Extraordinary Meeting – 30 October 2024 GB.1/1
| Extraordinary Meeting – 30 October 2024 | GB.1 / 1 |
| Item GB.1 | S14427 |
Planning for better outcomes – Alternative Scenarios to the TOD SEPP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
To seek Council’s endorsement of draft land use options for public exhibition commencing in November 2024.
Background
This report has been prepared in response to a Mayoral Minute from Council’s Extraordinary Meeting of Council of 8 May 2024.
On consideration of the Mayoral minute, Council resolved as follows:
A. That Council supports more housing but denounces the lack of planning and one-size-fits-all policies of the State Government.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley
Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer
CARRIED
B. That Council commence proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court concerning the Transport Oriented Development Amendment to the Housing SEPP, to seek declarations as to invalidity and orders restraining any associated breach of law, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
C. That Council commences studies around the four Transport Oriented Development precincts of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville to explore better resident outcomes than what is currently in place (as of 13 May 2024). The studies, scenario analysis and community engagement should be presented before councillors within nine months for a decision. Such scenarios may include:
i) Base Case – Identification of new infrastructure and amenities to support the state-imposed TOD precincts in their current form.
ii) 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.
iii) 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.
iv) As well as any other scenarios that Council staff choose to identify.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Comments
This report only addresses Resolution C of the Mayoral Minute of 8 May 2024 only.
The TOD SEPP amendments apply to a corridor of land with an area of approximately 1.6 million sqm (160 Ha) and impacts approximately 4,800 individual dwellings including 551 properties of heritage significance. The average canopy cover of the area is 34% which is high when compared to most parts of Sydney.
As a result of Ku-ring-gai’s historic pattern of development as railway suburbs concentrated along the train line, the TOD SEPP upzoning around the train stations disproportionately impacts Ku-ring-gai’s heritage.
For the land within 400 metres of the four train stations identified as a “TOD site”, the TOD SEPP directly impacts 23 listed heritage conservation areas (HCAs), representing half the total conservation areas of Ku-ring-gai. There are 410 properties within these HCAs that are upzoned by the TOD SEPP. The TOD SEPP also directly impacts an additional 136 properties individually listed as heritage items that, while not mapped as TOD sites, are adjoined by land identified as TOD sites. These sites have no beneficial uplift from the TOD SEPP, and in some cases, are quite negatively impacted.
The impacts of the TOD Program will be significant because the provisions are applied without consideration of factors such as biodiversity, heritage, and tree canopy and other constraints applied in a traditional and well accepted “sieve mapping” process.
Matters such as these would normally be considered as constraints or limitations to development in a best-practice planning process.
The TOD controls are:
· Maximum height control – 22 metres (6-storey residential flat buildings) and 24 metres (7-storey shop top housing);
· maximum floorspace ratio (FSR) 2.5:1; and
· minimum lot width of 21 metres.
Development controls that are critical to the protection of heritage and canopy cover are minimal or absent in the TOD, these include:
· Minimum lot size;
· setbacks;
· site coverage;
· deep soil; and
· tree replacement.
The TOD SEPP is in place now and landowners, real estate agents, and developers are already responding to the opportunity provided by the SEPP amendments.
As of late September 2024, there were at least 34 EOIs on the market, involving over 100 individual properties, with potential for up to 3,300 new apartments.
In addition, Council has received:
· one DA and 2 pre-DAs with potential for about 150 new dwellings;
· three Planning Proposals with potential for about 1,200 dwellings (two predating the TOD SEPP; and
· some twenty-four (24) enquiries and/or requests for de-listing of Heritage items for which no specialist heritage advice has been provided in support.
PLANNING FOR BETTER OUTCOMES
In identifying key project objectives from Council’s resolution of 8 May 2024, the primary objectives of this planning exercise are assumed to be whether it is possible to protect HCAs and improve urban canopy outcomes by transferring dwellings to alternative locations within, or adjacent to, the four designated TOD stations.
If Council agrees to exhibit the scenarios presented in this report, engagement will seek to identify whether the community are prepared to trade off height and density for protection of HCAs and other best-practice planning outcomes such as canopy protection.
