025 Population Statement in December. See STEP Matters, Issue 230 for some detail on these statements.

There is no let-up in the expectation that growth will continue at current levels despite the increasing concern about our logistical ability to provide housing and necessary infrastructure to meet the extra demand. The states have to manage this extra demand and seem to have little say in the matter. Then local governments are at the coal face of balancing the demands of growth while trying to meet other goals of conserving biodiversity and creating green space in the face of cost shifting by the state and federal governments.

The federal government has a fixation with continuing growth at current levels without any consideration that this cannot go on forever.

Population projections

Australia’s population at 30 June 2026 is estimated to be 27.6 million. The statement projects that Australia’s population will reach 31.5 million by 30 June 2036. The most significant factor in the projection is the net number of immigrants. The assumption is made that that current levels will reduce from 306,000 in 2025−26 to a long-term figure of 235,000 pa. The recent numbers since 2019 have been affected by the disruption caused by the COVID lockdowns. The actual average since 2019 is 266,000 pa so there has been overcompensation for the border closures.

The media loves to quote the rate of growth that is expected to ‘slow’ to 1.3% in 2025–26 and 1.2% from 2026–27 onwards, lower than the average of 1.4% experienced in the 2010s. The expression of growth as a reducing percentage ignores the fact that the actual numbers are still increasing and have to be accommodated in a finite area of land. The total of births minus deaths plus net migration is projected to still be 350,000 in in 2035−36 compared with 360,000 in 2025−26.

Historically the projections have understated migration numbers as the movement of temporary migrants is not adequately controlled, especially as departure when a temporary resident’s visa expires is often delayed as they apply for an extension or another type of visa. This particularly applies to students.

The government and media create the perception that migration numbers are normal. However the long term assumption of 235,000 pa compares with averages of less than 100,000 pa during the 1990s. Even during the post-war migration boom numbers were around 90,000 pa.

Significance of current growth from migration

The significance of high immigration is demonstrated by the fact that that it took 12 years for net migration to add one million people to Australia’s population up to 2000. As of mid-2025, it had taken just 2.5 years to add one million people. At the same time the number of people living in Australia on temporary visas that have not been here long enough to be counted in the official population figures (at least 12 months) continues to increase.

Projection to June 2036

The Centre for Population projects that our population will balloon by 3,860,000 over the 11 years to 2035–36, with most (80%) of this growth occurring in the capital cities, which are projected to swell by 3,080,000 over the 11 years. Sydney’s growth would be 790,000.

Projection to 2065

Population Australia’s report includes projections out to 2065. The main scenario is that net immigration will continue at current ‘normal’ levels of 235,000 pa. The nation’s population is projected to balloon by an insane 13.4 million over the next 41 years to 2065–66, with most (81%) of this growth occurring in the capital cities, which are projected to swell by 10,850,000 over the next 41 years.

This rate of population growth is comparable to adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Perth to the nation’s current population in just 41 years. All of the housing and infrastructure in these three major cities would need to be replicated, and water and energy supplies greatly expanded. Can this be imagined let alone planned for? Can the current belief that current migration can continue forever be changed? What situation will be reached where governments get the message?

The bottom line is that the Australia’s fixation with high migration will lead to permanent housing, infrastructure, water and energy shortages, as well as environmental damage.

We might have a greater workforce to build the necessary houses and infrastructure but the cost will keep rising. The land available is finite; greenfield sites are becoming scarce, so the alternative of reconstruction of existing suburbs will be required that is more expensive. This level of development is impossible if we are to meet the net zero greenhouse gas emissions objective.

Change to net migration needed to stabilise population level

It is unrealistic to expect Australia’s population to continue to grow indefinitely. The centre has modelled a case study where the population is stabilised at 30 million through a reduction in net overseas migration. It explores the implications for population ageing and growth in the working-age population.

To stabilise the population at 30 million, net overseas migration would have to fall from its current projection of 235,000 to 32,000 per year by 2035–36, assuming other aspects of the baseline projections, such as birth rates and life expectancy, are unchanged. By 2035–36, life expectancy is projected to reach 87.1 years for women and 83.4 years for men. However, the birth rates are questionable. The total fertility rate is projected to increase from the current 1.47 births per woman to 1.6. This is going against the current trends of lower birth rate both here and overseas.

Sustained lower migration levels would lead to fewer births, which would eventually result in natural decrease (deaths exceeding births) from 2049–50. Continuing new migrants are needed to keep the total population stable.

The report considers the impact on housing demand from net migration. While the demand for housing among permanent migrants is in line with the total population, the immediate impact of reductions to the permanent migration program on housing demand would be relatively limited. This is because many permanent visas are granted to individuals already in Australia on a temporary visa – in 2024–25, this was 55% of the 185,000 permanent migration program visa grants.

