Month: March 2025

The public forum was highly charged with strong emotions in the air, some valid points expressed, as well as some inaccurate claims.

However the main challenge for me is that while some residents were unhappy about aspects of council’s alternate TOD scenario, nobody proposed a constructive alternative that could – in time for the May 2025 deadline and with greater merit – feasibly meet the requirements of what’s at hand. Council has been tasked with making the best of a bad situation.

As such, the revised TOD scenario is now off to 21 days of public exhibition. I encourage residents who remain dissatisfied to provide constructive input through this next round of the consultation process. Details of how to provide input will become available on Wednesday.

My speech for supporting the staff recommendation are provided in the transcript below, and as for other councillors’ rationale you can view it online.

—

I speak with conditional support for the officer’s recommendation covering three parts.

First, how we reached this preferred scenario.

Second, strengths and weaknesses of the scenario.

Third, next steps.

So how did we get to this preferred scenario?

Last year Council sought feedback on five scenarios designed to provide 22,500 additional dwellings around four train stations. Council made it clear that these scenarios were designed to meet seven planning principles, with feedback used to select and enhance a preferred scenario.

Our open survey received over 4,000 responses, which reduced to 2,946 after filtering out bots and duplicates. We also ran a representative survey to better align with local demographics.

In both surveys, the government’s default 400m circle only attracted a quarter of support while three-quarters preferred options that adopted council’s seven planning principles.

Scenario 3B (which preserves HCAs by spreading beyond the circle) was most popular with over a third in support, and Scenario 2A (which preserved 78% of HCAs by providing moderate height) also had a fifth of respondent support.

Combined, 3B and 2A represented over 50% in the surveys. And in separate workshops where residents had the opportunity to explore the implications and make an informed decision, 3B and 2A had over 80% support.

Tonight’s scenario is based on 3B, borrowing elements from 2A and resident feedback.

This new scenario addresses many concerns raised by residents.

The largest concern was transitions, where residents did not want 9 storeys overlooking their 2 storey home. The current state government TOD has 287 properties overshadowed by homes over twice the height, however the revised scenario reduces the impact by 93% to just 21 properties.

The second and third largest resident concerns were the impact on environmentally sensitive areas and urban tree canopy. And by shifting density and requiring 50% deep soil planting in most of the R4 sites, this preferred scenario reduces the impact on environmentally sensitive areas and tree canopy by 68% and 76% respectively.

Over half of respondents wanted to protect heritage conservation areas, and this scenario improves on the government default by 80%. Furthermore, where heritage items are surrounded by development, landowners gain development rights as part of a consolidated development if they negotiate sufficiently hard enough with developers, and I believe this is a much fairer outcome.

Residents were also concerned about town center revitalization, with the absence of zoning in the default TOD for shops and services to support future homes. This scenario increases the available land for commercial and retail from 6.6 to 43.4 hectares.

It also adds new parks in Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville, plus a road connection between Pockley and Shirley in Roseville. It’s a win for future residents, though I encourage council staff to work closely with affected residents to reduce the impacts and explore win-win solutions.

There are other elements in this preferred scenario which I’m not entirely comfortable with.

In order to speed up the delivery of the Lindfield Village Hub, certain provisions are proposed to be removed from the LEP.

I believe that there are pockets where further upzoning is appropriate, for example some of the Roseville Hill Street shops as well as the Lindfield shops East of Drovers Way could be bumped up one notch without compromising our planning principles.

Likewise, I think it’s unfair for TOD residents living in an HCA to only get FSR 0.3:1 while their non-TOD neighbours in the same HCA get FSR 0.8:1 under the Low- and Mid-Rise provisions. I would personally advocate giving these residents at least FSR 0.4:1 or 0.5:1 along with dual occupancy provisions.

Residents have also told me that their properties are not currently viable for development under new FSRs, however, I believe these will become viable in the 2030’s and 2040’s once supply tightens.

Starting this week, Council begins a second round of consultation on this revised scenario. I encourage all concerned residents to provide feedback for staff consideration.

