Month: October 2024

Last night council resolved to bring the TOD Scenarios out for public exhibition. Members of the public will have the opportunity to have their say about which scenarios they like, which scenarios they don’t like, and why.

The scenarios and the consultation material is being fine-tuned before the public exhibition formally starts in early/mid November. The exhibition period is four weeks, which is longer than the statutory requirement, and given the significance of this topic I suspect that any submissions made after the exhibition close might also be considered before the staff write up their report in February.

More information about the upcoming TOD scenarios is found in the following media release. https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Council-to-ask-for-community-feedback-on-new-housing-scenarios

And for those interested in my opening speech from last night, refer to the below.

In November 2023, the NSW Government dissolved the Greater Cities Commission along with any long-term infrastructure and housing plan that Sydney had in place.

In November 2023, Ku-ring-gai also proactively wrote to the Planning Minister stating that we would like to meet and discuss the approach to housing and infrastructure. This meeting was eventually granted on 29 February 2024 where the minister said that based on his extensive modelling, the suburbs of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon must become Transport Oriented Development precincts and that no other train station within our LGA has the adequate infrastructure to support this scale of development. He also said that these four stations MUST become TOD precincts and that there was no option to opt or swap out.

We asked the Planning Minister whether we can have a 12-month deferred commencement to come up with alternate scenarios and consult the community and he said NO. But he did say that he was willing to lift the TOD maps if council came up with alternate plans that meet or exceed the original policy objectives.

After several more weeks of discussions and a second meeting on 02 May, it was apparent that the NSW Government had no interest in giving Ku-ring-gai residents the opportunity to properly plan housing and infrastructure, and the TOD SEPP provisions were imposed on Ku-ring-gai. At an extraordinary meeting on 08 May, Council resolved unanimously to commence legal action to invalidate the TOD, as well as to prepare alternate long-term scenarios for these four TOD precincts.

The preparation of these scenarios was not easy and took considerable time. Each of the scenarios before us tonight are designed to meet or exceed the State’s target of 22,500 while improving on heritage, urban canopy, and infrastructure outcomes.

These scenarios are by no means perfect. Each scenario has strengths and flaws. And my preference is that all scenarios are put to public exhibition so that members of the public can formally tell us which ones they like, which ones they don’t like, and their reasons why.

After the public exhibition, council staff will consider the feedback and finetune these scenarios. Council might then select a preferred scenario as the basis for updating our Local Environment Plan. The process of updating the LEP is quite lengthy – Department of Planning guidelines state 420 working days from end to end – but we hope that the NSW Government will expedite the process so that we can get on with delivering housing as per the timing of our requested 12-month deferred commencement.

I now want to make a brief comment about each of these scenarios.

Scenario 3a and 3b seek to protect all of our heritage conservation areas while at the cost of additional uplift in the town centre and/or expanding beyond the 400m. Many residents may find the heights too imposing, and they are welcome to provide that feedback as part of a public exhibition process. I suspect scenario 3a will not be supported by council next year, but it’s good to put it out to public so that they know what a ‘worse case scenario’ looks like. I like scenario 3b a lot, but I am not certain whether it will have the Planning Minister’s approval as he previously thought it would clash with low- and mid-rise changes yet to be finalised.

Scenario 2 seeks to protect 78% of our heritage conservation areas while providing milder uplift in the town centre. There are some benefits to this, although there are also peculiarities such as the destruction of HCA’s while non-HCA land is left at 2 storeys. We wait to receive public feedback on these matters.

Scenario 2b is one that we requested as the ‘minor amendment case’ back on 08 May, and we are proposing that this too goes out to public exhibition after some finetuning by our staff. It only saves a third of the HCAs and I personally do not think it is as good as the other scenarios. However, I think it’s very important for 2b to go out for public comment. I think back to September 2020 with Ku-ring-gai’s Draft Housing Strategy, where staff proposed 3 housing options and councillors were bombarded with over 1,200 emails – many residents criticising council for not making a 4^th option available. From this experience, I think it’s important to give residents all five scenarios representing the full spectrum of possibilities, silencing any complaints that council has withheld scenarios from the public feedback process.

Finally I’d say that as part of the public feedback process, I encourage all councillors to look at the quality, rationale, and motivations behind each submission rather than the number of residents offering support for or opposition against each scenario. There will be residents providing feedback that maximises their short-term land value, but as Councillors we are looking out for the best interest of our residents over the next 100 years.

