Podcast: Council to hire a professional nimby

In this week’s podcast we are going to discuss the local council that’s going to pay someone $100,000 a year to help residents fight high rise developments.

It’s the least developed suburb in Sydney, so do they really need someone to take up cudgels against developers? 

According to this story in the Sydney Morning Herald, the move was triggered by a proposal – approved by the NSW’s Eastern City Planning Panel – to knock down four terraces and build two 10-storey residential “towers” at the corner of Syd Einfeld Drive, Oxford Street and York Road in Bondi Junction.

---

LISTEN HERE

---

We ask, are their nimbys too namby-pamby to do it themselves?  Or is it reasonable to have a council-funded champion for the urban dwellers who don’t want to live in or near high-rises?

Talking of champions, we discuss the possibility of NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler changing his mind about retiring in November and ask whether the government would have him back (we have a definitive answer to that!)

Sue looks at areas where apartment prices have not only defied the general plunge in property values but have actually gone up in price.

And we put her on the spot with a couple of curly questions from the Forum. All that and more in this week’s Flat Chat Wrap podcast.

If you enjoyed listening to this podcast (or reading the transcript), please share it with your friends using the social media buttons on this page.

TRANSCRIPT IN FULL

Jimmy  00:00

You’re back from Africa?

Sue  00:01

Yes, I am; back, just a few minutes ago and you’ve pulled me into the podcast, immediately. Thank you, Jimmy!

Jimmy  00:07

While you’re still awake. As usual, when I started off thinking we didn’t have much to talk about, we do. Waverley Council has decided that it’s NIMBYs are too namby-pamby…

Sue  00:22

And it’s helping the NIMBYs, isn’t it, really?

Jimmy  00:26

Yes, they want to help the NIMBYs. We’ve got kind of an update (a bit), on David Chandler. We’ve got new figures on where apartment prices are going up and where they’re coming down. And we’re going to dip into the forum again, with a couple of fairly odd questions. I’m Jimmy Thomson, I write the Flat Chat column for the Australian Financial Review.

Sue  00:47

And I’m Sue Williams and I write about property for Domain.

Jimmy  00:50

And this is the Flat Chat Wrap.

MUSIC

Jimmy

You probably can’t hear this, because we have all sorts of noise filters operating, but it is blowing an absolute gale outside.

Sue  01:17

It’s not very nice to come home to, I must say.

Jimmy  01:19

I’m glad you were on the ground before this hit. It would have been a bit of a bumpy landing.

Sue  01:24

Especially because I couldn’t work out how to do up my seatbelt.

Jimmy  01:27

Oh really? That’s because you were at the posh end of the plane, for once.

Sue  01:31

I flew business class. I mean, I didn’t pay for it; somebody else paid for it. But yes, they put a mattress down over your seat when you pull your seat down, and then it kind of covers the seatbelt. I couldn’t work out what to do and the steward came along and pulled out another seat belt, which kind of straps across your body, from your shoulder downwards, like a car seat belt. I couldn’t find the other end and I was too embarrassed to ask really, because I seemed so stupid; you know, ‘business class newbie.’  I was just hoping that it wasn’t going to be rocky coming down, because otherwise, I would have been flying around.

Jimmy  01:38

You would have been bouncing around the inside of the plane, but you made it!

Sue  02:05

 I did!

Jimmy  02:06

There’s a couple of things that we are going to talk about… There’s a story in the Sydney Morning Herald, about Waverley Council. They are going to pay somebody $100,000 a year, plus another $30,000 to set up the whole business of (what comes down to), opposing high-rise developments in the council. I mean, it’s the usual story… ‘oh, they’re going to build these nasty, bland, identical blocks, that are just going to be big chunks of concrete.’ I don’t think any developer in their right mind would put a building like that in Waverley, would they?

