Transport Oriented Development NSW: Developer's Guide

The New South Wales (NSW) Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program is one of the larger as-of-right upzonings the state has run, and for a property developer it quietly rewrites the feasibility envelope on land within 400 metres of certain train and metro stations. Where the program’s planning controls apply, a site that was zoned for a single dwelling or a low-rise flat building could carry a maximum height of 22 metres and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1, which is enough to support a mid-rise residential flat building. The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) estimates the program could deliver more than 170,000 new homes across the 37 identified precincts over 15 years.

The catch, and the reason this guide is written for developers rather than homeowners, is that the headline numbers only tell you the ceiling. Not every nominated precinct still carries the state controls; many councils have replaced them with their own Local Environmental Plan (LEP) provisions. The 2% affordable housing requirement, the minimum lot width, the timing rules and the underlying construction economics all sit between the ceiling and what a site can actually deliver. This guide walks through what the program is, which precincts still carry the uplift, the yield maths, the affordable housing layer, the approval pathway, the feasibility reality, and how Transport Oriented Development (TOD) interacts with the rest of the NSW housing reform stack.

What the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program actually is

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) is a planning approach that concentrates housing and mixed-use development around public transport so more people can live within walking distance of stations, jobs and services. In NSW the policy is delivered through the Transport Oriented Development Program, which has two distinct parts that a developer needs to keep separate because they work very differently.

The first part is the Accelerated Precincts (sometimes described as Tier 1). These are eight larger priority areas where the state is leading master-planned rezoning, supported by infrastructure funding. The second part is the Transport Oriented Development planning controls (sometimes described as Tier 2), which are a set of as-of-right standards inserted into Chapter 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, known as the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). The Tier 2 controls apply around a longer list of stations and are the part most small-to-mid developers will deal with first.

The distinction matters for feasibility. In an Accelerated Precinct you are typically working within a precinct master plan, a bespoke set of controls and, often, a State-led rezoning process. Under the Tier 2 Transport Oriented Development controls you are generally relying on standardised state planning provisions that prevail where they are more generous than the local controls, which gives a clearer as-of-right development envelope.

Tier 1: the eight Accelerated Precincts

The NSW Government has identified eight priority high-growth areas near transport hubs in Greater Sydney for accelerated rezoning: Bankstown, Bays West, Bella Vista, Crows Nest, Homebush, Hornsby, Kellyville and Macquarie Park. DPHI estimates rezoning around these hubs could create capacity for nearly 60,000 new homes over 15 years, supported by a $520 million investment in community infrastructure such as road upgrades, active transport links and public open space.

Bays West is the largest of the eight and is being led as a State-led transformation of under-utilised government land, with the potential to deliver up to 8,500 new homes and a minimum of 10% affordable and essential worker housing. The other precincts pair the rezoning with new planning controls that vary precinct by precinct, so the development envelope in Macquarie Park is not the same as the envelope in Hornsby or Bankstown.

For a developer, the Accelerated Precincts can offer a larger built-form opportunity than the Tier 2 controls, but they come with more process. To speed delivery, the NSW Government made policy changes to streamline development assessment in these precincts that took effect on 27 November 2024, and introduced an exemption from design competitions in favour of a streamlined design excellence pathway. Larger Accelerated Precinct projects may still be assessed as State Significant Development, which is a different and longer assessment track to a standard council Development Application (DA). If you are appraising a site inside one of these eight precincts, the precinct-specific controls and the relevant master plan are the documents that govern your yield, not the Tier 2 standards described below.

Tier 2: the Transport Oriented Development planning controls

The Tier 2 controls are the part of the program that behaves most like a conventional upzoning. The first stage was implemented through new planning controls at Chapter 5 of the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), introduced by amendment to the Housing SEPP made in April 2024. The amended controls apply within identified station precincts, generally measured as land within 400 metres of the station, and they allow more housing than many of the local controls they sit over.

The key Tier 2 standards, drawn from the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), are these.

Permissibility. Residential flat buildings are permitted in residential zones and local centre zones within a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) area. Shop-top housing is permitted in local centre and commercial zones. This is the change that opens up a mid-rise apartment typology on land that may previously have been limited to detached dwellings or low-rise.