I also encourage all councillors to support moving this scenario to public exhibition. It was never going to be possible to satisfy all residents under the State Government’s unreasonable terms, and this next step is the best we can do to manage the negative impacts of the default TOD.

Council staff have consolidated your feedback around preferred Transport Oriented Development (TOD) scenario for Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon and come up with a new draft, which will be considered by Council this coming Monday 31st 7pm.

Their method of reviewing the public consultation material, selecting a community reference (3b), and rationale for adjustments to the revised scenario are provided in the report linked below. This new TOD scenario means that some areas will be taller while other are shorter, but overall it matches or exceeds the state’s housing target while providing a better chance of preserving canopy and most of the heritage conservation areas.

https://kuringgai.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/03/OMC_31032025_AGN_AT_EXTRA.PDF

The page most people are interested in (with the maps) is page 26. (Note, I haven’t had the chance to study this map in detail yet but upon first viewing it seems quite different / weird compared to the draft shown to councillors 7 weeks ago.)

There are also plans for new parks on pages 49-50 of the report.

As with anything that involves people’s homes, I understand that this will draw strong emotions with some who are for what is proposed and others who are strongly against. But as a councillor I need to consider what I believe is in the residents’ and ratepayers’ long term interests for the local area, rather than short term personal preferences.

If you feel strongly about what you see, you have the opportunity to present at the public forum this Monday 31st at 5pm. Details of how to register to speak are below.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-Meetings-and-Public-Forums

As for the top three questions….

I understand that there are residents who are concerns about how the updated TOD interacts with various State Significant Developments. I share their concerns, and the Department of Planning is aware of these issues. More detail on where the SSDs are along with the council officers’ suggested approach is detailed on pages 18-21 of the report. Of these, I find #7 (Lord St and Roseville Ave) to be most concerning as it is clearly incompatible with the draft TOD scenario.

I also know some of you have questions about properties that are part of the State’s default TOD but not part of the Council’s alternate TOD. My personal understanding of this matter is that the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing provisions will apply, but this has yet to be confirmed in writing and there are others who don’t believe that I am correct in my interpretation. Pages 17-18 has some commentary on this topic but I don’t understand what has been written, and will need to follow-up with staff.

Finally, there are residents living in individually listed heritage items with concerns of being surrounded by development under the TOD alternative. From my understanding, a potential solution is for council to allow these sites to be incorporated with the home preserved while the FSR is distributed elsewhere in the consolidated site. This is on pages 14, 269 and 271 of the report.

I currently haven’t read through the entire report yet so I may have more observations in the coming days.

Bubs and I recently visited Homeworld Box Hill to get the vibe of their duplexes (attached dual occupancies).

At Ku-ring-gai, duplexes will be allowed within each ‘local housing area’ (800m walking distance of train stations and town centres, excluding Warrawee but including St ives Shopping Village) on a minimum lot size of 450sqm, or outside of those zones on minimum lot sizes of 1,015sqm (excluding bushfire prone land).

I know that some residents have expressed interest in supporting dual occupancies on lot sizes that are smaller than 1,015 sqm – and that is my preference also – however the problem that we have is that the State Government’s Housing SEPP takes a one-size-fits-all approach to dual occupancies and mandates a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 which I do not believe is appropriate for smaller lots in general. (For reference, our neighbouring LGAs at Ryde, Hornsby and Northern Beaches previously went with more sensible controls at 0.5:1 and Willoughby 0.4:1). As such, my own position is to continue supporting Ku-ring-gai’s position of 1,015 sqm until such time that the State takes a more flexible approach to dual occupancy FSRs.

A transcript of my recent speech on dual occupancies is provided below.

And just to be clear, my own home is less than 1,015 sqm so I am ineligible to build any of these duplexes. The trip to Homeworld was purely to get a vibe of what other residents will be going through.

—

Cr Ngai – 18th March 2025

I speak tonight in support of the staff recommendation for a dual occupancy minimum lot size of 1,015 sqm. However, I know this will be a controversial decision so I want to qualify my support with three statements.