Consequently, this work assumes that:
1. that the base case in this scenario analysis is the TOD SEPP as gazetted, not planning controls that pre-existed the TOD amendments; and
2. that the primary objectives for the study are:
a) to retain and protect Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs);
b) to improve urban canopy outcomes; and
c) to meet the dwelling targets stipulated by the State Government for the TOD program.
These outcomes are sought to be achieved by shifting or relocating potential dwelling yield from HCAs currently affected by the TOD SEPP to other areas that have been assessed and found to be suitable for increased densities with a focus on the commercial centres within the town centres.
The protection of HCAs will arguably automatically improve urban canopy outcomes. Additional opportunities for canopy protection are available to Council and are broadly described in this report.
It should be noted that Council’s Urban Forest Strategy (2022) aims to increase canopy cover from 45% up to 49% across the LGA. The cumulative impacts of the TOD Program amendments and the known, and yet to be implemented unknown impacts of the Low and Mid-rise SEPP amendments, mean that these objectives are now likely to be completely unachievable.
Council staff have undertaken a detailed study as part of developing the scenarios. The study comprises the following considerations:
· Defining a dwelling target;
· understanding development feasibility;
· defining a study area;
· analysing constraints;
· determining housing potential;
· defining planning principles;
· preparing draft scenarios; and
· planning for community infrastructure.
A summary of the findings, and other relevant issues, is set out below.
1. Defining a dwelling target
|
The starting point for the study was to estimate the number of dwellings that may be delivered by the TOD SEPP amendments, acknowledging that Council’s scenarios will need to match or exceed the dwelling yield from the TOD SEPP.
Council has undertaken its own due diligence to determine an estimated dwelling yield for the TOD SEPP as it applies specifically to Ku-ring-gai rather than simply relying on figures from DPHI.
Council’s site-by-site analysis estimates a total dwelling yield from the TOD SEPP precincts of 23,200 dwellings. This is a net figure where existing dwellings have been subtracted from the total and assuming an average replacement dwelling size is 90sqm.
The TOD SEPP increases heights and densities of all properties, except heritage items, RE1 zones and SP2 zones, within a 400m radius of designated TOD rail stations. Irrespective, analysis suggests a wide range of properties affected by the TOD SEPP will not redevelop for a variety of reasons, even over the long term. The analysis indicates that about 40% of the properties within the TOD will not redevelop. Study assumptions in this regard are as follows:
· The TOD SEPP applies to all properties including those within heritage conservation areas. While the State Government has stated that heritage provisions will still apply, Council’s analysis indicate that it will not be possible for the TODs to deliver the dwelling numbers anticipated by the Government without full redevelopment of the HCAs. Therefore, full development has been assumed across all TOD HCAs.
· The TOD SEPP applies a FSR of 2.5:1 and building height of 7-storeys to commercial zones (E1 – Local Centre). Redevelopment of these sites as a result of the TOD SEPP is considered unlikely based on recent feasibility analysis (Confidential Attachment A1) which indicates the TOD SEPP FSR provision is well below the ‘tipping point’ required for feasible development. This fact has been well understood since late 2023.
· The TOD SEPP applies a FSR of 2.5:1 and building height of 6-storeys to existing R4 – High Density Residential zones. The majority of these areas have been redeveloped with strata-titled apartment buildings varying widely in age, size and number of strata lots. This study assumes that where a building or group of buildings has been divided into more than ten (10) strata lots it is assumed that the property will not redevelop.
Based on previous feasibility studies undertaken by Council a FSR provision of 2.5:1 is considered well below the ‘tipping point’ required for feasible redevelopment of these sites. It is also assumed that buildings with strata schemes constructed in the last 15 years, even if <10 dwellings/owners, will not redevelop due to financial viability.
· The TOD SEPP applies to a range of non-residential properties including land owned by schools, churches, and hospitals. It is assumed these will not redevelop as most of these institutions are growing (and acquiring land) in Ku-ring-gai, rather than selling land. This will not always be the case necessarily. The majority of churches within the TOD area are heritage listed and therefore excluded, non-listed church buildings are also excluded.
