The lockdowns of the Covid 19 pandemic clearly demonstrated the value of essential workers here in Kiama. I have found that with the staffing issues of Blue Haven, essential workers no longer seem to be able to afford to live in our community, it’s a real problem for us all. This is a problem we can fix, but only if we make the right choices.

Existing state regulations enable the least sustainable form of development: greenfield expansion. These proposed and approved rural subdivisions are car-dependent for almost every need. People there will live in isolated, sprawling places that cause high personal vehicle usage and with little or no walk-to retail and services.

The answer, to my mind, is clear: greater urban density. This means having a home that is affordable, appropriate to needs, and within reach of transport, employment and essential services.

I like urban consolidation—it creates vibrant town centres while limiting greenfield development. I also believe that if people accept greater density in our town centres, their children will be more able to buy a home, and seniors will be able to downsize in the town where they live.

Building height is not a measure of density. The perception that high-rise equals high density is often confounded by reality. Best practice, including infill, good use of public space, and good design, create liveable higher density.

According to figures from Savills, London’s most desirable and expensive borough is also one of its densest, with 135 dwellings per ha, the majority set in low and mid-rise.

The politics of land-use planning – what gets built and where – favour those who oppose change. Community interest in urban planning is extremely strong in the Kiama LGA. Social media espouse that people see any change in regulations as a ‘watering down’ of standards.

Political websites espouse sound, public-transport friendly development, yet members of those sites oppose every development that will deliver just that.

This is sad as our LGA is among the least affordable in the world, and there is an acute shortage of low-cost rental housing.

I acknowledge that Council and councillors have an important, although limited, role to play.

We are actively working to advocate for and facilitate sustainable housing options for our community that are affordable, appropriate and available. The hard political reality is that people do not want rural expansion or urban consolidation.

I am scared that this attitude will eventually lead to our exclusion in the debate. Decisions will be made for us.

Which side of the argument you are on will depend greatly on your stake in the housing market—or lack of it. One person’s housing affordability crisis is another’s eagerly defended retirement nest egg. There are many reasons why density is seen as a good thing, but in short it is regarded as more sustainable, in the full sense of the word — environmentally, socially and economically.

Population growth, and many of the supply and demand factors that impact housing availability and affordability, are outside of your council’s control. Focusing on urban and suburban centres and limiting greenfield development does not offer a neat set of solutions that we can just pick up and run with.

But higher urban density offers significant insights and options that should be considered. If we can make a significant contribution towards ensuring that all our LGA have places to call home that meet our needs and supports our

quality of life, both now and into the future. We need enough density to allow for car-free living in a town that is resilient and walkable, while keeping us close enough to the ground to maintain our relationship with the earth and with one another.