Building height. A maximum height of 22 metres applies to residential flat buildings. Where a building contains shop-top housing, the maximum is 24 metres, with the extra 2 metres intended to accommodate a higher ground-floor commercial ceiling. A 22-metre limit typically supports something in the order of six to seven residential storeys once you allow for floor-to-floor heights, ground-floor treatment and any rooftop plant.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR). A maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1 applies to both residential flat buildings and shop-top housing. On a 1,000 square metre site, an FSR of 2.5:1 permits up to 2,500 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA). The interaction between Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and the height limit is what sets your real yield, and it is worth modelling both together rather than assuming the FSR is always achievable within 22 metres. For the underlying mechanics, see the guide to Floor Space Ratio in Australia.

Lot size and width. The controls introduce a minimum lot width of 21 metres and, notably, no minimum lot size. The absence of a minimum lot size removes one common barrier, but the 21-metre minimum width is the standard that most often forces site amalgamation, because many established lots near stations are only 10 to 15 metres wide.

Affordable housing. For developments with a minimum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 2,000 square metres, at least 2% of the floor area must be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP). This obligation is secured through prescribed development consent conditions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The 2% requirement is modest compared with the affordable housing contributions in some other reforms, but it still needs to sit in your feasibility because that floor area is generally retained rather than sold.

DPHI has published a Guidance to Transport Oriented Development document to be read alongside Chapter 5 of the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), and it is the practical reference for preparing and assessing applications under the controls.

The trap most summaries miss: which precincts still carry the state controls

Here is the single most important point for site selection, and the one that most published summaries of the program gloss over. The Tier 2 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls commenced on 13 May 2024, but they do not currently apply at all 37 nominated precincts. As at the most recent DPHI update, the state controls apply at 25 precincts; at 12 precincts an alternative scheme has been implemented through the relevant council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP); and an alternative scheme for the remaining precinct at Cockle Creek was still under assessment at the time of writing.

This means you cannot assume the 22 metre and 2.5:1 envelope simply because a site sits near a nominated station. You may instead be working under a council’s own controls, which can be materially different. The clearest example is Ku-ring-gai. The council’s alternative scheme for the precincts at Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville came into effect on 14 November 2025, replacing the Transport Oriented Development controls in the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) with a different set of provisions under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan. Development Applications (DAs) that were in the system on or before 13 June 2025 are assessed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) provisions, while new Development Applications (DAs) are assessed against the council controls. A developer modelling a Gordon or Roseville site on the state envelope could be working from the wrong numbers entirely.

The table below sets out the status of the planning controls at each of the 37 precincts, drawn from the DPHI status page. Treat it as a starting point and always confirm the current control against the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the spatial mapping, because these statuses have been changing as councils finalise alternative schemes.

To confirm whether the controls apply to a specific parcel, search the address on the NSW Planning Spatial Viewer and switch on the Transport Oriented Development Sites Map layer under the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) heading. Where a council has implemented an alternative scheme, the spatial layer may not be the operative control, so the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP) should be checked as well.

The yield maths: what 22 metres and FSR 2.5:1 mean on a real site

The fastest way to understand the opportunity is to run the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and the height limit together against a realistic site, then strip out the affordable housing and the parts of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) that are not sellable.

Worked example 1: a single 1,000 square metre lot

Assume a single lot of 1,000 square metres with a frontage of 22 metres, which just clears the 21-metre minimum width. An FSR of 2.5:1 permits up to 2,500 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA). A residential flat building typically converts somewhere in the order of 80% to 85% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) into net sellable apartment area once you account for lobbies, lifts, corridors and services, so the net sellable area might land around 2,000 to 2,125 square metres. At an average apartment size of roughly 75 to 85 square metres across a mix of one and two-bedroom units, that could support in the order of 25 to 30 apartments, set within a building of around six to seven storeys to stay under 22 metres.

Because the development exceeds 2,000 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA), the 2% affordable housing requirement applies. On 2,500 square metres that is 50 square metres of floor area, broadly one apartment, that is retained in perpetuity and managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP) rather than sold. In a 28 to 30 unit scheme, losing roughly one unit to affordable housing is a manageable line in the feasibility, but it should be modelled as a retained asset or a transfer, not as a sale.