· It is assumed service stations will not redevelop as there is a limited number of these businesses in Ku-ring-gai and they occupy highly visible and valuable locations along the Pacific Highway.
|
· Approved DAs – DAs approved under the KLEP for apartment buildings and townhouses are generally excluded as, at the time of writing, costs and risks associated with documenting a fresh DA and gaining development approval, may not be a financially attractive proposition. This assumption will in all likelihood need to be reviewed over time.
· Isolated sites – The TOD SEPP has a minimum lot width provision of 21m wide at the front building line. Numerous individual properties are technically “isolated” by this provision, as they could not be incorporated into a larger amalgamated site, often due to proximity to a heritage item or due to anomalies in the Transport Oriented Development Sites Map.
On 30 August 2024 figures were released by the NSW Government as a result of a Parliamentary Inquiry. The figures reveal an estimate of 22,580 new dwellings within 400 metres of the four Ku-ring-gai TOD stations within 15 years. This is higher than numbers previously released.
A comparison between Council and NSW Government estimates is set out below in Table 1. The difference between the two estimates is 2.7% or 620 dwellings, which indicates a high degree of correlation.
Table 1 – Comparison between Ku-ring-gai Council and NSW Government dwelling estimates
* This is a net figure and assumes average unit size of 90sqm
**Based on NSW Government figures released in August 2024 – assumptions not available.
2. Understanding development feasibility
Council engaged Atlas Economics to provide advice on whether the TOD controls are feasible in Ku-ring-gai, and if feasible, what would be the likely take-up of development (annually) that could occur. Refer Confidential Attachment A1 – Feasibility Advice – Transport Oriented Development – Gordon, Killara, Lindfield, Roseville.
In summary the study finds:
· Existing single dwellings in the R2 low density zones (including those within HCAs) are the most likely to redevelop under the TOD SEPP controls.
· Feasibility testing of sample sites indicates that the TOD controls are feasible and will offer a large premium (over and above existing use value) for landowners (the testing includes consideration of mandatory 2% Affordable Housing (AH) contributions).
· Given the premium on offer to landowners an average development take-up of 600-1000 new dwellings per year across the 4 centres could be expected. This rate is 3-5 times greater than the development peak in Ku-ring-gai, for the same area, during 2016-2021.
· Sites within the E1 Local Centres zones (e.g., retail strip, low-rise commercial) are unlikely to redevelop under the TOD as for the most part they require higher densities for redevelopment to be feasible.
· Informal discussions with selling agents indicate there is market uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the TOD controls.
· This uncertainty is observed to have dampened market take-up of development site sales thus far. Should the uncertainty be resolved developer interest is expected to be notable.
A map showing the locations of current properties on the market as development sites (as of October 2024) is included in Attachment 2 – Constraint Mapping and Housing Potential.
3. Defining a study area
The TOD SEPP applies across an area loosely defined by a 400m radius from a TOD station precinct. A property falls within the TOD Development Area when the arc of the circle ‘touches’ a property. This crude methodology results in numerous and serious transition impacts and anomalies at the interface between properties within the TOD and those outside.
Figure 1 illustrates this where the white dashed line is the 400-metre radius from the station, the red coloured properties are those within the TOD area, and the heavy red line shows where houses that are outside the TOD area are directly adjoining properties that may redevelop to 6 storeys.
Figure 1 – Avoiding the flaws of the TOD – Isolated properties and interface impacts
To avoid the flaws of the TOD SEPP, Council has defined Local Centre boundaries for the scenarios based on Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) which defines a Primary Local Centre by a circle with a radius of 800 metres representing a 10-minute ‘walkable’ distance to the station.
Figure 2 shows how the local centre boundary has been refined to consider walking times based on the layout of roads and footpaths and topography, as well as the natural elements of the area. The boundary is further refined to follow public roads to ensure any future changes to planning controls are not ‘mid-block’ or along property boundaries to allow an acceptable interface between areas of different density or use.
