14 February 2025

Free us up to help hit government's ambitious housing targets, says JWLand boss

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
11

JWLand CEO Michael Prendergast and Master Builders ACT CEO Anna Neelagama do the spade work at the De Burgh topping-out ceremony. Photos: Ian Bushnell.

Approval times are improving, but developers are still being loaded up with requirements that are tying up capital, cutting into already tight margins and slowing the delivery of much-needed housing, according to one of Canberra’s biggest apartment builders.

JWLand CEO Michael Prendergast was speaking at the topping out ceremony for the third and final 350-apartment stage of its Northbourne Village development in Lyneham, called De Burgh, which is on track for completion in spring.

Down Northbourne Avenue in Braddon sits its Braddon Place site, which was approved last year but is still in the process of sorting out conditions attached to the Notice of Decision.

READ ALSO Barr rules out joint housing venture with racing club … in this term at least

Mr Prendergast said the Territory Planning Authority and the industry were now making headway in approval times but that had come out of long processes and should have happened two or three years ago.

He said a lack of clarity and definition in the National Capital Plan amendment for Northbourne Avenue and the Territory Plan had been confusing and caused delays for both projects.

“When you lodge a DA or an element of a design, it’s very easy for somebody to say that is non-compliant or it doesn’t conform, but it’s because the description itself isn’t very descriptive,” he said.

“The process has happened now. Unfortunately, it’s also happened at the same time where now the majority of the land on Northbourne Avenue has been DA approved, and I suppose the result of that has really just been that the precinct has taken a little bit longer to deliver than what it needed to.”

View from the top. Photo: Ian Bushnell

Mr Prendergast said the government’s bond requirements for holding land were a significant burden for developers, slowing down projects and putting companies at risk.

For example, its Belconnen site, which JWLand bought 2.5 years ago has an $8 million bond attached to it.

“The raw cost of that capital is not doing anything for our organisation because it’s being held by the government, but it actually stops you from doing other things,” he said.

Mr Prendergast said the industry needed to be more vocal about this issue because holding three or four sites like JWLand does could tie up more than $20 million.

He said the land was sold through deeds that should offer the government sufficient security without adding a financial impost.

Developers also faced too many requirements on the new blocks of land being released, including size, affordability, and external work that could amount to millions of dollars.

Mr Prendergast said land release with design competitions attached just added to the uncertainty.

“How do you make a decision on who gets a block of land through a design competition when it takes historically three or four for that outcome to be chosen,” he said

These were all making it much more challenging to plan a feasible development and meet the government’s land price points.

JWLand CEO Michael Prendergast and Master Builders ACT CEO Anna Neelagama want faster approval times and less red tape.

Master Builders ACT CEO Anna Neelagama said the industry was ready and willing to help the government achieve its housing targets but it needed support on skills, costs and approval times, especially in the current economic environment.

At present, the industry is not on track to achieve them.

Ms Neelagama said all the government agencies in the approval chain needed to be on the same page and talking to each other.

“They need to just really have a one-stop shop,” she said.

“There’s no greater priority than getting more homes on the ground in the ACT, which is what they have said, now they need to get their public service to deliver.”

Ms Neelagama said there needed to be more skills incentives for employers to get homes built more quickly. She added that the MBA welcomed moves to license contractors.

“We are devastated when we see parts of complexes that are not built to the very high quality that they should be because the rest of the industry suffers and the consumer suffers,” she said.

There are still one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments available at De Burgh.

Ms Neelagama said property tax settings, including lease variation charges, needed to be looked at in a higher interest rate environment because these costs were inhibiting development in the ACT.

“There’s a broad range of things that can be done, but I think it starts with getting the right amount of regulation occurring and getting timely approvals through,” she said.

READ ALSO $4.8 million for women’s housing project in Queanbeyan

More land releases would be welcome, but they needed to be affordable.

“Look, they need to fast track the right kind of approvals, but then they also need to get all the government agencies involved in the approval chain talking together and working together across utilities and heritage.”

There are still one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments available at De Burgh.

When completed, the Northbourne Village precinct will deliver more than 696 apartments plus a 134-room hotel.

