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.
