Housing & planning · Georges River Council
Beverly Hills housing review leaves $120,810 funding question open
Georges River Council has requested further work on housing capacity and redevelopment feasibility, but its resolution did not allocate the $120,810 mentioned in the original motion.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
Georges River Council has requested further analysis of housing capacity and redevelopment feasibility in Beverly Hills, while leaving open whether the $120,810 identified in the original motion will be used for a specialist review. The amendment and final motion each passed 9-6 at the council’s 26 October meeting, according to the minutes.
The resolution records the General Manager’s advice that specific economic feasibility testing for development envisaged in the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken. As part of post-exhibition reporting, the General Manager was requested to provide further detail on housing capacity and net additional dwellings, allowing for the replacement of existing homes.
The review is also to consider strata renewal, land amalgamation, other factors affecting redevelopment feasibility, the effect of land banking on housing availability and gaps requiring specialist investigation. The same report is to recommend a staged approach to any additional specialist economic feasibility testing, including its scope, timing, estimated costs, available funding after existing project commitments and effect on the project timetable.
The final resolution differs from the original motion, which proposed evaluating funding a comparative feasibility review from what it described as the remaining unspent $120,810 of the approved $425,810 Beverly Hills Master Plan project budget, without additional operational-reserve expenditure. Councillors instead adopted an amendment continuing the plan and appropriate further studies within the approved project scope, budget and existing delegations, seeking council approval where required for additional scope or funding.
The minutes do not specify when the post-exhibition report will be presented or what housing capacity it might support. They also record that detailed Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure guidance on demonstrating 30 years of feasible housing capacity had not yet been released.
What deserves a closer look
The adopted resolution requests a staged recommendation on any additional specialist economic feasibility testing; it does not expressly commission that testing.
The $120,810 balance and $425,810 baseline budget are stated in the original motion, not adopted as funding findings in the final resolution.
The final resolution refers to available funding after existing project commitments rather than allocating $120,810.
Questions for follow-up reporting
When will the post-exhibition report on Beverly Hills housing capacity and feasibility be presented to council?
What funding will be available after existing project commitments, and would the scope or cost of any additional specialist testing require further council approval?
What methodology will be used to calculate net additional dwellings and assess redevelopment in strata-titled precincts?
How will forthcoming DPHI guidance affect the council's assessment of feasible housing capacity?
What happens next
As part of post-exhibition reporting, the General Manager is requested to review available information and provide further detail on housing capacity, net additional dwellings, redevelopment feasibility factors, land banking and gaps requiring specialist investigation.
In the same report, the General Manager is requested to recommend a staged approach to any additional specialist economic feasibility testing, including scope, timing, opportunities to avoid duplication, estimated costs, available funding after existing project commitments and project-timeframe impacts.
The resolution calls for continued progress on the Beverly Hills Master Plan and appropriate further studies within the approved project scope, budget and existing delegations, seeking council approval where required for additional scope or funding.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The motion proposed evaluating funding a comparative feasibility review from a stated remaining unspent allocation of $120,810 within the approved $425,810 Beverly Hills Master Plan project budget, without additional operational-reserve expenditure.
The Motion was CARRIED. NM066-26 Economic Feasibility and Housing Capacity Review for the Beverly Hills Master Plan (Report by Councillor Wang) Note: It was noted that Councillor Mort left the Chambers at 10:13pm Note: It was noted that Councillor Mort returned to the Chambers at 10:17pm Note: It was noted that Councillor Stratikopoulos left the Chambers at 10:31pm Note: It was noted that Councillor Stratikopoulos returned to the Chambers at 10:36pm MOTION: Councillor Wang, Councillor Pun That Council: (a) Note the General Manager's formal response to Question with Notice QWN030-26 (28 September 2026), confirming that specific economic feasibility testing for development envisioned in the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken. (b) Note Objective 1.3(k) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 'the orderly and economic use and development of land' and the recent commencement of the Sydney Plan, which mandates 30 years of development-feasible housing capacity. (c) Request the General Manager, as part of the post-exhibition reporting for the Beverly Hills Master Plan, to provide advice and an evaluation on development feasibility and housing capacity, having regard to available project resources and the Sydney Plan's requirement for a 30-year development-feasible housing capacity, specifically including: (i) Economic Feasibility testing by a planning economics expert; and (ii) Net Dwelling Yield Assessment detailing estimated deductions for demolished housing stock and evaluating redevelopment viability in strata-titled precincts. (d) Request the General Manager to evaluate funding any comparative feasibility review from the remaining unspent allocation ($120,810) of the approved Beverly Hills Master Plan project budget ($425,810 baseline), requiring zero additional expenditure from Council's operational reserves.
NM066-26, original motion, particularly clause (d)
Open original minutes ↗The adopted resolution notes the General Manager's response that specific economic feasibility testing for development envisioned in the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken.
The Amendment was CARRIED and became the Motion. RESOLVED: Councillor Liu, Councillor Jamieson That Council: (a) Note the General Manager's formal response to Question with Notice QWN030-26 (28 September 2026), confirming that specific economic feasibility testing for development envisioned in the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken.
