How Developers Are Working the Housing Delivery Authority — and What It Costs
An investigation by Alan Weiss
A panel of three, and a door that didn’t exist eighteen months ago
Stand on the footpath outside Edgecliff station on any weekday morning and count the construction fences. Two years ago, redeveloping any of the large sites within walking distance meant a very long dance with Woollahra Municipal Council. A site could sit in that queue for five years and end in refusal. In November 2021, Woollahra Council and a state-led panel had already knocked back a 45-storey tower at the Edgecliff Centre; in late 2024 the Council unanimously rejected a 25-storey tower at 8–10 New McLean Street.
The door those developers are now walking through didn’t exist eighteen months ago. It’s called the Housing Delivery Authority, and it was formally established on 19 December 2024 by Planning Minister Paul Scully under an order made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Expressions of Interest opened on 8 January 2025. By 24 December 2025, the Department was reporting that more than 300 proposals had been declared State Significant following the HDA’s recommendation, representing a potential pipeline of more than 102,000 homes. A departmental dashboard snapshot from early 2026 puts the running tallies higher again: 348 proposals declared SSD, 184 with SEARs issued, and 36 SSD (State Significant Development) development applications already lodged.
The HDA itself is deceptively small: a three-person panel comprising the Secretary of the Premier’s Department (Simon Draper), the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (Kiersten Fishburn), and the Chief Executive of Infrastructure NSW (Tom Gellibrand), with designated alternates stepping in when members are unavailable. The panel does not assess applications itself. It recommends, and the Minister declares.
Why the state government built the door
NSW signed up under the National Housing Accord to deliver 377,000 new homes by June 2029. The Minns Government’s answer has two legs:
- The HDA pathway, for major residential proposals at ~$60 million or more (about 100 dwellings plus) in Greater Sydney, or ~$30 million (about 40 dwellings) elsewhere.
- The Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Policy, a statewide rezoning by State Environmental Planning Policy that, since 28 February 2025, applies within 800 metres walking distance of 171 nominated town centres and stations. In the Eastern Suburbs, mapped areas include Bondi Junction, Edgecliff, Rose Bay town centre, Kensington light rail, and Maroubra Junction. The LMR policy introduces non-discretionary standards that override tougher LEP or DCP controls and make more housing types permissible in residential zones.
These are not alternatives — they are stacked. Developers are not simply bypassing council. They are arbitraging between overlapping state-created pathways: the LMR provides a stronger baseline envelope; the HDA becomes the stretch case when a developer wants more height, more floor space, or a land-use outcome the local instrument does not presently permit.
The developer playbook — seven stages, one target
The sequence is best described the way a project director now sees it.
Stage 1 — EOI. The proponent submits an online Expression of Interest addressing 12 published criteria: high-yield housing type, state-significant scale, largely consistent with development standards (no more than 20% exceedance unless concurrent rezoning is requested), ability to commence construction within 12 months of approval, secure tenure, a measurable affordable housing contribution, and a “well-located” site free of bushfire, flood, environmentally sensitive overlays or underground hazards. The EOI is short — a webform — and does not require plans or supporting reports; those come later through the SEARs and EIS stages.
Stage 2 — HDA evaluation. The panel meets roughly monthly. It either (a) recommends the proposal for the HDA SSD pathway, (b) recommends it with a concurrent rezoning, (c) tells the proponent to use an existing SSD pathway, or (d) does not recommend it. The Records of Briefing are published within 14 days. Half of each tranche, in practice, is knocked back — the panel is not a rubber stamp.
Stage 3 — Ministerial declaration. If the HDA recommends, the Minister declares the proposal State Significant Development. If the proposal is already under a parallel planning pathway (including Land and Environment Court proceedings), the applicant must withdraw from that pathway before declaration can occur.
Stage 4 — SEARs. Industry-specific Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements are typically issued within 7 days. Project-specific SEARs — required for proposals that are prohibited, designated, concept-based, or especially complex — can take up to 28 days, and complex rezonings can add a Planning Focus Meeting.