Figure 2 – Defining the local centre boundaries.
The local centre boundaries merge to form a corridor approximately 800 metres wide running parallel to the rail line. The northern boundary of the corridor is Mona Vale Road, and the southern boundary is the LGA boundary with Willoughby.
Figure 3 below illustrates the extent of the local centre boundary (in yellow) and the TOD area inset within.
Figure 3 – Local Centre boundaries and TOD Area
4. Analysing the constraints
· Environmental (Biodiversity, slope, bushfire, and riparian lands);
· Heritage Items;
· Heritage Conservation Areas; and
· Tree Canopy Cover.
A. Environmental Constraints
The TOD SEPP applies ‘blanket’ building height and density provisions across an urban area that contains a unique combination of soils, topography, vegetation, and fauna habitats supporting areas of high biodiversity significance.
Analysis reveals that the TOD SEPP identifies environmentally sensitive land (arguably incorrectly) as being suitable for high density housing.
Figure 4 shows an extract from the environmental constraints map (Attachment 2 – Constraints Mapping and Housing Potential). The red circles highlight sensitive areas (in grey) where the TOD SEPP currently applies.
Figure 4 – TOD SEPP identifies environmentally sensitive land as suitable for high density housing.
Ku-ring-gai’s LEP and DCP provides clear guidance in relation to management of land with significant vegetation and habitat, biodiversity corridors and waterways throughout the LGA. This study references the following:
Ku-ring-gai DCP:
· Part 16 – Bushfire Risk
· Part 17 – Riparian Lands
· Part 18 – Biodiversity and Part 18R – Greenweb Maps
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP):
· Terrestrial Biodiversity Map & Clause 6.3 Biodiversity Protection
· Riparian Lands & Watercourses Map & Clause 6.4
· Ku-ring-gai Bushfire Risk Evacuation Map
To avoid the flaws of the TOD, this study assumes the following:
– Properties with core biodiversity have no potential for additional housing;
– properties with 20% or more of the land area with Support for Core, Landscape Remnants and/or Biodiversity Corridors are constrained with some potential for additional housing subject to detailed analysis and ground-truthing;
– properties with more than 25% of the land area affected by Category 1 or 2 Riparian Lands are heavily constrained with no potential for additional housing;
– properties with more than 25% of the land area with a slope greater than 18% have no potential for additional housing;
– properties mapped as Bushfire Prone Vegetation Category 1 and 2 lands have no potential for additional housing; and
– properties immediately adjoining Bushfire Prone Vegetation Category 1 or 2 lands have no potential for additional housing.
B. Heritage items
The TOD SEPP increases heights and densities of all properties, except heritage items, SP2 reservations, and open space zones (RE1 and RE2), within a 400m radius of the TOD station precincts. There are 136 heritage items within the TOD Development Area and an additional 27 heritage items on edge of the TOD precincts.
Because the TOD SEPP map specifically excludes heritage items and provides no incentive for them to be included within future development sites, they are effectively isolated or ‘stranded’, meaning that all properties around them are permitted to seek development approval for redevelopment as 6-storey apartment buildings, risking the heritage items being surrounded and impacted by overshadowing, overlooking, and potentially significantly reducing property values.
Heritage items on the edge of the TOD station precincts may interface directly with 6-storey apartment buildings on one or more boundaries.
Figure 5 shows an extract from the heritage constraints map (refer Attachment 2 – Constraints Mapping and Housing Potential) the red circles highlight stranded or isolated heritage items (in purple) within the TOD Area.
Figure 5 – Heritage Items within the TOD Area are isolated and surrounded by 6-storey apartment buildings
The study finds several locations where there are few or no heritage items, the most notable being around Lindfield station with smaller areas around Gordon station.
The highest concentration of heritage items is found around Killara station, particularly on the eastern side of the rail line. The next highest concentration is on the eastern side of Roseville station. These areas are unsuitable for additional housing.
C. Heritage Conservation Areas
As a result of Ku-ring-gai’s historic pattern of development being concentrated along the northern railway line, the TOD SEPP amendments disproportionately impact on Ku-ring-gai’s cultural heritage.