Recently I have seen inaccurate comments on my Facebook page claiming that Council?s move to put Transport Oriented Development scenarios out for public exhibition was sudden, secretive and without explanation. These comments are highly disrespectful, defamatory, and far from the truth and I will address these claims below.

There has been no secret whatsoever that as an election candidate, I intended to arrange for the TOD scenarios to go out to public exhibition in early November. These plans featured prominently in our election campaign.

In our election brochure distributed to all Roseville Ward households, it said that “This year, the NSW Government’s non-consultative approach to housing policy has been contrary to everything that is taught about good planning and development… To reduce the impacts, council staff are currently preparing alternate scenarios for meeting the State’s housing objectives. You will be consulted about these options in early November.“

On our election day How-to-vote Flyer handed out to all voters who wanted one, it said that we will “Engage the community on alternate Transport Oriented Development options once they become available in early November 2024“.

In response to an election survey conducted by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment, I said at the bottom of page 3 that “Council staff are looking into alternate scenarios to provide for housing while reducing the impacts on heritage and the environment. Members of the public will be consulted on this in early November with the view of having Council make changes to the LEP next year.“

I was also very open about these plans whenever asked during the election campaign.

Prior to the election campaign we have also been fully transparent that this process is underway, starting from our council resolution on 08 May 2024 and followed by various followup on council?s e-News, website, conversations with print and broadcast media, and at the parliamentary inquiry.

Admittedly, plans have shifted since the first half of the year because I was initially saying that the public consultation would commence in October 2024? It was only more recently that the message shifted to ?early November? because staff updated us and said that it would not be possible to complete the supporting work for informed scenarios by October. But other than this delay of one month, I have consistently stayed on point both with the path forward on legal action as well as the commitment to delivering TOD Scenarios for public consultation.

As far as I am concerned, the public has had sufficient notice that a public exhibition was going to take place in early November and the council remains on track to delivering this objective. All councillors both old and new were also briefed on these scenarios beforehand and told that we will be voting on this in the form of an extraordinary meeting so that we can save two months and protect our HCA?s.

My normal response to inaccurate comments is to click on reply and correct the individual’s claims. However this time I was spammed by eight comments and it was inefficient to reply to each one individually, only to end up in a never-ending war with a keyboard warrior. Hence I’ve chosen to hide the eight comments and address the core issue in this one post.

Several residents have enquired about tomorrow’s extraordinary meeting so I write to explain my position.

The urgency to act has been forced upon by the State Government, which imposed the default TOD policy onto our f our suburbs in May 2024. We already have developers preparing development applications that will permanently change the character of our heritage conservation areas, and the only way to protect these HCAs is to quickly introduce an alternate plan that meets the state?s policy objectives. The more than we fluff around and delay, the more extensive the destruction will be. We also have a duty to give all landowners and residents greater certainty about what will be happening next.

The reason why this comes in the form of an extraordinary meeting is that an ordinary meeting will delay the outcome by at least two months, thus exposing our HCAs to further dectruction. We couldn?t do it in time for the October meeting both because the scenarios were still being developed, and also because the agenda had been finalised before councillors were sworn in. We also can?t do it at the 26 November meeting because there would not be enough time to do a proper public exhibition before Christmas / New Year, resulting in a final decision that?s delayed from February to April. The two month delay results in more HCAs being destroyed, and the exhibition material becoming outdated very quickly. Plus it is the public exhibition, not the ordinary meeting, where public feedback is critical to future outcomes.

Tomorrow’s decision is merely to put scenarios out for public exhibition. It is the start of a process where a range of ideas are displayed for discussion. There are multiple scenarios, and having a scenario up does not mean that councillors, council, or council staff have endorsed its implementation. Each scenario has strengths and flaws, and they are merely there to inform residents on the range of what is possible so as to elicit an informed discussion and feedback process.

I expect the legal action to be ongoing with the next step being court-ordered mediation on 21 November 2024. Both the legal action and these scenarios are linked, with council unanimously voting for both on 08 May 2024. My own view is that the State Government has not followed the law in introducing its Housing SEPP changes, and the reason why the planning minister repeatedly calls for Ku-ring-gai to withdraw the legal action is because he does not want his non-compliance to be found by the court. But even if Ku-ring-gai does win the legal action, it does not permanently stop development. The State Government will still have two years before the next State Election to have a second crack at legally introducing TOD v2, and so it?s important for Ku-ring-gai to have alternate scenarios identified and ready to go.

