Sydney is in a housing crunch—and planning rules are changing quickly. The NSW Government has introduced two major reforms to boost supply: Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) and the Low & Mid-Rise (LMR) housing policy, both implemented via the Housing SEPP. TOD concentrates growth within mapped catchments around rail/metro stations; LMR enables a wider spectrum of “missing-middle” and mid-rise housing within 800m of nominated centres and stations, subject to exclusions and non-discretionary standards. These reforms are now in force statewide, with staged commencements across 2024–2025.
The Inner West Council has proposed a different path: Our Fairer Future Plan – Council’s approach for new housing in the Inner West (May 2025). It’s pitched as a place-based alternative to the one-size-fits-all controls in the Housing SEPP’s TOD and LMR chapters, aiming to deliver comparable—or greater—housing capacity in locations Council considers better aligned with local character, heritage, transport, flooding, and feasibility realities.
This guide breaks down the essentials for residents, buyers, sellers, and advisors (financial planners, accountants, mortgage professionals). We’ll explain what each policy does, where they overlap or diverge, and what likely outcomes we can expect for the Inner West’s neighbourhoods and property markets.
Background: How TOD & LMR Work (in Plain English)
Transport-Oriented Development (TOD)
- Legal mechanism: Chapter 5 of the Housing SEPP (amendment made 24 Apr 2024; in effect from 13 May 2024).
- What it does: Applies mapped planning controls to specified lots around identified stations to enable mid-rise apartment outcomes and shop-top housing, with typical parameters such as heights up to ~22m (~6 storeys), FSR uplift and permissibility of residential flat buildings, subject to the mapped area and criteria.
- Where in Inner West: Bays West (Tier 1 accelerated precinct) and Tier 2 stations including Ashfield, Croydon, Dulwich Hill, Marrickville. The state’s deferral window for Council to prepare an alternative closed in January 2025, after which TOD controls commenced at the local stations.
Low & Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Policy
- Legal mechanism: Chapter 6 of the Housing SEPP (two stages). Stage 1 changes for low-rise typologies commenced 1 July 2024; Stage 2 broader provisions commenced 28 Feb 2025.
- What it does: Introduces non-discretionary (“non-refusal”) standards for a range of low- to mid-rise housing forms (e.g., dual occupancies, terraces, multi-dwelling housing, and residential flat buildings where applicable) within 800m of mapped centres or listed stations, while respecting exclusions (e.g., certain hazards and constraints).
- Exclusions: Sites affected by defined constraints (e.g., certain flood/bushfire hazards and other mapped constraints); separate guidance addresses details and mapping.
Inner West’s “Fairer Future” Plan at a Glance
The Fairer Future Plan describes an alternate, place-based framework for new housing in the Inner West that Council intends to apply instead of the Housing SEPP’s TOD/LMR chapters (where permitted by State), following exhibition and further approvals. It seeks to:
- Increase homes in well-connected and well-serviced areas (near rail, light rail, and centres).
- Support mixed use, diverse dwelling types, and affordable housing contributions.
- Use evidence-based, design-led controls (zoning, FSR, height) with built-form transitions and local character protections (e.g., selective upzoning, excluding high-value HCAs, addressing flooding).
- Deliver a pipeline up to ~31,000 additional dwellings over the medium–long term (via Stage 1 & Stage 2 Housing Investigation Areas and incentives).
The plan’s “drivers of change” section explicitly sets out the State reforms’ roll-out in the LGA, the Council’s alternative pathway, and the commencement of TOD controls in January 2025 for local Tier 2 stations. It stresses feasibility constraints (land values, construction costs, and amalgamation realities) and proposes incentives and minimum site criteria to attract real development rather than “paper capacity.”
Key structural elements include: a Residential Review (e.g., permitting residential flat buildings in R3, clarifying heights, and harmonising former LGA differences), HIA master plans around specified stations/centres, design guides, affordable housing contributions stepping up over time (e.g., 2% → 3% → 5% of GFA thresholds), site area and public-realm incentives, and key sites delivering plazas, through-site links, and open spaces in exchange for bonus height/FSR—plus land reserved for acquisition (market purchase) to expand parks, links, and footpaths in critical locations.