For land within 400 metres of four train stations, the TOD SEPP directly impacts 23 listed heritage conservation areas, representing half the total conservation areas of Ku-ring-gai. Approximately 410 properties in HCAs are identified as TOD sites.
Figure 6 – Part of Roseville’s Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue heritage conservation area in c.1900-1927, viewed from the train line, now identified as TOD sites (Source: State Library)
The controls now applying to HCAs as a consequence of the TOD amendments are a building height of 22 metres (buildings of up to 6 storeys) and a maximum FSR of 2.5:1. As a result all properties within gazetted HCAs are arguably susceptible to demolition.
While the State Government has repeatedly claimed that heritage provisions will still apply to development within HCAs, Council’s analysis of dwelling yields indicates that it will not be possible for the TODs to deliver the dwelling numbers anticipated by the State Government without complete redevelopment of all HCAs.
Figure 7 shows extracts from the heritage constraints map (Attachment 2 – Constraints Mapping and Housing Potential) the red areas indicate where HCAs are included within the TOD Development Area.
Figure 7 – The TOD has identified HCAs as suitable for high density housing
To avoid the flaws of the TOD SEPP, Council’s study has undertaken a detailed analysis of Heritage Conservation Areas within the corridor to identify locations without HCAs that may be suitable for new housing.
Reference documents are the Ku-ring-gai DCP – Part 19 which applies to Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA); and the KLEP 2015 Heritage Map.
In summary:
· HCAs cover virtually the entire eastern side of the corridor (east of the northern railway line). These areas are not suitable for new housing;
· there are broad areas on the western side of the railway line within the 800-metre corridor that are free of HCAs and have potential for new housing; and
· there are small areas with no HCAs around Lindfield Station and to the north of Gordon Station.
D. Tree Canopy Cover
The TOD SEPP amendments will have significant impacts on canopy cover as it allows high density housing within areas that currently have an average canopy cover of about 34%. Furthermore, the TOD amendments provide minimal controls to protect existing trees or to require planting of new tall canopy trees. The result will be a significant loss of canopy cover in areas covered by the TOD SEPP amendments.
Figure 8 shows an extract from the tree canopy map (Attachment 2 – Constraints Mapping and Housing Potential), the red circles indicate where the TOD applies to areas with canopy cover over 30%.
Figure 8 – The TOD amendments allow high density housing in areas that currently have high canopy
cover to be replaced with minimal canopy protection
The Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 7 – Residential Flat Buildings provides strict controls for maintaining and increasing canopy cover. These controls have been in place since 2004 and have demonstrated significant efficacy.
The key controls include:
· Deep soil – a minimum of 40% (site area <1800sqm) or 50% (site area > 1800sqm) of site area is to be provided as landscape areas with minimal hard elements above and below ground.
· Site coverage – a maximum of 30% of a site that can be covered by the building excluding the basement.
· tree replacement – a requirement to plant tall canopy trees capable of attaining a mature height of at least 15-18m:
– 1 tree per 400m2 (site area <1,200sqm)
– 1 tree per 350m2 (site area 1,200-1,800sqm)
– 1 tree per 300m2 (site area >1,800sqm)
The TOD SEPP does not provide any specific guidance on deep soil but refers to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which requires a minimum of 7% of site area as deep soil and a 0% site coverage control.
Council’s definition of deep soil is also more specific than the ADG with limits on path widths, walls, and other hard elements.
The TOD SEPP also has a significantly reduced requirement for tree planting when compared to Council’s DCP.
As an example, a typical development site of say 2,000sqm:
· Under the TOD SEPP the minimum deep soil requirement would be 140 sqm compared with the KDCP which requires a minimum of 1,000sqm of deep soil; equating to 860sqm less deep soil.
· Under the TOD SEPP, tree planting requirements would be 1-2 large trees compared with the KDCP tree planting requirements of 6-7 large trees.