All of this drama could have easily been avoided had the NSW Government respected Ku-ring-gai’s multiple requests for a deferred commencement. Our intent all along has been to publicly consult on scenarios and establish a plan within a 12 month timeframe, but the NSW Government has not been reasonable in its dealings to date.

I actually don?t know what council will resolve tomorrow night. Will the councillors support any of these scenarios going out to the public? I don?t know. Obviously I think it?s a good idea to have a range of scenarios for discussion, but it?s a democracy so we?ll wait to see what the council collectively decides.

Council staff have prepared alternate scenarios to provide the 20,000+ dwelling uplift in the TOD precincts of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon.

These scenarios are designed to mitigate the negative impacts to environment, heritage, urban canopy and town centre vitalisation that the TOD in its original form unfairly forces upon Ku-ring-gai.

Next Wednesday Council will meet to consider which of these scenarios (if any) will go out for public consultation, as well as the manner in which the public consultation will take place. Given that this is probably one of the biggest changes to face Ku-ring-gai in recent history, it is important to get the comms right in the limited time available to us.

The current aim is to form a view on the preferred scenario by February 2025. If we delay the decision too long, we will just end up with the TOD and its impacts everywhere.

The legal challenge continues in parallel though the reality is that even if the Housing SEPP is invalidated in the current form, the State Government may have a second crack and it’s worthwhile to have superior options on standby. The legal challenge and this scenario analysis are both linked, both decided unanimously by council on 8 May 2024.

I have yet to read the meeting papers in full, but they do raise some interesting questions which I need to clarify with staff in the coming days. The meeting papers are linked here

https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/10/OMC_30102024_AGN_AT_EXTRA.PDF

We had our first Ordinary Meeting of Council last night. It was good to see our new councillors and new mayor settled in. Key decisions were:

? Support to display the Menorah and celebrate Chanukah festivities at council chambers, plus opening up the site to celebrate other religious and cultural occasions.

? Exploring funding opportunities to make 1192 Pacific Highway more safe and accessible to the public while simultaneously supporting more homes in Ku-ring-gai.

? Directive for staff to consider the means to preserve the Marian Street Theatre DA, with an intent to budget for activities in the FY25/26 year. Councillors will continue to discuss options behind the scenes.

On Tuesday I seem to have sparked some interest / controversy by sharing an example of how a heritage item can be incorporated as part of a larger development site, with the heritage item?s land used to provide uplift elsewhere on site.

My Tuesday post was not an endorsement of the TOD controls. In fact I think the TOD controls are ill-conceived and with no prior consultation with local councils. The Planning Minister?s lack of genuine good-faith collaboration is disappointing, and it is the reason why we are currently involved in legal action.

Multiple residents have also asked me whether the idea of site consolidation only applies to Willoughby Council, or whether there is any precedent within Ku-ring-gai for this to occur. So this time I?ll give you an example from Gordon.

25 Bushlands Avenue, otherwise known as ?Birralee?, is an example of a Federation Bungalow style house and garden built c. 1915 that was made possible by the provision of public infrastructure to support the growth of suburbs like Gordon as an alternative to living in the inner city. You can read more about it here.

https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=1882351

On 16 November 2017, as newly appointed members of the Sydney North Planning Panel, Councillor Spencer and I were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to develop a residential aged care facility on the amalgamated site of 25, 25A, and 27 Bushlands Avenue under the predecessor to the Housing SEPP. The developer had proposed to retain the heritage building and most of its garden in the existing form, and instead to use its land to establish additional uplift rights at 25A and 27.

Both Councillor Spencer and I disagreed with this concept and we argued that?

“The Proposal will have adverse impacts on the heritage item at No. 25 Bushlands Avenue (Birralee)“

and that

“For the reason of excessive encroachments into the curtilage of No. 25 Bushlands Avenue the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item.“

You can read more about it here.

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/residential-care-facility-8

However the planning panel is comprised of 2 councillors and 3 state-appointed members so the state overrode the councillor opinion 3 vs 2 and said that it was fine to incorporate the heritage item into a larger development.

Ultimately the development was refused by the Sydney North Planning Panel on other grounds, however it then went to the Land and Environment Court on a Merits Appeal where it was approved.