Sue  02:54

No, you’d think not, because Waverley is an expensive area, so they’d want stylish architect-designed apartment buildings, to put in that kind of area. And it’s up to the council to enforce their own planning rules; to say ‘no, these aren’t up to scratch. Maybe, we’re going to have a design competition, like they do in the City of Sydney, for really big developments.’

Jimmy  03:13

But isn’t there a limit on, or a kind of threshold, that once the developments are worth a certain value, then…

Sue  03:23

It goes to the Planning Panel, for New South Wales.

Jimmy  03:25

Which is superior to the council. So, what this sounds like they’re saying is ‘we’re going to put as many barriers as possible in the way of these developers, so they just go away and leave us alone.’

Sue  03:37

In some ways, yes. The piece in the Herald points out that Waverley has the least amount of development in the whole of Sydney.  And they want it to stay that way. At the same time, you kind of think, for residents who are campaigning with genuine grievances about new development applications, it’s great to give them more of a voice and to give them a helping hand. So you know, that can be a good thing and other councils I think, are watching this, to see if they should be following this experiment, as well.

Jimmy  04:08

So this is somebody who’s going to be an advocate for NIMBYs…

Sue  04:13

Well, for people who have a grievance against certain development applications. And as we know, it can be really hard to fight development applications, especially if the developer is…

Jimmy  04:24

A big multinational, who has friends who used to be Fair Trading Minister…

Sue  04:29

The thing I was going to say is, we’ve had lots of examples (even in the past couple of years), of councillors receiving money from developers, to agree to their plans.

Jimmy  04:43

And, you know, I’m sure some of these fact-finding missions to China have been absolutely valid…

Sue  04:49

Of course!

Jimmy  04:49

 Because it’s very relevant to the inner-western suburbs of Sydney.

Sue  04:55

Maybe it’s good in some ways, to try and even up the ground, so to speak. We don’t want a really anti-development, attitude to prevail really, because the future of Sydney is high-density living. We all know that high-density can be fantastic. It can also be awful, if it’s done badly. So we just want more high-density, done well.

Jimmy  05:18

More better; that’s what we should add. That should be their slogan. ‘Higher, Better, More.’

Sue  05:27

And, of course, David Chandler, the Building Commissioner, was making sure that some of those buildings were going to be here for good and they were going to be well-built. I think you’ve got some more news on him, haven’t you?

Jimmy  05:39

It’s not really news, but I was talking to somebody who’s very senior in the Cabinet, who’s saying that they’re really upset that David has resigned, and they will take him back in a shot. If he wanted to come back and they could find a way of him saying ‘okay yes, I’ve changed my mind; I want to come back,’ without anybody losing face… Because it’s also a political decision, as well as a management decision. But if he was prepared (or keen to do that), they’d take him back in a blink of an eye. He is so highly-regarded, by the people who actually know what they’re doing.

Sue  06:19

And obviously, one of the hurdles is gone now, because Eleni Petinos is no longer the minister.

Jimmy  06:23

Well, according to Premier Perrottet, her sacking (and it was a sacking), had nothing to do with that letter that David Chandler sent.

Sue  06:33

It’s hard to believe that it had absolutely nothing to do with it, isn’t it? And it’s hard to believe that Dominic Perrottet took so long to read it.

Jimmy  06:39

Only read it on the day. ‘So, I’ve just sacked the minister; oh, I might read that letter that has been around for a month now.’ Because that letter, when it first came in, it immediately was sent to the lawyers, to ask what they should do about it and to see if it was defamatory, or anything like that. It had been around… He had a lot on his plate, with football grounds and floods…

Sue  07:07

Losing more Ministers.

Jimmy  07:08

They were dropping like flies. Yes, he’s been a bit distracted, let’s say, but I just don’t believe that he didn’t sack her (at least in part), because of that letter. It may have been that he was looking at other aspects; the allegations of bullying, which she denies. And then this came along, and he’s gone ‘got to cut this one out, right now,’ which is probably the right thing to do. But unfortunately, the way he’s done, it just leaves more questions than answers. So the word is David, if you’re listening, they’ll take you back! Call them up! Take them for a coffee; take them for a brandy, whatever.