First of all, dual occupancies provide our residents with diverse housing options so that they can stay with their family and friends here in Ku-ring-gai. When I go out there and talk to residents whether they be at the local public school, park, shops, or even at church I often hear the same message that each hopes that when their life circumstances change, there will be an appropriate housing option available to them in the local area so that they can stay connected to the community. For some, it may be because their elderly parents are getting too old to care for themselves or maintain a large home, and the parents would like to now live in a respectably sized abode near their family for occasional care and social connection. For others it may be because their adult children are looking for somewhere to move out to and start a new family, and other options such as moving to a cheaper suburb an hour away or having the grandkids grow up in a 60 sqm granny flat are not ideal. With dual occupancies under the state government’s housing policy, it opens up the option for two moderate-to-large sized homes to be collocated in one place, allowing each family unit to remain connected while providing them with an appropriate level of privacy.

Secondly, I know there are residents who want dual occupancies in smaller lot sizes such as 680 sqm, as do I, however it simply isn’t appropriate under the development controls imposed by the state government under its housing policy. These residents point out to our neighbouring LGAs and say hey, how come they support dual occupancies on smaller lot sizes? And to that my response is that yes, it is true that our neighbours at Ryde, Hornsby, Northern Beaches and Willoughby support smaller lot sizes for dual occupancies, but did you know that they did so with different development controls in mind? At Ryde, Hornsby and Northern Beaches they had a maximum floor space ratio for dual occupancies of 0.5:1 and at Willoughby they set an even more conservative FSR of 0.4:1. These low FSRs allow the provision of sufficient urban canopy to keep our suburbs cool, give us fresh air and support local wildlife. However right now, dual occupancies are being considered statewide under much more aggressive planning controls of 0.65:1 through the state government’s housing SEPP, which will have an enormous impact on canopy. To keep the numbers simple, let’s take an example of a 1,000 sqm block. At FSR 0.65:1 it may support up to 350sqm of soft landscaping which isn’t great, but is respectable. But if you apply the same controls to a 700sqm block then you only have 245 sqm for landscaping which, after you factor in setbacks and driveways leaves very little room left for any canopy to develop. So it is the state government’s imposed FSR of 0.65:1 which makes it difficult to establish an appropriate level of tree canopy, and to work backwards for an appropriate minimum lot size we end up with 1,015 sqm at Ku-ring-gai.

Thirdly, I do hope that in the future a sensible state government will consider appropriate planning controls for dual occupancies on smaller lot sizes. If they were to adopt a formula and, for example, support an FSR of 0.5:1 on a 700 sqm lot, then that can provide for 2x moderate sized 4 bedroom homes, or alternately a larger 5 bedder and a smaller 3 bedder, while still supporting 350 sqm of landscaping and urban canopy. Such a move would allow for another 9,000 homes in Ku-ring-gai, but until the state government takes a more flexible and informed approach to its housing policy my view is that we should stick with 1,015 sqm in Ku-ring-gai as the first phase.

I encourage all councillors to support the staff recommendation.

Key decisions from the March 2025 council meeting include:

Dual Occupancies – Council resolved to put forward to DPHI the proposal for dual occupancies to be allowed in lot sizes of 1,015 sqm or greater. I was in support of this motion, and I will provide my speech transcript in a subsequent post this week.

TOD Scenarios – Council resolved to release an updated TOD scenario to the public on Tuesday 25th March, to be considered at a public forum and council meeting on Monday 31st March. A further update was provided by the Mayor in MM. 2. linked below.

https://kuringgai.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/03/OMC_18032025_AGN_SUP.PDF

Norman Griffiths Oval – An update on the project status and costs was provided, refer to link above.

Vernon Street Dog Park Lighting – Council resolved to install lighting for this dog park in South Turramurra later this year.

345 Pacific Highway – Council resolved to continue our position of advocating for land on Pacific Highway to be dedicated for road widening, to support the future population uplift in Northern Sydney. Council also resolved to advocate for the affordable housing component to be in perpetuity rather than for 15 years only.