Stage 5 — DA lodgement. The proponent has nine months from SEARs to lodge the DA and EIS, with extensions of up to three months if substantial progress is shown and the delay is beyond the applicant’s control.
Stage 6 — Assessment and exhibition. DPHI assesses the DA and exhibits it publicly for at least 14 days for relevant residential SSDs. Council can make a submission like any other stakeholder — but it is not the consent authority.
Stage 7 — Determination. The Minister (or delegate) determines. The Department targets an average of 275 end-to-end days from DA lodgement to determination, with 90 of those days in government hands. Crucially, for HDA-backed ministerial call-ins — unlike ordinary SSD — the Independent Planning Commission does not generally determine the application even where there is significant council or community opposition. It stays with the Minister or delegate.
Add the EOI window and the nine months to lodge, and the fastest theoretical HDA timeline from EOI to approval is 15–18 months. The first project approved through the HDA pathway — a 106-apartment scheme at Gordon — was determined in seven months from SSD declaration to approval, beating the nine-month average.
How council power changes under the HDA
Councils do not lose all power under the HDA pathway. They lose the power to decide the application. What they keep is a package of advisory, administrative and political roles that can still shape the outcome at the margins — but never overturn it.
Under the ordinary council DA pathway, the council (or its Local Planning Panel) is the consent authority. It assesses the application, applies its Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan as binding controls, and approves or refuses. The developer’s only remedy is an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.
Under the HDA pathway, that decision-making power shifts entirely to the state. The Minister for Planning (or a delegate) becomes the consent authority. The council’s LEP and DCP remain relevant considerations, but they no longer bind the assessment. The council joins the queue of stakeholders making submissions on a proposal it used to determine.
What councils keep
- Submission rights. The council can lodge a written submission during public exhibition, the same as any community member. A well-argued council submission carries weight with departmental assessors, but it is not a veto.
- SEARs input. The council is invited to comment on the scope of the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements. This is the most useful early lever — it shapes the studies the developer must commission before the full application is lodged.
- Local knowledge channel. The council provides formal advice on local issues such as trunk drainage, traffic, flooding, heritage interfaces and application of its own contributions plans.
- Developer contributions. The HDA criteria require proponents to pay contributions under the council’s existing contributions plan. That revenue stream continues.
- Political and media pressure. Councils retain the ability to make public statements, pass resolutions, brief local members, and mobilise community opposition. These informal levers can shape public debate and, at the margins, the Minister’s risk appetite.
What councils lose
- The power to refuse. Only the Minister or delegate can now determine an HDA-declared application.
- The power to bind with DCP controls. Design, setbacks, car parking rates and local character provisions fall back to being considerations rather than requirements.
- The power to refer to the Local Planning Panel. The council’s own assessment committee no longer has jurisdiction.
- The power to trigger IPC determination. Under the ordinary SSD system, a council objection or 50-plus community objections can send a proposal to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. That trigger is suspended for HDA-backed ministerial call-ins, which stay with the Minister in most residential cases.
The LMR overlay
Under the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, councils retain assessment of residential DAs up to six storeys. But the key development standards — height, floor space ratio, minimum lot size — are now set by the Housing SEPP and operate as non-refusal standards. A council cannot reach past the SEPP to apply tighter local controls on envelope.
The practical upshot: a Woollahra resident who objects to a mid-rise block in Bondi Junction still has an argument about design, heritage and streetscape. They no longer have an argument about whether six storeys should be allowed at all. That question has been settled at state level.
The honest summary
Councils have moved from being decision-makers to being well-informed submitters with inside access. On big residential projects, they now influence outcomes through the quality of their submissions, their early input on SEARs, and their political voice — not through their planning instruments. That is a smaller role than they had in 2024, but it is not nothing.