Sue  07:46

He could probably ask for a bit more money, as well. The ball is in your court…

Jimmy  07:52

And somebody in the government could make themselves a hero, by being the person who organises this. That’s the news, on that front. When we come back, we’re going to be looking at how prices have been going up and down and where.

MUSIC

Jimmy

Sue Williams, one of your many jobs, when you are not traipsing around Africa chasing leopards (in vain)…

Sue  08:24

Thank you, Jimmy! I saw everything else.

Jimmy  08:29

You saw the other four, of the big five?

Sue  08:32

That’s right.

Jimmy  08:33

The big quick question is, did the leopard see you? They are very good at hiding.

Sue  08:38

They are. I’ve only ever seen leopards twice in my life; once in Kenya, and once in Tanzania. And the one in Tanzania, I thought ‘wow! It’s a leopard and it’s running along. Oh, it’s caught that beautiful little dik- dik. Oh, it’s torn it’s throat out!’ Suddenly, it didn’t seem such a lovely creature, after all.

Jimmy  08:58

Talking about people’s throats being torn out…What’s happening on the prices front?

Sue  09:07

Well, it’s interesting. As we know, property prices are softening, all around the country. But interestingly, unit prices are holding up much better than house prices. There’s been really wild movement; some properties have gone up hugely and some have fallen hugely. It’s hard to work out why, all across the country. I spoke to Nicola Powell, who’s the economist with Domain, and she was saying, affordability is driving all these movements.

Jimmy  09:39

Affordability is driving prices down and up?

Sue  09:43

That’s right. So that’s why units are doing better, because units are more affordable, so more people are buying units, so prices are firming. You know, they’re not dropping by as much. Whereas, houses (particularly houses in Sydney), are more expensive and they’re less affordable. So therefore, they’re falling the most.

Jimmy  10:03

That kind of makes sense.

Sue  10:05

I mean, for some people, if you want to buy a unit in, say, Coffs Harbour in New South Wales, you’re in luck, because over the last quarter (the last three months), the prices have gone down by 10.8%. That’s amazing, isn’t it? That’s the most of any property, in any state.

Jimmy  10:21

Coffs Harbour; that’s a nice place to go.

Sue  10:24

It is. But if you want the city; in Leichardt, units have gone down by 9.4%. And in Victoria, units in Manningham West have gone down by quite a lot, by 6.6%. If you want to buy there, that’s a good idea, as well. On the New South Wales South Coast, they’ve fallen 7.2%. Or, if you want something a bit posher; in North Sydney (in Mosman), a unit has gone down by 7.7%. It’s a buyers market, really, in those areas.

Jimmy  11:00

Is that after periods of rapid, high growth?

Sue  11:05

That’s right. So they’re kind of adjusting a bit more.

Jimmy  11:08

So where is it still going up? Is there anywhere still going up?

Sue  11:12

Units in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, for instance, have gone up by an incredible 14% over the last three months, which is amazing. In Sydney, they haven’t gone up at all, because they’ve had such rapid price growth in the past, as you’ve pointed out. But in other areas, where it was a little bit more affordable; South Australia units have gone up by 12.5%.

Jimmy  11:36

That’s on Kangaroo Island.

Sue  11:38

Yes. Which is really interesting, isn’t it? And then in Queensland, Everton Park units have gone up by 11.7%. So these are all areas which are much more affordable, really. Tasmania; Devonport units have gone up by 11.1% and in WA, Wanneroo units have gone up by 10.9%.

Jimmy  11:57

It strikes me that the market is not moving in one massive shift everywhere; it’s that people are becoming more selective about where they want to live and where they’re prepared to pay big bucks. Maybe, some of the ones that had the biggest price rises are now; the bubble has burst, really and people are saying ‘well, we’re not paying those prices for that area, because we can go there and pay less.’

