Housing

Australia has committed to building 1.2 million ‘well-located’ homes by June 2029.

NSW is to build 377,000 by June 2029 and has required Ku-ring-gai to deliver 7,600 in five years (17% increase). NSW has not set any longer term targets for the state or for individual councils, making it difficult to plan for long-term infrastructure requirements.

Other States focus on a long-term target and then work collaboratively with councils to provide the infrastructure required to support.

Victoria has set a target of 2.5 million new homes by 2051, and works with its 79 councils to develop zoning and infrastructure plans for the next three decades.

Queensland similarly has set a target of 1 million new homes by 2046, and works with its councils to develop appropriate long-term zoning and infrastructure plans. 

NSW used to have a plan through to 2056 under the Greater Cities Commission, however the Commission and the long-term plan were both dissolved by NSW Labor in 2023. No long-term targets or infrastructure plans have since been announced, only the short-term target of 2029 without new infrastructure.

To achieve short-term targets, the NSW Government is bypassing each Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan through use of State Environmental Planning Policies. These policies apply across the state and do not respond to local sensitivities.

Specific to Ku-ring-gai it means the following

1. Transport Oriented Development – 18,000 to 20,000 new dwellings expected to be delivered within 15 years in the 400m surrounding Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon Station. Allowable height of six to seven-storeys with minimal or no setback requirements (height 22/24m, FSR 2.5:1). Also applies to heritage conservation areas but not heritage listed items.
2. Low- and Mid-Rise Housing (Part Two) – To be announced later this year, it potentially involves uplift of six to seven-storeys around local centres at transport hubs (including Wahroonga, Turramurra and Pymble) as well as two-storey residential flat buildings and townhouses within 800m of all train stations and some shopping precincts.
3. In-fill affordable housing – Developers may build with an extra 30% height if they temporarily provide 15% of the development as affordable housing for the next 15 years. This results in uplift of eight to nine-storeys.
4. Low- and Mid-Rise Housing (Part One) – Commencing 01 July 2025, most residential land in Ku-ring-gai will also support dual-occupancies. The default minimum lot size is 400 sqm for every two homes, however Ku-ring-gai staff are exploring alternatives for more appropriate controls, to be considered by the newly elected council.

All up, these changes have the potential to at least double Ku-ring-gai’s population in the coming decades if population growth and construction rates can keep up.

There is nothing wrong with providing more housing. We WANT to provide more housing. However to give our future residents the best outcomes, councils must have the opportunity to plan upfront. The Transport Oriented Development program does not provide for this and there are unintended impacts:

1. Provision of Infrastructure and Amenity – Well-located homes need more than just proximity to public transport. Our future residents need shops, active transport links, schools, and access to open space for recreation.
   Council’s public domain plans and open space acquisition strategy were designed to cover these gaps, however the significant and sudden onset of extra density especially around Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville means that capacity studies need to be performed, with plans refreshed and accelerated.
2. Increased Ratepayer Cost of Retrofitting Infrastructure and Amenity – Some elements of Council’s planning require upfront expenditure to secure the land for open space and active transport. While much of this has been done for Lindfield, Gordon and Turramurra, there are still gaps that we are working on in Roseville, Killara and Pymble. It is much cheaper to acquire land upfront than to purchase it once it is rezoned or once there are new developers on top. It is also much cheaper to plan other aspects of infrastructure upfront than to retrofit once development has arrived.
3. Urban Tree Canopy – With heights of up to 24m and floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1, it is difficult if not impossible to provide developments which meet the State’s target of 40% urban canopy by 2036. Our trees support local biodiversity, provide us with clean air, and help keep our suburbs cool.
4. Heritage – The height and FSR controls also make it impossible to protect the character of Ku-ring-gai’s existing Heritage Conservation Areas. The government has misled the public by claiming that the TOD controls and heritage are compatible, linking to a 19 year old document to support their claims, however this document says nothing about six storey developments in our garden-style HCAs. It is a misdirection.

In addition, the State’s plan requires our future residents to contribute $10,000 per new apartment or $12,000 per new house towards a pool for State Infrastructure. At the moment most of the funding has been committed to projects in Western Sydney while nothing has been committed to Ku-ring-gai. It is disappointing to hear that our local residents will contribute hundreds of millions to the state while none of it is reinvested in well-known local infrastructure issues.

It is important to dispel the difference between housing affordability and ‘affordable housing’.