Eastern Suburbs case studies — what has been approved
The Eastern Suburbs pipeline already shows the pattern clearly. Each of the projects below has been declared State Significant following HDA recommendation and is now in the SSD assessment pipeline.
| Site | Proponent | Scheme | Declared SSD | Status |
| 16–24 Belmore Road, Randwick | Randwick town centre site | 15-storey shop-top housing, ~104 apts, 15% affordable housing for 15 yrs | 15 July 2025 | Prepare EIS |
| 123–139 Alison Road & 11 Elizabeth Lane, Randwick | — | 115 dwellings with concurrent rezoning | 15 July 2025 | Prepare EIS |
| 135–155 New South Head Road & 529–539 Glenmore Road, Edgecliff | — | 109 dwellings with concurrent rezoning; earlier tower sketch 12–27 storeys | 8 August 2025 | Prepare EIS |
| 669–683 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse | OSHR at Vaucluse Holdings (Meissen Properties / Aquavenus); Blare Management | 82 senior-living units + 21 affordable dwellings in three buildings 6.5, 7.5 & 9.5 storeys; $155m est. | 29 August 2025 | SEARs requested |
| 77–103 Anzac Parade & 59A–71 Boronia Street, Kensington | Architectus (planner); previous Anson Group scheme nearby | 357 apartments, 24 storeys, 15% affordable; supermarket + through-site link | 10 October 2025 | Prepare EIS |
| 122–128 Hewlett Street, Bronte | Fortis | 100–120 dwellings, part 4-storey + part 9-storey, 5% affordable | 9 December 2025 | Newly declared |
| 35–45 Awaba Street, Mosman | Heworth Holdings Group | 9-storey residential, 100 dwellings, 4% affordable housing in perpetuity | 9 December 2025 | Newly declared |
Vaucluse — when the HDA lets a developer re-plan a refused site
The Vaucluse case is the clearest example in the Eastern Suburbs of what the HDA pathway actually unlocks. The Old South Head Road site had been approved by the local planning panel in 2024 for a $34 million scheme of 31 senior-living dwellings across two four-storey buildings. That was the pre-HDA ceiling.
Under the HDA declaration made 29 August 2025, the same proponent has now requested SEARs for a radically expanded scheme: 82 senior-living units plus 21 affordable dwellings in three buildings of 6.5, 7.5 and 9.5 storeys, designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates of New York. The project cost has moved from $34 million to $155 million. The yield has more than tripled. The permitted site zoning has shifted from two instruments to a unified set of controls through concurrent rezoning. That is not a marginal uplift. That is a different project on the same dirt.
Kensington — the HDA as an uplift from a locally-approved DA
77–103 Anzac Parade is another instructive example. In March 2024, Anson Group received council DA approval for a 197-apartment scheme across four buildings of 4–9 storeys with six affordable units. That was the local-consent ceiling. The HDA version declared in October 2025 is a 357-apartment scheme at 24 storeys with 15% affordable housing — roughly 54 affordable units.
Comparing the two: the HDA version delivers 160 more apartments, more than double the height, and about nine times the affordable-housing commitment, on the same assembled site. The affordable-housing uplift is important — it is the bargaining chip that enables the height uplift. But the size of the step change also illustrates why councils are watching the HDA so closely.
Double Bay — what the LMR policy alone is now doing to land values
The third case study sits one layer down from the HDA — a pure LMR play — and it is the clearest current read on what the new planning layers are doing to Eastern Suburbs land pricing.
11–13 Ocean Avenue, Double Bay is a 2,694 square metre elevated harbourside parcel, a short walk from Double Bay village and approximately 100 metres from the Edgecliff transport hub. The site currently carries 12 existing apartments, which provide holding income. It was launched to market in early 2026 by Cushman & Wakefield with price expectations north of $80 million. The expressions of interest campaign closes 13 May 2026.
What makes this site worth pausing on is not the headline number — it is what the headline number reveals about how the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy is now being capitalised into land values. The site is not being marketed as an HDA play. At 2,694 square metres it sits below the typical HDA threshold on its own, and the marketing explicitly references the LMR policy as the redevelopment lever. That is a pricing signal worth reading carefully: for well-located Eastern Suburbs sites within the LMR walking catchments, sellers are now able to ask and obtain prices that reflect the new four-to-six-storey non-refusal envelope — without needing a state-significant declaration at all.