Side-by-Side: Fairer Future vs TOD vs LMR
| Dimension | NSW TOD (Housing SEPP Ch.5) | NSW LMR (Housing SEPP Ch.6) | Inner West “Fairer Future” |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core intent | Enable mid-rise homes near rail/metro via mapped station catchments and standardised controls. | Expand “missing-middle” + mid-rise options within 800m of centres/listed stations with non-discretionary standards. | Deliver equivalent or greater housing via place-based controls tailored to local character, constraints, and feasibility. |
| Where it applies (Inner West) | Bays West (Tier 1); Ashfield, Croydon, Dulwich Hill, Marrickville (Tier 2). TOD controls commenced in Jan 2025 at Tier 2 stations. | Residentially-zoned land within 800m of mapped centres/entrances to listed stations, subject to exclusions. | Stage 1/2 HIAs around selected stations/centres and light rail, with targeted rezonings and transitions; excludes certain HCAs/flood-affected/employment lands. |
| Typical built form | Residential flat buildings and shop-top housing; indicative controls around 22m/FSR up to ~2.5:1 (station-mapped). | Low-rise to mid-rise spectrum (e.g., dual occ/terraces to residential flats) with specified non-refusal standards. | Mix of R3/R4/MU1/E1/E2 uplifts; council-set heights/FSRs by block; incentives for amalgamation, sustainability, and public realm delivery. |
| Exclusions/constraints | SEPP map-based; interaction with heritage/flood/airport safeguarding occurs via standard planning assessment. | Explicit exclusions and constraints guidance; sites in hazards/constraints can be out. | Local evidence screens out high-value HCAs, flood-prone sub-areas, aircraft noise, industrial/employment zones; selective heritage changes supported by studies. |
| Affordable housing | Some TOD literature references contributions/targets; specifics sit with instruments and local provisions. | LMR focuses on typologies/standards rather than AH contributions, but can co-exist with local schemes. | Mandatory contribution ramping from 2% GFA (≥2,000m² GFA), intended to step to 3%/5% over time; managed by Tier-1 CHP; options for on-site/off-site/monetary. |
| Feasibility levers | Uniform parameters; relies on market uptake within mapped catchments. | Non-refusal standards designed to streamline approvals; market conditions still decisive. | Bonus FSR/height for larger site areas (discouraging “lot isolation”), public-realm incentives, 5% sustainability bonus above BASIX thresholds; minimum frontage rules for flats. |
| Public realm | No site-specific local plaza/through-link quid-pro-quo baked in at SEPP level. | Not the core focus of LMR; primarily about development standards. | Key Sites must deliver plazas/links/parks to unlock maximum height/FSR; separate land reserved for acquisition to widen footpaths, extend lanes, and expand parks. |
| Quantum & horizon | Part of a broader program to deliver large statewide capacity near stations. | Government target messaging ~112,000 homes in five years across NSW. | Indicative Inner West pipeline capacity up to ~31,000 additional dwellings to 2039 via Stage 1/2 HIAs and targeted rezonings. |
What This Means for Residents & Property Owners
1) Locations of Change: More Nuance Under Fairer Future
Under TOD/LMR, change is driven by statewide mapping and standards. Under Fairer Future, change is channeled into specific corridors, centres, and blocks with graduated heights and FSRs, and with key parts of high-value heritage streets left untouched. Expect more predictability block-by-block—and more emphasis on site amalgamation to unlock the full uplift.
2) Heritage, Flooding, and Character
The plan proceeds on the basis that the Inner West’s housing targets can be met while selectively shielding the most intact HCAs and flood-affected pockets from blanket upzoning. Council undertook heritage health checks, proposes limited delistings/boundary changes where warranted, and removes certain flood-risk areas from uplift. For owners inside HCAs, status quo controls largely continue; for those adjacent, expect transition controls to manage overshadowing and privacy.
3) Development Feasibility (What Actually Gets Built)
Council’s feasibility work suggests that land values, build costs, and amalgamation premiums make “paper capacity” unreliable without incentives—hence the suite of site-area bonuses, public-realm trades, and a 5% sustainability FSR bonus above baseline BASIX targets. This is designed to nudge projects from “possible” to “probable,” especially in town-centre blocks.
4) Affordable Housing Contributions
The local, ramping affordable housing contribution—starting at 2% GFA for ≥2,000m² schemes, stepping to 3% and then 5%—adds cost, but it is calibrated from feasibility testing and can be met via on-site dwellings, off-site delivery, or monetary contributions managed by a Tier-1 Community Housing Provider. For developers, this is a known variable; for communities, it’s a path to perpetual affordable rental stock.
5) Public Realm & Amenities
“Key Sites” and “land reserved for acquisition” mean owners in certain mapped locations may see wider footpaths, through-site links, bike corridors, park expansions, or even district-level civic facilities delivered over time—either as development conditions/incentives or by market-value acquisition when owners choose to sell. This supports density with tangible amenity.