It has long been a spectacular drive along Mona Vale Road through dense bushland from McCarrs Creek Road up Tumbledown Dick and down the steep hill to Mona Vale. Sadly, demands to accommodate traffic have led to major widening from one lane to two or three lanes. The Pittwater Natural Heritage Association, Wildlife Roadkill Prevention Association and wildlife rescue organisations have been lobbying for more than ten years for fauna crossings and fencing to reduce the high number of deaths occurring along the road during construction and operation.

The road cuts between Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Park. Creation of fauna crossings would enhance the ecological integrity of the Ku-ring-gai GeoRegion.

The proposals for widening Mona Vale Road have been on the drawing board since 2014. Four crossings have been promised, an overpass and underpass within both the east and west sections of the widening.

Mona Vale Road East section

Years of work went into planning the locations of the passes as countless studies and papers were written or cited, data collected and shared. Support also came from former Pittwater MP Rob Stokes, a core group of people at Transport for NSW and the contractors. The fauna bridge was strategically located to restore an important connection between Ingleside Nature Reserve and vegetation adjacent to Katandra Bushland Sanctuary.

The construction was completed in April 2024, the first in Greater Sydney. The bridge will be planted with local native vegetation. The road edges are fenced so fauna wishing to move from bushland on each side of the road will be directed to the bridge. Fauna roadkill will be prevented and traffic safety ensured as animals on roads can cause accidents. Bandicoots and wallabies have been recorded successfully crossing the bridge.

Ingleside Chase Reserve covers approx 70 ha is located on the ridge above Warriewood Valley. This reserve forms part of a significant wildlife corridor which connects Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks with Irrawong Reserve, Warriewood Wetlands and Narrabeen Lagoon.

The underpass is located further west. The Pittwater Natural Heritage Association (PNHA) visited it recently and observed a ledge along one side so that animals can move through without getting wet, as it is also a drain. They would like the downhill side to have more sheltering vegetation.

The PNHA campaign has now turned to adding the land next to the fauna bridge and underpass on Mona Vale Road East to Ingleside Chase Reserve.

News is not so good for the next stage

Unfortunately, the news on the Mona Vale Road West section from Powderworks Road to McCarrs Creek Road is not so rosy. This project was deferred for two years due to lack of funding and now it seems that the budget has been reduced.

After being advised that design work for Mona Vale Road West is ongoing, PNHA members met with Transport for NSW staff to enquire about planning for the fauna crossings. They were disappointed (to put it mildly) to hear that the previously agreed 40 m wide fauna bridge to be sited east of the Kimbriki Road intersection is to be moved further east and reduced to 20 m in width. Furthermore, the fate of the underpass is now unsure as the engineers are undecided on the best means of providing access to Wirreanda Valley. The fauna bridge will be the only direct overland connection between Garigal and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Parks. In their view a 40 m wide overpass is absolutely necessary to provide effective connectivity between these two major reserves.

Find out more about this huge project.

How about an underpass near St Ives Showground?

Further west there is a long stretch of Mona Vale Road that is a barrier for wildlife to cross between Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks. Would a fauna underpass from St Ives Showground to the HART driver training centre be a possibility?

This could help with the safety issue for transport out of St Ives Showground. Maybe the underpass could be for humans too? It would enable visitors to cross Mona Vale Road safely and catch buses heading towards St Ives.

Image is an artist's impression of an animal overpass that will be built along Mona Vale Road West (picture courtesy NSW Government)

In September 2025 we became aware of an application to create a three-hole practice golf course on the land next Miowera Road, North Turramurra. The land comprising 8 ha on the top of a hill overlooking Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park was originally part of the Girl Guide outdoor training centre. In 2022 it was sold to the Jimwen Gallery. There was much concern that the land would be developed into suburban blocks as has happened to other land further south along Miowera Road that was owned by the Girl Guides.

Fortunately, the use of the land has been limited to the creation of a cultural centre known as the Glengarry Jinwen Gallery and conducts public exhibitions a few times a year. Development is constrained by the presence of high quality bushland below the developed part of the site that has a category 1 bushfire risk rating.

STEP’s concerns about the development related to the:

• use of synthetic turf on the putting greens in a bushfire risk zone;
• adequacy of the stormwater management system and changes to the water flows into the bushland below;
• use of an exotic grass that will require fertilisers and irrigation whereby runoff could add excess nutrients to the bushland below; and
• lack of a fauna management plan covering the construction period that involves some noisy rock breaking.

Following assessment of the submissions council required several amendments to the plans. Commencement of construction is deferred until these are completed. They included:

• planting within the raingarden must be non-invasive species;
• light-weight materials are used on pathways rather than asphalt;
• artificial turf is not permitted and must be replaced with natural turf or an organic material; and
• measures to ensure stormwater and irrigation systems protect tree root zones.