Sue  12:25

And it’s also quite localised; local conditions…Some of these places where prices have gone up the most, they may have a real shortage of supply, and in other places where prices have fallen, there may be a lot more unit developments coming onto the market. So you know, the oversupply has led to prices falling, as well. It’s a very confusing picture, because it’s wildly changing everywhere. But generally, units are proving a pretty good investment, because everyone is looking for affordable options.

Jimmy  12:55

It’s interesting (well, I hope it’s interesting);  my column in the Fin Review this weekend (and online, probably right now), is about how you can downsize or adjust your investment, to take out all the bells and whistles and frills. There’s a survey by a company in Brisbane called Bees Nees Realty and every two years, they do a survey of renters and find out what it is that they want and what it is that they’re not that bothered about. What they want is parking. They want outdoor space. If you’re trying to rent out an apartment that doesn’t have a balcony, it’s going to be less-attractive.

Sue  13:43

Especially after COVID, I think. You know, people want fresh air and there have been people locked into apartments without balconies, during those lockdown periods.

Jimmy  13:53

And the other thing is, that one of the things that is the lowest priority for renters, is a swimming pool. The lowest priority is a gym. The second lowest priority is the swimming pool. Now, that is a big expense in a building; that will add to your levies. If you can find property that doesn’t have the things that add to your levies, you can actually lower the rent a bit and attract more potential tenants.

Sue  14:20

Yes, that’s a very good point. I guess the problem is, prices are going up everywhere; the cost of living is rising. So lots of investors are looking at those apartments that don’t have high levies, because it means that renters want to pay lower rent and they’re not prepared (at the moment), to pay extra for pools and gyms, because that’s discretionary expenditure. They think ‘well, you know, if the cost of living stops going up so much and I can afford my rent more easily, then I can just spend the money when I want to, on joining a gym, or going swimming at the pool or driving to the beach, with the cost of petrol.’ So really, at the moment, everybody’s tightening their belts and it’s good to go along with that trend, in some ways.

Jimmy  15:07

Absolutely. And you know, one of the things that is another low-priority for renters, is ensuite bathrooms. You know, they just say ‘well, we don’t need to have a bathroom directly off the bedroom,’ and an ensuite bathroom is often a second bathroom, anyway. So you know, it’s kind of like an extra expense. Now, that’s the kind of thing that will add to your levies, because it puts up the amount of floor space that you’re paying for. So it’s these things; I think you can find some really nice apartments (maybe some older apartments), where the building’s been looked after; the unit has been done up nicely, where it doesn’t have all those frills and bells and whistles.

Sue  15:50

And probably, if it’s lower-rise, it doesn’t have lifts and lifts can be very expensive, as well.

Jimmy  15:56

True. And you want to avoid hotel conversions, because they tend to have more lifts than normal apartment blocks.

Sue  16:04

That’s true.

Jimmy  16:04

So that’s an extra expense that you don’t really need. Because you know, the traffic and lifts in apartment blocks are much less than the traffic and lifts in hotels. When we come back, Sue is going to have another stint as ‘strata guru of the week.’

Sue  16:18

No! This is too nerve-wracking!

Jimmy  16:20

You did so well last week! That’s after this.

PROMO

Here at Flat Chat, we’re always telling people that one of the benefits of apartment living is that you can just lock up and leave when you want to take a holiday. Well, if you’re looking for some inspiration on where to go, to make the most of your freedom, take a look at mildrover.com, our website for seasoned travellers. It has news, reviews and special travel deals, in which you can literally save thousands of dollars. That’s mildrover.com, the website that takes you somewhere fantastic, even if you don’t leave home.

MUSIC

Jimmy

Sue, I’m going to put you on the spot, again. A couple of things from the forum…

Sue  17:04

No mercy!

