As part of our 4-part series examining the pressures affecting housing delivery in NSW, this final piece explores the reforms and structural changes needed to create a more practical and delivery-focused planning system.
Authored by Adrian Miller, Associate Director at AT&L
NSW Does Not Need More Strategy. It Needs Better Delivery Coordination.
Across NSW, the slowdown in rezonings is not the result of one failed policy.
Nor is it the result of insufficient strategic planning.
The deeper issue is that the current system has become increasingly fragmented, risk-averse and disconnected from how development is actually delivered.
Over time, rezonings have shifted away from being a coordinated growth mechanism.
Instead, they are increasingly shaped by:
- Governance boundaries
- Funding silos
- Agency thresholds
- Political cycles
- Infrastructure uncertainty
The result is a system where land can be:
- Strategically identified
- Technically suitable
- Market-supported
- Economically important
Yet still remain stalled for years.
The System Is Producing Planned Growth, Not Delivered Growth
Across many growth areas, rezonings continue progressing ahead of realistic infrastructure alignment.
This creates a growing pipeline of land that is technically zoned for development but not practically capable of delivery.
The distinction matters.
Housing supply targets are ultimately measured by delivered homes, not planning approvals.
Where rezonings fail to translate into viable and serviced land, the system fails its core purpose.
This is now becoming increasingly visible across both greenfield and infill precincts.
What Needs to Change
A more functional rezoning system requires stronger alignment between:
- Strategic planning
- Infrastructure delivery
- Commercial feasibility
- Government accountability
Several reforms could materially improve delivery outcomes.
1. State Government Should Lead Major Rezonings
Rezonings associated with significant housing supply, transport-oriented development and employment generation should be explicitly State-led.
This would:
- Improve coordination across agencies
- Reduce political inconsistency
- Strengthen metropolitan housing delivery accountability
- Create clearer infrastructure sequencing
Councils should continue contributing to place-based planning outcomes.
However, major metropolitan growth decisions increasingly require broader strategic coordination.
2. Infrastructure Planning Must Occur Earlier
Rezonings should not progress to exhibition without:
- Defined servicing strategies
- Agency alignment
- Preliminary infrastructure sequencing
- Funding pathway clarity
This would reduce the growing problem of rezoned but undevelopable land.
Infrastructure planning cannot remain a secondary process that follows rezoning.
It must become embedded within the rezoning pathway itself.
3. Infrastructure Agencies Need Growth-Focused Funding Models
Many infrastructure agencies remain heavily focused on maintaining existing service networks.
Their performance frameworks often prioritise:
- Reliability
- Cost containment
- Asset maintenance
- Operational risk reduction
Growth-enabling infrastructure is inherently more complex and expensive.
Without explicit funding mechanisms tied to housing delivery outcomes, agencies naturally default toward caution.
A more delivery-focused system would:
- Fund infrastructure planning earlier
- Align capital programs with growth sequencing
- Support staged infrastructure delivery
- Prioritise enabling investment in strategic precincts
4. Private Capital Should Be Better Integrated Into Infrastructure Delivery
Developers are often willing to deliver enabling infrastructure ahead of government programs.
However, current reimbursement and offset mechanisms remain inconsistent and uncertain.
For private capital to play a larger role in accelerating growth, Works-In-Kind and infrastructure offset frameworks need to provide:
- Clear valuation rules
- Guaranteed reimbursement pathways
- Transferable credits
- Faster approval processes
When structured properly, private infrastructure delivery can:
- Accelerate precinct activation
- Reduce government capital pressure
- Improve delivery sequencing
- Bring housing to market faster
5. Contribution Frameworks Need Greater Simplicity and Predictability
The layering of multiple contribution systems has created growing complexity across development feasibility.
Housing delivery benefits from certainty.
The more transparent and predictable contribution settings become, the easier it becomes for:
- Landowners to price land realistically
- Developers to assess feasibility
- Financiers to underwrite projects
- Government to accelerate supply
Contribution systems should support delivery.
Not unintentionally constrain it.
6. Commercial Feasibility Must Be Recognised Earlier
One of the biggest shifts required is cultural.
Commercial feasibility should not be treated as an afterthought.
If projects cannot be commercially delivered:
- Housing supply targets fail
- Infrastructure delivery slows
- Employment land remains dormant
- Strategic plans remain theoretical
Financial viability is not separate from planning. It is what converts planning intent into physical delivery.
Where Rezoning Is Likely Heading
Looking forward, rezonings are likely to become:
- Larger in scale
- More precinct-based
- More infrastructure-led
- More State coordinated
- More focused on delivery sequencing
The most successful rezonings will increasingly be those that:
- Align infrastructure early
- Operate at the correct strategic scale
- Integrate funding pathways upfront
- Recognise commercial feasibility from the beginning
The future of rezoning will not be defined by more layers of policy.
It will be defined by how effectively planning ambition aligns with delivery reality.
A More Pragmatic Approach Is Needed
At AT&L, we believe this period represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
The challenge is clear.
The current system is struggling to consistently convert strategic planning objectives into delivered housing and employment outcomes.
But there is also an opportunity to reshape how rezonings are planned, coordinated and delivered.
A more pragmatic and delivery-focused approach would:
- Improve certainty
- Reduce unnecessary delay
- Accelerate infrastructure alignment
- Unlock private capital earlier
- Increase housing supply delivery
Ultimately, rezonings need to return to their core purpose.
Enabling land to be brought to market in a timely, coordinated and commercially viable way.
Until planning systems, infrastructure delivery and funding frameworks become better aligned, the gap between housing ambition and housing delivery will continue widening.
The future of rezoning depends not on producing more strategic plans.
But on creating systems capable of delivering them.
Relevant References
- https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-02/infrastructure-opportunities-plan-greater-sydney.pdf
- https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/media/oznlnai5/insw-state-of-infrastructure-report-2022-23.pdf
- https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/local-infrastructure-contributions/ipart-review-section-7-11
