THE RORT · THE PATCH · EASTERN SYDNEY
Randwick
The local government area, mapped. Every site marked is named in an investigation on this page.
Case 08CASE FILE · LOCAL · EASTERN SYDNEY3 articles · 11 exhibits on file8 shown
- Opened on fileBeds, not homes
Beds instead of homes, and height sold through planning agreements with the affordable-housing return banked as cash: how state incentives reshape the eastern suburbs.
Fig. 01 / What happened
01Beds, not homes02Buying storeys: how Anzac Parade developers pay for height, and the affordable-housing return is banked as cash03Accepted in principle, refused in public
Fig. 01Source: case chain · every article in this case, in sequenceAs of 2026‑09Auto-assembled
Fig. 02 / Who the record names
Randwick City CouncilLOCAL COUNCIL · 3The Land and Environment CourtCOURT · 2Deemed RefusalMECHANISM · 2Voluntary Planning AgreementsMECHANISM · 2The Housing SEPPPLANNING INSTRUMENT · 2The Democratic BypassMECHANISM · 2Suppression OrdersMECHANISM · COURTS · 1Sydney Eastern City Planning PanelSTATE PLANNING PANEL · 1
Fig. 02Source: entity scan · names appearing across this caseAs of 2026‑09Auto-assembled
Fig. 03 / How we know
Each exhibit names the article that documented it. How evidence and sources are graded: evidence grade, source tiers.
Evidence strength · 20 sources across 3 articles
Approximately $950,000Clause (a)(i) of resolution 199/26 notes a community infrastructure contribution of approximately $950,000 for 494-516 Anzac Parade. That is the public benefit side of the offer. The letters of offer themselves were not published.Accepted in principle, refused in public$2,265,936.75Clause (b) of the same resolution notes the requirement to update the section 7.12 development contribution "to reflect the correct estimated development cost including GST being $90,637,470, resulting in an applicable contribution of $2,265,936.75", and to address it as a condition of consent if the application is approved. Both figures apply to 494-516 Anzac Parade only.Accepted in principle, refused in public4 May and 15 May 2026Both applicants appealed before the panel ever sat. The second, on 15 May 2026, was lodged under section 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the business paper records the matter as before the Court as Greenfort Project Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (LEC 2026/201070). The same report notes that a request for further information was issued, and that "No amended plans addressing these matters were submitted prior to the commencement of Court proceedings."Accepted in principle, refused in public54 daysThe letter of offer accepted in principle by resolution 199/26 is dated 10 December 2025. The history section of the panel report for the same site records that "On 2 February 2026, the development application was lodged with Council." The offer predates the application it relates to by 54 days.Accepted in principle, refused in public9 September 2026The NSW Online Registry court list, retrieved on 3 September 2026, shows case 2026/00201070, Greenfort Project Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council, in the Land and Environment Court, listed for 12.00pm on 9 September 2026 as an online court event requiring a request, court room unassigned. The listing carries an online court active flag, with a last activity timestamp of 17 August 2026, four days after the panel refused the application. The court title spells the applicant "Developments"; the panel business paper spells it "Development".Accepted in principle, refused in public90%Share of all residential development in the area (approved or in the pipeline) that is co-living student housing, on the council's own record.SOURCE · Randwick City Council, February 2026 council-meeting wrap-upBeds, not homesHousing SEPPThe state planning instrument whose co-living bonus allows up to 10 per cent more floor space than the local maximum, in zones where residential flat buildings are permitted. Off-campus student housing uses the co-living provisions.SOURCE · State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, s 68; NSW Planning PortalBeds, not homes5,000+ rooms vs <500 homesLocal count across the 2.5km corridor. Note the unit mismatch: rooms are not dwellings, so a room-to-home ratio overstates the housing gap and should be read as illustrative, not as a like-for-like measure.SOURCE · City Hub / Neighbourhood MediaBeds, not homes
Fig. 03Source: case record · each fact carries the article that documented itAs of 2026‑09Auto-assembled
What else is connected
Named in this case and in others. A count of where the record names them, not a finding about what they did.
From the desk
- Correction publishedBeds, not homes · Randwick
This section said the Housing SEPP gives "certain kinds of housing" a density bonus allowing "more floor space, more height, more rooms", and that purpose-built student accommodation and co-living both sit in the favoured category. The bonus in the policy belongs to co-living housing: up to 10 per cent more floor space than the local maximum, in zones where residential flat buildings are…