Jimmy  17:06

One of them is, you’ve got a multi-block community development… They’ve got their own little management committee, with a representative from each building. The other people on the committee want to change the secretary and there’s a whole complication here, that the secretary sends a proxy to the meeting. When they put on the agenda that they wanted to vacate the secretary position and elect someone else as secretary, the person representing the building said ‘we’ve got 35% of the unit entitlements here. That allows us to veto that motion going on the agenda.’ A little known aspect of strata law is, if you see a motion on your agenda, and you can get the signatures of 1/3 of the people in the building, to say ‘we don’t even want this to be discussed,’ it has to be taken off the agenda.

Sue  18:08

Really? I didn’t know that.

Jimmy  18:10

Well, not a lot of people do, but this person did. So they’ve gone along and said ‘our building has more than 33% of the the unit entitlements in this whole complex, so our building says, we’re not going to even consider this secretary being sacked.’ What do you reckon?

Sue  18:30

Surely, they are just a percentage of the whole number of lots in the whole complex?

Jimmy  18:38

They still have 35% of the whole total of lots. My question is, does the committee representative represent the owners, because the law says if 1/3 of the owners say they don’t want this to be considered, then it shouldn’t be considered. What they’re saying is, our building, which contains 1/3 of the owners, is saying we don’t want this to be considered.

Sue  19:07

So they actually haven’t had a vote at a meeting, where all those people have said ‘no?’ Yes.

Jimmy  19:13

It’s funny, because it has just come out in the forum… The strata manager said to them ‘can you show me the minutes of your meeting, where your building decided to vote against this?’ And they said ‘no, it’s private.’ It just reminds me of; do you remember that TV show, ‘Not the Nine O’Clock News?’  It was a sketch where it was a union meeting, and they’re saying ‘let’s have a tea break… Who wants coffee; who wants tea?’ and two of them said ‘oh, we’ll have coffee,’ and the bloke chairing it says ‘right, you are 750,000 votes; you are 500,000 votes for coffee… I’ve got 2.5 million votes, so we’ll be having tea.’

Sue  19:59

Oh, wow! That’s a good simile!

Jimmy  20:06

I mean, I think the strata manager should get some legal advice.

Sue  20:11

It’s obviously a very heated issue.

Jimmy  20:15

It’s ridiculous that you would think that one building, out of a group of four, could veto any motion that comes up. Obviously, this secretary; I mean, I think it’s ridiculous, that the secretary is sending a proxy to the meetings and even then, there’s a limit on the number of proxies that you can have. It’s not like they can say ‘I am the proxy for 33% of the votes,’ because you can’t even do that. The maximum you can get is 5%. So it’s just a big mess and the strata manager in this, I think, needs to be saying ‘pull your head in; just talk sense.’

Sue  20:52

I think the law has been a bit slow to catch up with these things, because multi-unit developments; we’ve only seen them in the last 20 years really, and the law hasn’t really quite caught up.

Jimmy  21:04

This is a new law; this is actually the Community Titles. It was only changed last year.

Sue  21:12

Do you remember, a few years ago, when Jacksons Landing started out, they had a community association, but the newest building (which I think was one of the biggest); there was no room for them on the community association, because it had filled all its posts, so there was no place vacant. And the reason it had filled all its posts, was because there was some old terraced houses and all the owners had been told ‘you can each be on the Community Association.’  You’ve got this tower full of people, that had no vote.

Jimmy  21:41

You talk about the tail wagging the dog. The strata manager needs to get legal advice, or do they need to get a new strata manager?

Sue  21:42

Oh, it’s really difficult, isn’t it? What a shame, though; you’ve got this development, and they’re kind of hamstrung about this one person. So maybe, legal advice is a good idea.

Jimmy  22:05

And that doesn’t happen anywhere else in strata (ever), does it? Okay, question number two…

Sue  22:15

Is this easier?

Jimmy  22:16

I don’t know. You know, the definition of an easy question, is one to which you know the answer. Have you ever heard of a bicycle cage?

Sue  22:25

Yes. I saw one this morning, at the airport.