Said differently: two years ago, a 2,694 square metre Double Bay parcel with 12 existing apartments and a 12-metre height limit was a heritage-constrained income-producing asset with modest redevelopment optionality. In 2026, after LMR, the same parcel is being priced as a premium development site with a materially larger permitted envelope. The land price has moved because the planning instrument has moved — not because the site is closer to any station than it was before.
That is LMR capitalisation in a single transaction, and it maps directly onto what agents and valuers across Woollahra, Waverley and Randwick are now telling vendors. The floor has risen.
Eastern Suburbs case studies — what has been refused
The HDA is not a rubber stamp. A substantial share of Eastern Suburbs EOIs have been declined. The pattern of refusal is itself informative.
| Site | Proposal | Proponent | Core reason HDA declined |
| 20 Kiaora Road, Double Bay (Woollahra) | 105 apts, up to 12 storeys, 10% affordable | Planning&Co | Wait for Woollahra station SLR |
| 73–85A New South Head Road, Edgecliff (Woollahra) | 126 apts, 21 storeys, 15% affordable | GSA Planning | Wait for Edgecliff-Woollahra SLR |
| 109, 113 & 115 New South Head Road, Edgecliff (Woollahra) | 107 apts, 25 storeys, 15% affordable | Avenor | Wait for Edgecliff-Woollahra SLR |
| 3 Fullerton Street, Woollahra | 101 apts, 22 storeys, 5% affordable | Fullerton Street Developments | Wait for Edgecliff-Woollahra SLR |
| 1 & 3–5 The Avenue and 439–445 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay (Waverley) | Mixed-use, residential units including affordable (DA-245/2024 on foot) | Orosi | Told to progress the existing DA through council instead |
| 1406–1408 Anzac Parade, Little Bay (Randwick) | 2,600-dwelling concept, Stage 1 of 400 apts, 2–27 storeys, 5% in-perpetuity affordable | Karimbla Constructions (Meriton) | Precinct planning required first; transport & hazard concerns |
| 11–27 Jennifer Street, Little Bay (Randwick) | 150 apts, 6–7 storeys, 20% affordable | Urban Property Group | Progress the existing DA consent instead |
| 5–9 Eden Street & 39 Burrows Street, Arncliffe (Bayside) | 140 apts, 22-storey tower, 10% affordable for 15 yrs | AMA Corp (NSW) | Intrudes into Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface |
The Rose Bay refusal at The Avenue is particularly useful because it shows the HDA choosing not to supplant a live council pathway. The proponent (Orosi) had DA-245/2024 already under assessment for a mixed-use residential scheme, and the panel specifically told the applicant to pursue that existing DA rather than escalate to the state. This is the HDA saying that the council-led pathway is the correct channel for that particular site at this time — not because the scheme is bad, but because the state will not duplicate live council assessments.
The court route — when and at what cost
The litigation options differ sharply depending on which pathway a project is travelling through.
Council/panel pathway: full merits appeal under the LEC
A developer whose DA is refused or deemed refused by a council or Local Planning Panel can appeal to the Land and Environment Court of NSW under section 8.7 of the EP&A Act. In a Class 1 merits appeal, the Court stands in the shoes of the original consent authority and re-exercises the decision. This is the traditional developer backstop.
HDA/SSD pathway: judicial review only
HDA EOI decisions are final and not appealable. SSD decisions are not subject to merits appeals by applicants or objectors. The court route for SSD is generally judicial review only, and it must be brought within three months of the decision being notified. Judicial review challenges legality — procedural fairness, jurisdictional error, failure to consider mandatory considerations — not the planning merits. A council, community group or adjoining owner can bring one on those grounds.
The cost of going to court (verified NSW figures)
Court filing fees are modest compared with the cost of preparing the case. Current LEC filing fees for corporations:
- Class 1 originating process (DA merits appeal, development value $1m+): A$8,936.
- Class 4 judicial review originating process: A$2,358.
- Notice of motion: A$547. Subpoena: A$258.