Join the conversation

11
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The lease variation charges are the best thing about the ACT planning laws. Unlike in other States, there isn’t the risk of corruption for varying a lease and making a windfall.

devils_advocate12:30 am 15 Feb 25

Lmao “windfall”

Literally buying a block that is already zoned for subdivision, and having to commit labour and capital, and take on significant risk for an uncertain gain, is the exact opposite of a “windfall”

But continue to support unnecessary regulatory burden and deadweight loss taxes, we all know where it ends up

Robauz, you do understand that every cost levied on a development adds to the cost and that it is ultimately borne by the buyer? A lease variation charge can add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to a project and I would bet you are the first one to scream that property is unaffordable and that developers are ripping off poor buyers.

It’s a prohibitive burden to any small boutique development and forces developers to build to a minimum scale which results in the monstrosities we now have throughout this town. It forces first home buyers into apartments – house & land becomes a privilege for the elite and that is not what the Canberra I once knew was about.

devils_advocate11:22 am 15 Feb 25

The fact that LVC is a flat charge per unit, regardless of value, means that it’s only feasible to build in “in-demand” (expensive) suburbs, and there’s little incentive to build smaller homes because the fee is per title, not per value.

Then add that to GST on building, stamp duty on purchasing the block and then again the sale of the property, unnecessary holding costs during drawn-out regulatory approvals, urban infill projects are either infeasible or have hundreds of thousands of dollars in deadweight fees and taxes added to EACH unit

“Literally buying a block that is already zoned for subdivision, and having to commit labour and capital, and take on significant risk for an uncertain gain, is the exact opposite of a “windfall””

LOL,
How many times are you going to spin this lie. If the land already allowed increased development yields, it wouldn’t need a lease variation.

Hence the windfall gain when it is changed.

There’s literally no deadweight losses at all. Government is simply ensuring that they take the appropriate profit from the increased land value that they created.

So yeah, anyone who supports good planning will continue to support the LVC.

devils_advocate1:15 pm 17 Feb 25

Lol

People take on risk and commit their labour and capital to building homes, and this is a “windfall”?

Guess it’s just like winning the lottery.

Lmao

Yeah, pretty amazing how land value increases when lease conditions are changed to allow increased development yields, isn’t it.

Nothing like a lottery though, just property developers crying poor whilst trying to gain windfall profits off government driven planning changes

Like they have forever.

LMFAO.

devils_advocate4:47 pm 17 Feb 25

lol

The developers aren’t the ones crying

In a supply-constrained market the additional charges are simply passed on to the buyer

Of course if any developers point out this fact they are being “greedy”

Top kek

Yes, let’s take off as many oversights and regulations as possible and allow these developers to get on with making money. Then you too can have a house like mine which leaks when it rains due to incorrect roof pitch, 3 external doors all different sizes, missing support pilon under one room and two missing support beams in the roof (colourbond roof just bolted into air!). Of course this was before the ACT started cracking down on these building developers, but you too can enjoy the results of reducing the oversight and regulation. Just agree with the developers, after all, their main aim is to make money and if quality is impaired – well, it’s not their problem is it?

devils_advocate11:24 am 15 Feb 25

The developers are mainly there to provide capital to finance the projects

If there are building quality issues that is on the builder and certifier.

GrumpyGrandpa5:23 pm 15 Feb 25

My question is who do you sign your Contract with? The Developer, the Certifier or the Builder?

The Developer engages a Builder, who will engage Subcontractors to do major sections of the work. Their work will be certified by private Certifiers, either of the Subcontractor’s choosing or the Builder’s choosing. In some cases, I understand there is self-certification.

You’ll be signing your Contract with the Developer. Not any of the numerous parties involved in the construction.

It may still be the Builder who has to fix problems, but it will becomes a mess because everyone will deny liability, because of the responsibility that others also have in the project.

There are many projects in Canberra where defects still exist 7-8 years later and the government is negotiating with the parties. Then one of them goes bust or enters into administration…..

My sister bought an apartment on the Gold Coast. The Builder went bust. The only thing that saved her was that the Developer was also a Builder licenced to build the complex and they completed the job.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.