When Local Governance Won’t Accept State Policy: What Happens?
NSW planning law centralises key instruments (like the Housing SEPP) at a state level. Councils can propose alternatives but must demonstrate that state objectives—notably housing supply—are still met or exceeded. The Fairer Future Plan explicitly frames itself as an alternative that meets the Inner West’s completions target (7,800 dwellings by 2029 under the National Housing Accord context) and provides a long-term pipeline aligned with station-adjacent growth.
In practice, if a council’s alternative is not accepted (in whole or part), state controls apply by default. That is precisely what happened when the deferral period lapsed and TOD controls commenced in January 2025 around Ashfield, Dulwich Hill and Marrickville (Croydon by 31 January 2025), pending further State/Council negotiation.
Likely Outcomes for Residents and Property Owners
- Short-term (0–2 years): Expect policy overlap. Developers test both pathways (SEPP TOD/LMR vs Council alternative where permissible) and run feasibility on amalgamations. Transaction activity focuses on corner holdings, sites with width, and mapped Key Sites. Owners near centres/stations may see increased buyer interest for consolidation.
- Medium-term (2–5 years): If Council’s plan (in some form) is endorsed, anticipate more curated outcomes: taller in centres/corridors, moderated in HCAs, new links/parks delivered gradually. If the State rejects the substitution for certain areas, expect SEPP settings to prevail, and applications designed strictly to non-refusal standards.
- Long-term (5–15 years): The determinant becomes feasibility: where will projects stack up? Council’s incentives (bonus FSR/height for larger sites, public realm trades, sustainability uplift) are meant to pull development to centre blocks with the greatest place-making payoff. Meanwhile, the state may continue to refine TOD/LMR levers to drive delivery where take-up is slow.
Equity & Distribution
A recurring Inner West concern is fairness: why should some streets carry mid-rise while others are protected? Council’s pitch is that fairness comes from concentrating uplift in well-serviced corridors and town centres, offsetting density away from the most intact HCAs, and funding public realm where growth occurs. That approach has also re-surfaced in adjacent debates (e.g., Parramatta Road’s future) as a way to deliver significant homes while upgrading the corridor experience.
Practical Guidance: What Should Owners, Buyers & Sellers Do?
- If you own property near a centre/station: Expect uplift potential but check which regime applies—SEPP TOD/LMR, Fairer Future draft, or both. Site-specific mapping and minimum site/width rules matter.
- If your property is within/adjacent to an HCA: Expect continuity of current controls, but watch for edge transitions and selective boundary changes.
- If you are buying: Factor in the time horizon. Paper uplift does not equal immediate development potential; amalgamation, feasibility, and planning agreement processes can take years.
- For sellers: Properties with consolidation value (corner holdings, wide frontages, adjacency to key sites) may attract stronger developer interest even before rezoning fully crystallises.
- For financial advisors: Treat TOD/LMR/Fairer Future not as “bonus windfalls” for all, but as differentiated risk/opportunity settings depending on exact lot attributes, planning overlays, and feasibility levers.
Conclusion: More of a Substitution Than a Showdown
For Inner West residents, “Fairer Future” is not a rejection of housing growth—it’s a recalibration. The Council accepts the housing target, the need for station-adjacent density, and the logic of diverse typologies. Where it diverges from TOD/LMR is in how and where growth is allocated, how heritage and flooding are accounted for, and how feasibility incentives are structured.
In the short term, both sets of rules are live, meaning developers will test and exploit whichever is most certain and profitable. Over time, if endorsed, Fairer Future will likely reshape outcomes to be more curated, with density concentrated in centre blocks and public realm benefits trading off for height/FSR. If not endorsed, TOD/LMR settings prevail. For property owners, buyers, and advisors, the key is site-specific due diligence—because outcomes will hinge less on broad slogans and more on which side of a street, which lot width, and which mapping your property falls under.
Sources & Further Reading
- NSW Planning – Guidance to Transport Oriented Development (Housing SEPP Chapter 5).
- NSW Planning – Transport Oriented Development program hub.
- NSW Planning – Low & Mid-Rise Housing (Housing SEPP Chapter 6): overview, exclusions, key provisions.
- Ministerial releases & commentary on LMR targets.
- Inner West Council – Our Fairer Future Plan – Council’s approach for new housing in the Inner West (May 2025).
- Context on corridor-scale upzoning debates (Parramatta Road).