Costs rules differ by class. In Class 1 planning merits cases the Court’s default rule is that costs are not ordered unless it is fair and reasonable to do so. In Class 4 judicial review, the usual position is that the loser pays the winner’s costs. On top of filing fees, the substantive litigation cost — solicitors, senior and junior counsel, expert evidence, hearing preparation — typically runs A$100,000 to A$500,000+ per party for a fully contested matter. That is an asymmetric exposure for a council or resident group.
The SSD application fee itself — not trivial
Before any court dispute, a developer lodging through the HDA/SSD pathway pays substantial state application fees. The current Department schedule:
- SSD with estimated cost $50m–$100m: A$78,112 plus A$0.60 per A$1,000 above A$50m.
- SSD with estimated cost $100m–$200m: A$117,168 plus A$0.50 per A$1,000 above A$100m.
- Concurrent rezoning under s4.38(5): A$29,488 plus A$1,130 per hectare.
- Public EIS exhibition: A$3,685.
- Modification: 50% of the original fee, minimum A$6,509.
These are state fees only. On top sit consultant, legal, design, traffic, urban design, ecology, geotechnical and engagement budgets. For a typical Eastern Suburbs mid-rise, the total up-front outlay before the Department even begins its assessment will commonly be A$500,000 to A$1.5 million.
Case study — two lanes at the same frontage: the Bondi Road sequence
The most instructive Eastern Suburbs example of a developer running both lanes concurrently sits on Bondi Road.
Lane 1 — council and Court. Bondi Road Development Pty Ltd (an entity linked to Vaucluse-based Constantinos Charalambous of Charas Constructions) lodged a DA for an 11-storey apartment building at 7–19 Bondi Road in August 2024. Waverley Council did not determine it within the statutory time and the DA was deemed refused. The developer appealed to the Land and Environment Court. In 2025, after amendments, the Court approved the scheme: 46 apartments, including 11 affordable housing units, using the Housing SEPP’s infill affordable housing height and FSR bonuses. The amendment-driven extra work generated a modest council costs order — reported at A$9,500 of thrown-away costs — paid by the applicant.
Lane 2 — HDA escalation at the same strip. Less than a year later, a larger HDA-backed proposal surfaced for 7–21 Bondi Road — adding number 21 to the landholding — at 23 storeys and 150 dwellings. The frontage overlap with the Court-approved scheme is obvious even though the land parcel is not strictly identical. That is a developer using the local-and-Court pathway to land a 46-apartment 11-storey approval, and then testing the state-led pathway for a materially larger 150-apartment 23-storey scheme on the adjoining frontage. Whether the bigger scheme ultimately receives ministerial declaration and makes it through SSD assessment is still to play out, but the sequence is the clearest Eastern Suburbs illustration of the dual-pathway strategy.
Counter-example at Maroubra
The other Eastern Suburbs sequence worth naming is Maroubra. A 56-unit mixed-use DA at 138 Maroubra Road was refused by the Court in a 2025 Class 1 appeal. Nearby, a larger HDA-backed scheme at 86–94 Maroubra Road and 46 Hannan Street is now sitting in Prepare SEARs — 130 units, affordable-housing linked. Two projects in the same suburb: one fought through the local and Court route and lost; another is moving through state assessment from a larger base. That is not proof that the HDA guarantees approval, but it is strong evidence that developers see it as the preferable lane where the site and scale permit it.
The market dashboard — where the Eastern Suburbs sit
As of early 2026, the residential land market in the Eastern Suburbs is now being priced off three overlapping layers:
- Layer 1 — LMR baseline. Any site within 800 m walk of Bondi Junction, Edgecliff, Rose Bay town centre, Kensington, or Maroubra Junction has non-refusal four- to six-storey standards under the Housing SEPP. This is the default envelope.
- Layer 2 — Infill affordable housing bonuses. Where a developer commits 10%+ affordable housing, a further height and FSR uplift is available under the Housing SEPP. The 7–19 Bondi Road Court-approved scheme used this bonus to lift from 8 storeys to 11.
- Layer 3 — HDA declaration. For sites at $60m+ / 100+ dwellings, HDA declaration with concurrent rezoning opens the door to 20+ storey outcomes where the underlying controls permit none. The Kensington 357-apt scheme and the Vaucluse 103-unit seniors scheme are the template.