Jimmy  22:28

Right. So you can get individual bicycle cages for your bicycle. You can have a bicycle cage…

Sue  22:34

To protect it, if it’s a really expensive bike.

Jimmy  22:38

So an owner has just sold her car; she wants to use her bicycle (which might be quite expensive). She wants it not to get stolen or damaged and she wants to put it in her car space. Should she be allowed to do so?

Sue  22:54

Yes! Yes, it’s her space. Well, it’s common property, probably.

Jimmy  23:00

There you go!

Sue  23:03

But I think it would be unreasonable for an owners corporation to refuse her permission. We should be encouraging people to get rid of their cars and use bicycles.

Jimmy  23:13

But do you think they could if they didn’t want; if they were going ‘oh, that cage is ugly?’

Sue  23:18

Well, they could approve the cage.

Jimmy  23:20

Could they not approve it, which is kind of the point of the question?

Sue  23:24

They could talk to her and say ‘look, we’d like a really nice, well -designed cage. Can you send us the pictures of the cages you’d like and can we approve one of them? And then we will make it a standard one, that anybody else who wants to do the same thing, they have to have that one, too.’ So that there is some uniformity in the carpark.

Jimmy  23:44

Like we have with our box thing.

Sue  23:45

That’s right, the storage units. We approved those.

Jimmy  23:49

And people have come in with different coloured ones and been told ‘no,’ because they don’t fit in with the look, because you can ask people to stay within the boundaries of the look of the building, generally.

Sue  24:04

It’s interesting, though, because you think she might rent out her car space to somebody else within the building, who maybe, has two cars, or doesn’t have a car space. Then it would be an opportunity for the owners corporation to receive more revenue, because they could rent out spaces on the wall. You know, you can get those bike cages that hang off the wall, so they could actually rent out those spaces and that will be another source of revenue for them.

Jimmy  24:30

Possibly, I guess. It’s amazing, the variety of bicycle cages that are available.

Sue  24:38

You’ve had a look at them, have you?

Jimmy  24:39

Yes. You can get one that’s for one bike, or two bikes, or several bikes and one that’s half-bike and the rest is just for stuff.

Sue  24:46

I suppose it’s a growing market.

Jimmy  24:50

And you know, they come in a different design; like they’ll say ‘well, we’ll put this in and if it fits the gap to the ceiling, then we won’t put a roof on it and that’ll be cheaper for you,’ and things like that.

Sue  25:02

Clever!

Jimmy  25:04

I think it’s a growing market.

Sue  25:07

Because I mean, lots of buildings now have bike rooms, where you can leave your bike, but sometimes, the bikes are very close together and they can they could be damaged, conceivably. If it was a very expensive bike…

Jimmy  25:18

Bikes can get very, very expensive. You know, $20,000 for a top-of-the line Colnago, or something like that.

Sue  25:24

Yes, that might be more expensive than some people’s cars.

Jimmy  25:26

Bicycle of my dreams. The problem with cages in car spaces, is when people build on the line. They say ‘that’s my space. I can put the wall of a cage there…’

Sue  25:39

They would have to have it inside, wouldn’t they?

Jimmy  25:41

Yes, because you’ve got to allow room for people to open their car doors. Talk to your committee and you know, there are lots of reasons why they should allow this. Just get a nice, well-designed cage, that doesn’t impact on anybody else and you should be okay.  Thank you very much, Sue. You’ve got to go off now and do a podcast about travelling?

Sue  26:01

Fantastic.  Yes.

Jimmy  26:08

There’s no rest for the wicked; how wicked are you?! Thanks for dropping in, from South Africa.

MUSIC

Jimmy

Thanks for listening to the Flat Chat Wrap podcast. You’ll find links to the stories and other references on our website, flatchat.com.au. And if you haven’t already done so, you can subscribe to this podcast completely free on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favourite pod catcher. Just search for Flat Chat Wrap with a W, click on subscribe, and you’ll get this podcast every week, without even trying. Thanks again. Talk to you again next week.