But we do see here that both the regional planning panel and the Land and Environment Court are open to consolidated sites with uplift shifted around under the Housing SEPP. There are residents who disagree with my statement here, but I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes. I personally believe that many residents have been ill-advised by property developers seeking the lowest hanging fruit. Heritage items and heritage conservation areas are too messy to deal with when there are 45 TOD precincts to choose from across NSW, so they will not want to get involved with heritage unless they can offer prices that are substantially below the genuine underlying value.

Released today is the Report on the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Development of the Transport Oriented Program

In the chair?s forward it was noted that the TOD program and its planning rules were selected in an opaque process with inadequate consultation, and that its one-size-fits-all approach is not well enough designed to stimulate appropriate housing supply or address affordability issues.

10 recommendations were made regarding the TOD program and the NSW Government is called to take on a holistic, long-term view of options to address the inquiry. In summary these are:

1. Work in collaboration with local councils 2. Work with stakeholders to clarify how TOD operates with existing controls 3. Greater consideration of specific drivers of housing affordability 4. Deliver package of measures impacting constraints on residential construction 5. Deliver a framework for affordable housing under the TOD 6. Consider broad range of issues and solution to the housing crisis 7. Focus infrastructure funding to areas of growth including TOD locations 8. Maintain robust design and building standards through new housing reforms 9. Focus on family-friendly apartments 10. Continue the commitment to 40% urban tree canopy across Greater Sydney by 2036

My favourite personal quote from the report is

“4.92 Similar concerns were raised by Mr Sam Ngai, Mayor, Ku-ring-gai Council, who stressed the importance of ensuring open space is a short-term priority in planning and delivery of housing:

The one thing that cannot be left til next decade is public open space because our kids will no longer have a yard and our community needs public places to meet. In the Roseville precinct alone, we expect 5,000 new dwellings, but the only open space is a small war memorial garden next to the highway.”

For more information visit

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3035#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses

Is development possible within a TOD precinct when there is a heritage item?

Last week while shopping at ALDI, I checked out the Chatswood Community Nursing Home and Hospital at 256 Victoria Avenue. It is listed as a heritage item and is known for its history as well as its representation of the Arts & Craft style. More information can be found on the State Heritage Register.

https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2660256

The amazing thing (and this is what I have been telling residents) is that just because a heritage item exists, doesn’t mean that development cannot take place. In this specific example, the heritage item was amalgamated into a larger site and repurposed for different uses. Meanwhile, the development uplift (floor space) associated with the heritage item’s land is redistributed elsewhere on site so that the same number of homes can be delivered while heritage is respected.

At the moment there are a lot of anxious residents in the TOD precincts who are insisting that their homes get delisted for free. Having said that, it’s not how heritage works…. The mere existence of a multi-storey development next door does not in any way dilute the heritage significance of an individual heritage item and, if anything, it makes the heritage item more valuable. Delisting would involve commissioning heritage reports which say that the property no longer meet any of the seven heritage criteria (significance, association, aesthetic/creative/technical achievement, social/cultural/spiritual, research potential, rarity, representation). And unless the original report or basis on which the property was listed is flawed, the delisting is unlikely to happen.

However, heritage items can be incorporated into a larger site and the floor space / development rights distributed elsewhere on site. An honest and savvy developer, real estate agent or adviser will tell you this, but there aren’t many of them out there. A lazy developer on the other hand will see it as being in the too hard bucket and not touch it with a pole, which is understandable given that there are 45 TOD precincts to choose from and they are just going for the lowest hanging fruit first.

On the agenda for the October 2024 Council Meeting are:

261 Mona Vale Road (GB14) – Whether to reclassify this from community to operational land, a move that may lead to more flexible long term use of the site.

1192 Pacific Highway (GB15) – Whether to reclassify this from community to operational land, a move that may eventually lead to its sale.

Pymble Golf Planning Proposal at 2, 12 and 14 Cowan Road (GB16) – Whether to seek a 10% affordable housing contribution (either monetary or in kind in perpetuity) towards the 78 dwellings being built as part of this development.

Marian Street Theatre (GB17) – An update on the costs of extending the site vs. refurbishing the site.

More information can be found at https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/10/OMC_22102024_AGN_AT_WEB.htm

If any of these matters are close to your heart, you have the opportunity to speak to the councillors at our upcoming public forum held Tuesday 15 October at 6pm. https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-Meetings-and-Public-Forums

Congrats to Ku-ring-gai’s new Mayor Christine Kay and Deputy Mayor Kim Wheatley. I have worked closely with both of them these last few years and I can confidently say that Ku-ring-gai is in good hands.