With a 2 bedroom unit now costing over $650,000 to build before factoring the cost of land or profit margins, even a modest home is difficult to afford.

However, ‘affordable housing’ is a different concept in NSW where quality homes are made available to lower income households (such as our teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters) for rental via a community housing provider.

Under the NSW Government’s Housing Policy, developments over 2,000 sqm are required to provide only 2% mandatory affordable housing in perpetuity. The in-fill affordable housing provisions also provide up to 15% affordable housing, however it only lasts 15 years before it is sold on the private market.

If elected, we will explore updating our local plan to require at least 7-10% affordable housing for large developments in perpetuity.

Council has been actively seeking to work with the State Government to achieve well planned and funded outcomes. We wrote to the Planning Minister in November 2023, had meetings in February and May 2024, along with a range of other correspondences. All along, Council has been asking for 12 months to properly revise our capacity studies and appropriately plan for each precinct, however, the State Government has consistently refused this timeline and has imposed its housing controls in the absence of any plan or funding.

To reduce the impacts, council staff are currently preparing alternate scenarios for meeting the State’s housing objectives. These scenarios include:

• Base Case – Identification of new infrastructure and amenities to support the state-imposed TOD precincts in their current form.
• Minor Amendment Case – In addition to the Base Case, it will selectively spare key Heritage Conservation Areas as well as improve urban canopy outcomes by shifting dwellings towards key sites in the town centre.
• More Extensive Case – In addition to the Base Case, a more ambitious effort to save multiple Heritage Conservation Areas as well as improve urban canopy outcomes by shifting dwellings towards non-heritage areas in the town centre.
• As well as any other scenarios that Council staff choose to identify.

You will be consulted about these options in early November, and the newly elected Council will consider an update to the Local Environment Plan in early 2025.

We do not believe that the State Government followed the law in establishing the Transport Oriented Development provisions of the Housing SEPP. We are therefore taking a calculated decision by challenging it in the Land and Environment Court, and the proceedings are still underway.

We do acknowledge that in the case of a Council win, the State Government could just follow the proper process in re-establishing Transport Oriented Development provisions. However by having the TOD provisions temporarily removed, it gives Council a reprieve to properly plan for the local area. It also allows Council to save millions of your ratepayer dollars in the acquisition of land for future open space.

Each individually listed heritage item, whether it be state or locally listed, has been listed because it reaches a certain criteria under the Heritage Act. The presence of a six-storey development next door to a heritage item does impact on amenity, however it usually does not change any of the underlying factors that contribute to the heritage item’s original listing.

To de-list any heritage item, it will need to be appropriately supported by relevant reports that explain why the item no longer meets threshold. Acquiring these reports comes at an expense, which is the same whether the report is commissioned by the landowner or by Council. Council staff have made it clear that they do not intend to conduct a mass-delisting because of the significant cost involved in commissioning these reports, and the likelihood that these reports will say that the heritage criteria are still satisfied. There is no other way for Council to legally mass delist multiple heritage items.

With the scenario analysis currently being undertaken by Council staff, it is possible that next year Council may resolve to shift the expected new dwellings from HCA’s within a TOD precinct to non-HCA parts of the precinct. This may result in some heritage items no longer facing the prospect of being surrounded by six-storeys.

There are also examples of heritage items that are incorporated into a larger development site. Some examples include 25, 25A and 27 Bushlands Avenue Gordon and 256-260 Victoria Avenue Chatswood. In each example, the heritage item is preserved while its land is used to provide uplift elsewhere on the site. Owners of heritage items should therefore not assume that they will be walled off by development.

Refer to the Council Meeting Minutes / Agenda, where a detailed record has been kept each month to outline the development of NSW Housing Policy and the steps that Ku-ring-gai took to seek a reasonable outcome.

21 November 2023 – MM1 – Letter from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

12 December 2023 – MM1 – The Trickle of Information Regarding Housing Density Changes

05 February 2024 – MM1 – Recent Developments with the Proposed Housing Policy

20 February 2024 – MM3 – Housing Policy Update

19 March 2024 – MM2 – Housing Policy Update

16 April 2024 – MM1 – Housing Policy Update

08 May 2024 – MM1 – Scenario Analysis

21 May 2024 – MM2 – Housing Policy Update

04 June 2024 – MM1 – Transport Oriented Development Key Dates

18 June 2024 – MM5 – Housing Policy Update

16 July 2024 – MM3 – Housing Policy Update

13 August 2024 – MM1 – Housing Policy Update