Woollahra rejects 6-8 push for local planning tests on adverse effects and housing capacity

Woollahra councillors have voted 6-8 against asking the general manager to develop local criteria for assessing “significant adverse effects” and “feasible housing capacity”, leaving residents and planning applicants without new tests from the proposal.

The request was considered alongside a report on the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment (Statement of Expectations) Order 2026. An earlier amendment by Councillor Julian Parmegiani, seconded by Councillor Torsten Witt, sought criteria for “significant adverse effects”. It was defeated 4-10.

The committee then agreed to consider developing criteria covering both terms and to report the findings back to Council. That request was lost 6-8.

Councillors Sean Carmichael, Matthew Jarvis, Jeanette Mitchell, Julian Parmegiani, Torsten Witt and Harriet Price supported the request. Alexander Andruska, James Ardouin, Mayor Sarah Dixson, Lucinda Regan, Matthew Robertson, Mark Silcocks, Hugh Woodgate and Toni Zeltzer opposed it. Councillor Price was present but did not vote on any agenda items, so the supplied vote lists do not include her. The division recorded six votes for and eight against.

The committee unanimously received and noted the state planning report, with all 14 voting councillors supporting that part of the decision. Its action on the order was limited to receiving and noting the report.

A separate item on the State-Led rezoning process was considered in closed session. The substance of the confidential information and any specific rezoning outcome was not disclosed.

Councillor Carmichael and Councillor Ardouin declared interests relating to areas identified for proposed State-Led Rezoning. Both remained in the meeting, participated in debate and voted on the rezoning item.

Separately, the committee endorsed draft Financial Sustainability and Borrowing policies for 28 days of public exhibition. Future reports will consider submissions on both policies after the exhibition periods.

The exhibition process is separate from the failed planning-criteria request. No new Council-developed definitions or assessment framework for “significant adverse effects” or “feasible housing capacity” was approved under the proposal.