NM066-26, resolution clause (a)
Open original minutes ↗The quoted text calls for the General Manager, as part of post-exhibition reporting, to review available information and provide further detail on housing capacity, net additional dwellings allowing for replacement housing, strata renewal, land amalgamation, redevelopment feasibility factors, land banking and gaps requiring specialist investigation.
(b) Note that detailed DPHI guidance on demonstrating 30 years of feasible housing capacity has not yet been released. (c) Request the General Manager, as part of the post-exhibition reporting, to review available information and provide further detail on: (i) housing capacity and net additional dwellings, allowing for the replacement of existing housing; (ii) strata renewal, land amalgamation and other factors affecting redevelopment feasibility; and (iii) the impacts of land banking of new developments on housing availability (iv) gaps requiring further specialist investigation.
NM066-26, resolution clause (c)
Open original minutes ↗The minutes record that the amendment passed nine votes to six and became the motion.
Record of Voting For the Amendment: Mayor, Councillor Borg, Councillor Allison, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dimoski, Councillor Jamieson, Councillor Landsberry, Councillor Liu, Councillor Mahoney, Councillor Mort, Councillor Stratikopoulos Against the Amendment: Councillor Anzellotti, Councillor Arthur, Councillor Gao, Councillor Hayes, Councillor Pun, Councillor Wang On being PUT to the meeting, voting on this Amendment was nine (9) votes FOR and six (6) votes AGAINST. The Amendment was CARRIED and became the Motion. RESOLVED: Councillor Liu, Councillor Jamieson That Council: (a) Note the General Manager's formal response to Question with Notice QWN030-26 (28 September 2026), confirming that specific economic feasibility testing for development envisioned in the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken.
NM066-26, amendment voting record and outcome
Open original minutes ↗The quoted text calls for the General Manager to recommend, in the same report, a staged approach to any additional specialist economic feasibility testing, including scope, timing, opportunities to avoid duplicated work, estimated costs, available funding after existing project commitments and project-timeframe impacts. It also calls for continued work within the approved project scope, budget and delegations, seeking Council approval where required for additional scope or funding.
(d) Request the General Manager, in the same report, to recommend a staged approach to any additional specialist economic feasibility testing, identifying: (i) the scope and timing, taking account of forthcoming DPHI guidance and the potential Georges River Council - Minutes of Council Meeting - 26 October 2026 Page 21 implications of the Beverly Hills West SARP; (ii) opportunities to avoid duplicated work; and (iii) estimated costs, available funding after existing project commitments, and impacts on project timeframes. (e) Continue progressing the Beverly Hills Master Plan and appropriate further studies within the approved project scope, budget and existing delegations, seeking Council approval where required for additional scope or funding.
NM066-26, resolution clauses (d) and (e)
Open original minutes ↗The quoted text says to note that detailed DPHI guidance on demonstrating 30 years of feasible housing capacity had not yet been released.
(b) Note that detailed DPHI guidance on demonstrating 30 years of feasible housing capacity has not yet been released. (c) Request the General Manager, as part of the post-exhibition reporting, to review available information and provide further detail on: (i) housing capacity and net additional dwellings, allowing for the replacement of existing housing;
NM066-26, resolution clause (b)
Open original minutes ↗The final-motion voting record lists nine councillors for and six against, matching its declared 9-6 tally.
Record of Voting For the Motion: Mayor, Councillor Borg, Councillor Allison, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dimoski, Councillor Jamieson, Councillor Landsberry, Councillor Liu, Councillor Mahoney, Councillor Mort, Councillor Stratikopoulos Against the Motion: Councillor Anzellotti, Councillor Arthur, Councillor Gao, Councillor Hayes, Councillor Pun, Councillor Wang On being PUT to the meeting, voting on this Motion was nine (9) votes FOR and six (6) votes AGAINST.
NM066-26, final-motion voting record
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Georges River Council, Council Meeting minutes, 26 October 2026. The supplied record does not establish whether these minutes have been confirmed. This article reports from that record and does not rely on attendance, interviews or independent verification.
Key facts from the minutes
- The minutes record 9-6 votes for both the amendment and the final motion on 26 October 2026.
- The adopted resolution records that specific economic feasibility testing for the current draft Beverly Hills Master Plan has not been undertaken.
- The General Manager was requested to report on housing capacity, net additional dwellings, redevelopment factors and gaps requiring specialist investigation.
- The same report is to recommend a staged approach to any additional specialist economic feasibility testing, identifying scope, timing, costs, available funding after existing project commitments and project-timeframe impacts.
- The original motion proposed evaluating use of a stated $120,810 unspent project balance. The final resolution did not allocate that amount and called for work within the approved project scope, budget and delegations, seeking further council approval where required.
Why it matters
- The review may affect future planning expectations in Beverly Hills, but this resolution adopts no housing figure, requests a staged recommendation on any additional specialist testing and sets no date for the post-exhibition report.