Worked example 2: amalgamating three narrow lots

The 21-metre minimum width is where many single sites fail, so the more common play is amalgamation. Assume three adjoining lots, each 12.5 metres wide and 40 metres deep (500 square metres each), giving a combined site of 37.5 metres of frontage and 1,500 square metres. An FSR of 2.5:1 permits up to 3,750 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA), which at the same efficiency and apartment mix could support roughly 40 to 50 apartments within the 22-metre envelope. The 2% affordable housing requirement on 3,750 square metres equals 75 square metres, again broadly one apartment.

This is the structural feature of the Tier 2 controls that shapes deal-making near these stations: the value is generally created by assembly, not by a single parcel. That has flow-on effects you should price in, including the holding cost and timing risk of acquiring multiple titles, the premium vendors typically demand once they understand the upzoning, and the ransom-strip risk if one owner in the middle of a run holds out. The residual land value you can justify across an amalgamation is what determines whether the assembly is worth pursuing, and the guide to residual land value in Australia sets out how to work backwards from end value to a defensible site price.

A note of caution on both examples: the figures above are illustrative and depend heavily on site geometry, orientation, the Apartment Design Guide controls, car parking, basement efficiency and local context. They are a starting point for a feasibility, not a substitute for one.

The affordable housing layer: the 2% floor and the in-fill bonus on top

The 2% in-perpetuity affordable housing requirement is the mandatory floor for Transport Oriented Development (TOD) sites, but it is not the only affordable housing mechanism in play, and the interaction can work in a developer’s favour.

The Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) also contains the in-fill affordable housing bonus. Under reforms that took effect on 14 December 2023, a project that dedicates at least 10% to 15% of its Gross Floor Area (GFA) to affordable housing can access a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) bonus of 20% to 30% and a height bonus of 20% to 30%, with the bonus scaled to the affordable housing component, and the affordable housing managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP) for a minimum of 15 years. DPHI has confirmed that these in-fill incentives also apply in Transport Oriented Development (TOD) locations, and that any contribution made to access the bonus is in addition to the mandatory 2% in-perpetuity requirement.

For a developer, this opens a genuine modelling question rather than a single answer. The base case takes the 2.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and the 22-metre height and provides the mandatory 2% affordable housing. An alternative case layers the in-fill bonus on top, dedicating 10% to 15% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) to affordable housing in exchange for up to 30% more Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and height. Whether the bonus case beats the base case depends on the spread between the value of the extra market floor area and the cost of holding or transferring a larger affordable component, plus the practical question of whether the taller, denser building still works within the site and the Apartment Design Guide. Modelling both scenarios side by side, with the affordable floor area treated correctly, is exactly the kind of comparison worth running before you commit to a built-form strategy.

It is also worth flagging that larger affordable housing schemes can use the State Significant Development pathway, which DPHI is targeting to assess within an average of around 275 days from lodgement. For a sizeable Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site with a meaningful affordable component, that pathway may be relevant to your programme and your holding costs.

The approval pathway and the timing traps

Most Tier 2 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) proposals will proceed as a standard Development Application (DA) to the relevant council or, depending on value and type, to a local or regional planning panel. The general principles of the Development Application process in Australia apply, but there are several Transport Oriented Development (TOD) specific points that can catch a developer out.

The first is a hard timing rule. The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls do not apply to a Development Application (DA) that was made, but not determined, on or before 13 May 2024, and they do not apply to a modification made after 13 May 2024 if it relates to a development consent granted on or before 13 May 2024. In other words, the uplift is not retrospective. If you bought a site with an existing approval or a lodged application predating the commencement, you generally cannot simply modify your way into the new envelope; a fresh application is typically required to access the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls.

The second is the split-zone rule. Where a lot contains two or more land-use zones, the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls only apply to the portion of land carrying a relevant zone. A site that is part R4 High Density Residential and part MU1 Mixed Use, for example, can only develop the relevant zoned portion under the controls, which can materially reduce the developable area on an irregular or part-zoned parcel.

The third is design. The Apartment Design Guide continues to apply to apartment development in Transport Oriented Development (TOD) locations. That governs matters such as apartment mix, solar access, cross-ventilation, building separation and communal open space, all of which can constrain how much of the 2.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) you can realistically fit within 22 metres on a given site. The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a ceiling; the Apartment Design Guide is frequently the binding constraint.