Where a site can credibly support all three layers, it is now being priced accordingly. Land values in parts of Woollahra, Waverley, Randwick and Bayside have moved materially through 2025 as a direct consequence. Where a site can only support Layer 1 (small residential parcels outside the LMR walking catchments), values are largely unchanged. The HDA has not created a uniform uplift — it has created a sharp differentiation between sites inside the eligible envelope and those outside it.
The refined developer playbook
For a developer working the Eastern Suburbs in 2026, the practical sequence is now:
- 1. Pre-check LMR eligibility. Is the site within 800 m of a mapped centre? If no, the HDA path is essentially closed unless the site is large enough to carry its own master-plan justification.
- 2. Model a baseline scheme under LMR + infill affordable bonuses. This is the council/Court lane. For many sites, this is the rational stop. A 46-apartment, 11-storey Bondi Road outcome (11 affordable) is a durable consent obtained within two years.
- 3. Test whether an HDA uplift is worth the state fees and affordable-housing commitments. Calculate the delta between the LMR yield and the HDA yield, factor in 15% affordable housing (typical HDA commitment), and stress-test the financial feasibility.
- 4. Prepare a tight EOI. Avoid sites inside active state-led rezoning footprints (Edgecliff-Woollahra SLR is the obvious one to avoid). Avoid sites with bushfire, flood, OLS or contaminated overlays. Demonstrate ability to lodge within nine months.
- 5. Keep the existing pathway clean. If there is a live DA or planning proposal, the HDA will require withdrawal before declaration. Plan the withdrawal sequence carefully so you do not end up in a no-pathway gap.
- 6. Budget realistically. A$500,000 to A$1.5 million in up-front costs before the Department opens your EIS. A$80,000+ in state application fees at lodgement. Separate A$100,000+ provision for any judicial review defence.
The honest verdict
The HDA is not a loophole — it is the pathway the state government built deliberately because it concluded that the council-led system could not deliver the Housing Accord numbers. The LMR reforms take the same logic down to the parcel scale. Together they have created a genuinely new, two-tier planning system in Sydney’s east.
Developers are not merely getting around council. They are choosing between a council-and-Court lane and a state-led HDA/SSD lane, and the choice is largely determined by site and scale. Where the site is in an LMR catchment, close to transport, large enough to clear HDA thresholds, and capable of carrying affordable housing, the HDA path gives them a materially better chance of pursuing larger yields with less formal local control over the final consent. Where the site is smaller, already deep in a local DA, or too stretched against the HDA criteria, the project is more likely to stay with the council-and-panel route and, if challenged, end up in Court.
For communities, the half-the-proposals-refused reality is the counter to the claim that the HDA is a blanket override. It is selective. It defers to state-led rezoning processes. It declines proposals inside active planning-proposal footprints. It refuses schemes that are only just above the SSD threshold. What it does not do is give councils a veto. On that much, the critics and the defenders agree.
The new Eastern Suburbs development map is now drawn, and this is its legend: three overlapping layers of permissibility, two decisive pathways, one state-level consent authority for anything large, and a council that has moved from decision-maker to submitter. Understand those layers and you understand where the cranes will be in 2027.
Sources: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure — Housing Delivery Authority project register, Records of Briefing (7 February, 7 March, 15 April, 2 May, 16 May, 15 July, 8 August, 10 October and 9 December 2025); HDA SSD Criteria document, July 2025; NSW Planning Portal major-projects register; NSW Government ministerial media releases including “First homes approved through Housing Delivery Authority pathway” (24 December 2025); Land and Environment Court of NSW — current filing fees schedule and Practice Note Class 1 Development Appeals; Bondi Road Development Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2025] NSWLEC (as reported); Hanave Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2025] NSWLEC 19; coverage in The Urban Developer, Apartments.com.au, The Sydney Development Journal, Sydney Morning Herald, and the Weekly Source; council HDA/SSD information pages for Waverley, Woollahra, Randwick, Bayside and Mosman. All material accessed through April 2026. Dwelling counts are indicative as lodged or declared; final numbers are subject to merit assessment.
