COMMENT: Ballina Shire shows exactly why the state is sidelining local councils on housing decisions
If anyone wants to understand why the state is stepping in on housing, they only need to look at what is happening in Ballina right now.
The CURA C housing proposal — a long-identified growth area near Tintenbar — is now facing the same trajectory that has played out before in Ballina.
First, the process stalls.
The developer lodges a planning proposal. Council does not progress it. The matter drags.
Eventually, the proponent goes around council and into the state system — exactly what has now happened with CURA C.
Then comes the political push.
At the March committee meeting, the former Greens mayoral candidate Kiri Dicker led the move to strip CURA C and other long-standing growth areas from the planning framework altogether.
Then comes the report.
A report that conveniently backs the Green’s position and recommends council formally oppose the rezoning.
That sequence should concern anyone who cares about how planning decisions are made.
Because we have seen it before.
The GemLife development in West Ballina should be fresh in everyone’s mind.
Council worked to block that project — including through planning mechanisms that were later exposed in court.
The result was a clear and embarrassing defeat.
A humiliation.
And a significant financial cost to ratepayers.
Now we are seeing the same ingredients again.
Delay.
Political pressure.
And a staff report that aligns closely with the outcome sought by that political push.
That does not mean the concerns in the CURA C report are invalid.
But the question is whether this process is being driven by objective assessment — or whether it is being influenced by a broader political position on growth.
The gap between “available land” and real housing
The staff report argues Ballina has enough land to meet housing demand for around 20 years.
On paper, that may be true.
But planning is not just about what exists on paper — it is about what can actually be delivered.
In the case of CURA C, there is a developer ready to proceed.
Millions have already been invested.
The project is active, advanced and capable of delivering housing within a real timeframe.
That matters.
Because there is no guarantee that other sites identified by council will ever be developed.
Many rely on future decisions, extremely uncertain market conditions or landowners who may have no intention of building anytime soon.
The same applies to suggestions of increased density around the Ballina CBD.
That may be desirable in theory.
Potential development sites sit idle, with little appetite from the market.
That is the reality.
And it highlights a fundamental flaw in the report’s logic — it treats theoretical supply as if it is the same as real, deliverable housing.
It is not.
Why timing matters
Housing supply is not just about how much land exists.
It is about when homes can be built.
And who is willing to build them.
This is something Premier Chris Minns has clearly recognised.
Planning reform at the state level has focused on unlocking projects that are ready to go — not just identifying land that might be developed at some point in the future.
Because in a housing crisis, timing matters.
And projects that are ready now matter most.
That is the piece that appears to be missing from the current approach.
Lessons not yet learned
At this point, councillors should take a step back and learn from what happened with GemLife.
The matter has already been taken out of council’s hands and elevated to the state.
At the same time, council’s objectivity in assessing the proposal has been left open to question by the sequence of events.
The most responsible course now is not to escalate the fight.
It is to allow the independent state process to run its course and assess the proposal on its merits.
Because if there is one lesson from GemLife, it is this:
When councils step beyond objective planning assessment and into contested political territory, the outcome is rarely good — and it is almost never cheap.