Finally, contributions still apply. Council development contributions under sections 7.11 and 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, plus any applicable Housing and Productivity Contribution, sit on top of the affordable housing obligation. These can be a significant line item on a mid-rise scheme, and the guide to developer contributions and infrastructure levies in Australia explains how they are typically calculated and where they bite hardest.

Does it actually stack? The feasibility reality

This is the question that separates a developer’s reading of the program from a planner’s, and it is where most published summaries stop short. A generous planning envelope only creates value if the resulting building can be delivered at a margin, and in the current cost environment that is far from guaranteed on Transport Oriented Development (TOD) sites.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia NSW (UDIA NSW) commissioned the Astrolabe Group to assess the feasibility of all 37 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) sites across 11 sub-markets. The resulting report, Making TODs Work, concluded that while the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls are a sound policy intervention, many projects face serious feasibility issues in the current economic climate, and the policy is unlikely to deliver at the volumes expected unless conditions or settings change. The research found that short-term viability for mid-rise residential flat buildings was limited, with only the North Shore and Inner West sub-regions showing financial feasibility for build-to-sell models without additional intervention. It estimated that an average new apartment would need to sell for around $1.1 million to secure project financing, which is above the median apartment price in many of the relevant markets, and it identified an average feasibility gap of around 101% for the Central Coast station areas, meaning development there was a long way from stacking up under the controls alone.

The drivers of the gap are the familiar ones: high construction costs, elevated financing costs, development contributions, and a limited capacity for buyers to pay the prices that those costs require. The report’s full findings and seven recommendations include capping the section 7.12 contribution rate at 1% for Tier 2 sites, a deemed approval pathway within 90 days for compliant proposals, consolidating the controls into a single Transport Oriented Development (TOD) development control plan, and the government acting as a guarantor to reduce the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) lenders require.

The developer takeaway is not that Transport Oriented Development (TOD) sites do not work, but that the uplift is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. Where the site sits, what end values the sub-market can support, how lean the build can be, and how the contributions and affordable housing obligations land all decide whether a particular precinct stacks. Running a proper feasibility, then stress-testing the end value and construction cost assumptions, is the only reliable way to tell the difference between a precinct that works and one that does not. This is the kind of analysis where modelling the development feasibility, and then running a sensitivity analysis across sale price, construction cost and the affordable housing component, can show you how much headroom a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) deal really has before it tips from profit to loss.

How Transport Oriented Development interacts with the rest of the NSW reform stack

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) does not sit in isolation. It is one layer in a broader set of NSW housing reforms, and a developer appraising a site near a station should check which other instruments might also apply, because the most generous applicable control is usually the one worth pursuing.

The closest neighbour is the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, which expands permissibility for dual occupancies, terraces, townhouses, residential flat buildings and shop-top housing, and applies non-discretionary standards within walking catchments of a longer list of town centres and stations. Some sites may fall within both a Low and Mid-Rise area and a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) precinct, in which case the typology and envelope under each should be compared. The in-fill affordable housing bonus, discussed above, can stack on either. The Build-to-Rent provisions in the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) provide a separate pathway again for held rental product, which can change the calculus on a larger Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site where a build-to-sell exit looks marginal.

The practical discipline is to run the site against each applicable instrument rather than assuming Transport Oriented Development (TOD) is automatically the best lever. On a wide, well-located parcel close to the station, the 2.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and 22-metre height of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls will often win. On a narrower or part-zoned site, a Low and Mid-Rise typology might deliver a more achievable building.

How other states approach transport-led upzoning

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) as a planning idea is not unique to NSW, although the specific as-of-right Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) controls are. A developer working across borders should understand that the mechanism varies considerably by state, so a strategy built around the NSW controls does not transfer directly.

Victoria is running the closest equivalent through its Train and Tram Zone Activity Centres Program, which is planning for housing in and around 60 activity centres and is intended to encourage more than 300,000 homes near public transport. The Victorian model reviews planning controls in the core of each activity centre and within an approximately 800-metre walkable catchment, and introduces a new Built Form Overlay to set heights and design rules along with a streamlined planning pathway. The headline difference for a developer is geometry and process: Victoria works through activity centre cores and walkable catchments with bespoke built-form overlays, whereas the NSW Tier 2 controls apply a standard 400-metre, 22-metre, 2.5:1 envelope across the nominated precincts.

Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory each pursue density around transport, but generally through structure plans, activity centre policies, priority development areas or local planning scheme amendments rather than a single statewide as-of-right station upzoning instrument equivalent to the NSW Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls. The general lesson holds across all of them: the planning ceiling is set locally, it changes regularly, and it should be confirmed against the current instrument for the relevant jurisdiction before it goes into a feasibility.

A practical workflow for appraising a Transport Oriented Development site

Pulling the threads together, a disciplined first-pass appraisal of a potential Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site might run roughly as follows.

1. Confirm the site is within an identified precinct using the NSW Planning Spatial Viewer, then check the status table to see whether the state Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls or a council alternative scheme apply.
2. If a council alternative scheme applies, read the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and model the council controls, not the state envelope.
3. Check the zoning and whether the lot is split-zoned, because the controls only apply to the relevant zoned portion.
4. Measure the frontage against the 21-metre minimum width, and identify whether amalgamation is required to reach a developable parcel.
5. Model the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1 and the 22-metre height together, then apply realistic efficiency, the Apartment Design Guide and car parking to arrive at a net sellable yield.
6. Strip out the 2% in-perpetuity affordable housing where the development exceeds 2,000 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA), and test whether the in-fill affordable housing bonus improves the result.
7. Build a full feasibility with current construction costs, development contributions, the Housing and Productivity Contribution and finance, then stress-test the end value against the relevant sub-market evidence.
8. Compare the result against any other applicable instrument, such as the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, before settling on a built-form strategy.

Common feasibility failures on Transport Oriented Development sites

A handful of mistakes recur often enough on Transport Oriented Development (TOD) appraisals to be worth naming. Assuming the state controls apply when a council alternative scheme has replaced them is the most expensive, because it can build the entire feasibility on the wrong envelope. Treating the 2.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) as fully achievable without testing it against the 22-metre height and the Apartment Design Guide tends to overstate yield. Under-pricing site assembly, where the 21-metre minimum width forces an amalgamation that takes longer and costs more than a single purchase, is another. Carrying optimistic end values that the local sub-market has not actually supported is the failure the UDIA NSW research warns about most directly. And forgetting that the 2% affordable housing and the development contributions sit on top of, not inside, the build cost can quietly erase a thin margin.

How Feasly can help

Feasly is built for exactly this kind of question, where the planning envelope is generous on paper but the margin depends on a dozen moving parts. You can model the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) yield under the 2.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and 22-metre height, test the base case against an in-fill affordable housing bonus scenario, layer in development contributions and the funding stack, and then run a sensitivity analysis to see how the deal behaves as construction costs rise or end values soften. Given the feasibility gaps the UDIA NSW research identified across several sub-markets, the ability to see how much headroom a site has before it stops stacking is often the difference between a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) deal worth assembling and one worth walking away from.

Frequently asked questions

What is the NSW Transport Oriented Development Program? It is a NSW Government planning program that concentrates housing around train and metro stations. It has two parts: eight Accelerated Precincts where the state is leading master-planned rezoning, and the Tier 2 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls in Chapter 5 of the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) that apply standardised height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standards around a longer list of station precincts.

What height and density do the Transport Oriented Development controls allow? Where the state controls apply, a maximum height of 22 metres for residential flat buildings (24 metres for shop-top housing) and a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1, generally within 400 metres of the station.

Do the controls apply to every nominated station? No. As at the most recent DPHI update, the state controls applied at 25 of the 37 precincts, 12 precincts had a council alternative scheme through the Local Environmental Plan (LEP), and one precinct at Cockle Creek was under assessment. Always confirm the operative control for a specific site.

Is affordable housing required? Yes. For developments above 2,000 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA), at least 2% of the floor area must be affordable housing in perpetuity, managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP). The in-fill affordable housing bonus can be used in addition, in exchange for built-form bonuses.

Can I modify an existing approval to get the uplift? Generally not. The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls do not apply to a Development Application (DA) made but not determined on or before 13 May 2024, nor to a modification of a consent granted on or before that date. A fresh application is typically required.

Why might a strong planning envelope still not stack? Because construction costs, financing costs, development contributions and achievable end values all sit between the envelope and the margin. The UDIA NSW Making TODs Work research found many precincts were not feasible for build-to-sell under the controls alone in the current climate, which is why a full feasibility and sensitivity analysis is essential before committing.