The Minns government's 9,400-home plan for Woollahra is a genuine step towards a more equitable Sydney. It also exposes the contradictions at the heart of Australian housing politics.
The Sydney Times Desk is a contributing writer covering opinion and public affairs for The Sydney Times.
The Minns government's proposal to rezone 168 hectares of the eastern suburbs for up to 9,400 new homes, with building heights of up to 34 storeys around Edgecliff station and 32 storeys around the proposed Woollahra station, is the most significant intervention in Sydney's housing geography in a generation. It is also a political masterstroke that should trouble the Liberal Party for years.
The NSW Productivity Commission found that Woollahra is the most feasible local government area in the state to build new housing, yet housing approvals in Woollahra consistently lag well behind other LGAs. The eastern suburbs have added about 7,000 new dwellings over a decade, while Blacktown added five times that number. The result is that Sydney's housing growth has been pushed further and further into the outer west, where infrastructure costs are higher, commute times are longer and the carbon footprint of each new home is greater.
The Sydney Plan, released in August 2026, envisages 800,000 new dwellings and 950,000 more jobs across Sydney by 2046. Under the plan, just under half of those homes would be built in eastern Sydney council areas, compared to less than a quarter in the west. The justification is that the existing investment in infrastructure in the east can support more people, and that building upwards rather than outwards is the only way to accommodate Sydney's growing population without consuming greenfield land.
The Woollahra proposal is the most visible expression of that philosophy. Building heights of 34 storeys around Edgecliff station are unprecedented in the eastern suburbs, but they are not arbitrary. The NSW Government's own planning guidelines set building heights based on proximity to rail stations, and Edgecliff is one of the best-connected stations in the eastern suburbs, with trains to the CBD in eight minutes.
The proposal has triggered the expected local backlash. Woollahra Council, which is Liberal-dominated, has deemed the proposal a disaster and offered an alternative plan to deliver 3,600 new homes around the station. The Liberal Party's new leader, Kellie Sloane, who represents the neighbouring electorate of Vaucluse, faces a lose-lose situation: oppose the rezoning and alienate the state's growing cohort of voters who support higher density near transport, or support it and alienate her local constituents.
The Premier has played this situation with considerable skill. When asked whether the prospect of wedging Sloane on the issue was a pleasant byproduct, he noted that the rezoning was announced before she became opposition leader, but also pointed out that the Liberals had not opposed large rezonings in places such as Burwood and Westmead. The implication is clear: the Liberals oppose density when it is in wealthy Liberal heartlands, but support it when it is in Labor-held Western Sydney.
This is the contradiction that the housing debate has been avoiding for years. For decades, Australian political parties have paid lip service to the need for more housing, but have resisted every specific proposal to build it in their own electorates. The result is that housing supply has been pushed to the fringe, where infrastructure is inadequate, commute times are long and social cohesion is fragile.
The Woollahra proposal is a necessary step, but it is not sufficient. A rezoning is not a dwelling, and zoned capacity does not automatically translate into homes. Construction costs, labour shortages, financing constraints and the current weakness in the apartment construction market make it difficult for developers to deliver housing even where it is permitted.
The Bathla collapse earlier this year put in stark relief the difficulties facing the construction sector. Building density in locations where buyers will pay a premium is one way to avoid those pitfalls, but it does not address the underlying problem of feasibility. If an affordable housing requirement makes a project unviable under current land prices, financing costs and expected returns, reducing the requirement is not the only response. Governments can also change the equation through additional density, public land, subsidies, infrastructure investment, lower-cost finance and greater certainty.
The Sydney Plan's requirement for councils to maintain a pipeline of at least 30 years of feasible housing capacity at all times is a step in the right direction, but it will require sustained political will to implement. The history of NSW planning is littered with ambitious plans that were quietly abandoned when they became politically inconvenient.
The Woollahra debate is really about three things. First, it is about equity: whether the burden of housing growth should be borne exclusively by Western Sydney, or whether the eastern suburbs should also contribute. Second, it is about climate: whether Sydney can accommodate its growing population without consuming greenfield land and increasing carbon emissions from car-dependent sprawl. Third, it is about the role of government: whether the state should use its planning powers to direct housing growth to where it is most feasible, or whether it should leave those decisions to the market.
The Minns government's answer to all three questions is yes, which puts it ahead of most Australian governments of the past 30 years. The implementation will be messy, the opposition will be fierce and the results will take years to materialise. But the direction is correct, and it is long overdue.
The Liberal Party, if it wants to be taken seriously on housing, needs to decide where it stands. Does it support higher density near transport in wealthy eastern suburbs, or does it believe that housing growth should continue to be pushed to the outer west? The answer will tell us more about the party's priorities than any budget or policy announcement.
Direct inquiries, corrections, or documentation concerning this dispatch to our editorial newsroom desk.
Australia's housing crisis is not caused by too many migrants. It is caused by too much regulation on construction and too little accountability on housing supply.
NSW's low and mid-rise housing reforms promise 112,000 new homes, but feasibility constraints, local council resistance and affordable housing time limits mean the missing middle will deliver less than advertised.
The $6 billion blowout on Sydney's metro projects is not a one-off failure. It is the predictable result of a procurement model that privatises profit and socialises risk.
Western Sydney International Airport opens with $28 billion invested, but Luddenham residents fear they are missing out on the benefits while Bradfield gets the investment.