5. Determining housing potential
By overlaying the various constraint maps, analysis reveals large areas of suitable locations within the 800-metre corridor, where housing could be transferred to, so that HCAs may be protected. Refer Attachment 2 – Constraints Mapping and Housing Potential.
In summary the areas with the greatest housing potential are:
· To the west of the railway within the broader 800m corridor;
· the commercial areas close to the rail stations (noting that these locations will require increased building height to accommodate additional dwellings); and
· small pockets on the eastern and western sides of the railway within the 400m area around Lindfield, Roseville, and Gordon.
Overall Lindfield and Gordon have the greatest potential while Killara then Roseville have the least potential. Council’s LSPS and various iterations of a housing strategy also recognise these facts.
6. Defining planning principles
To avoid the flaws made by the TOD SEPP amendments, the preparation of alternative TOD station precinct scenarios is guided by a set of planning principles that respond to issues raised in the previous sections of this report:
Principle 1 – Avoid areas that are environmentally sensitive
Avoid locating high density residential in the following environmentally sensitive areas:
· Properties with core biodiversity have no potential for additional housing;
· properties with 20% or more of the land area with Support for Core, Landscape Remnants and/or Biodiversity Corridors are constrained with some potential for additional housing subject to detailed analysis and ground-truthing;
· properties with more than 25% of the land area affected by Category 1 or 2 Riparian Lands are heavily constrained with no potential for additional housing;
· properties with less than 25% of the land area affected by Category 1 or 2 Riparian Lands are constrained with some potential for additional housing subject to detailed analysis and ground-truthing;
· properties with more than 25% of the land area with a slope greater than 18% have no potential for additional housing;
· properties mapped as Bushfire Prone Vegetation Category 1 and 2 lands have no potential for additional housing; and
· properties immediately adjoining Bushfire Prone Vegetation Category 1 or 2 lands have no potential for additional housing.
Figure 9 – Environmentally sensitive lands to be avoided
Principle 2 – Minimise impacts on Heritage Items
· Avoid locating new high density residential in areas with high concentrations of heritage items (HIs).
· Where HIs are within TOD high density residential areas they are to be integrated within future development by:
– being allocated the same or similar development rights as adjoining properties;
– being required to be amalgamated with adjoining development sites such that they do not become “isolated”; and
– being further protected by mandatory masterplans for affected areas.
· In the worst-case scenario consideration of de-listing may be warranted subject to owner-initiated review of heritage significance.
Figure 10 illustrates how the TOD isolates heritage items marked with a red cross contrasted with Council’s approach which will ensure heritage items will be integrated into future development.
Figure 10 – TOD isolates heritage items
Figures 11 and 12 below describe in detail Council’s approach to heritage items. Under the TOD (Figure 11), heritage items (shown in blue) are isolated with an estimated dwelling yield for the residential block of 589 dwellings.
Figure 11 – TOD isolates heritage items
Figure 12 shows heritage items retained and given development rights equal to other properties with the block, and in this way integrated into future development. The residential block is given reduced densities (1.3:1 to 1.8:1) and flexible building height range (5-8 storeys). This will allow suitable setbacks to development and stepping of building heights. The estimated dwelling yield for the block is reduced to about 342 dwellings. The loss of 247 dwellings (Figure 10) is then transferred to other suitable non-heritage areas.
Figure 12 – Council’s approach to integrating heritage items
Principle 3 – Preserve Heritage Conservation Areas
The overall principle is to prioritise the protection of HCAs by transferring the potential dwelling yield to suitable non-heritage areas.
Council’s resolution of 8 May requires consideration of scenarios where some or all HCAs are to be protected:
“Minor Amendment Case…. selectively spare key Heritage Conservation Areas….”
“More Extensive Case… save multiple Heritage Conservation Areas…”
This gives rise to contradictory planning principles as all HCAs are assumed to be of equal value and worthy of protection under NSW Heritage Council criteria for local heritage significance.
Therefore, it is not possible to select HCAs that are “more” or “less” worthy of protection.
To address this, an independent review of 28 listed conservation areas within 800 metres of the TOD station precincts of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville by TKD Architects was commissioned. Refer Attachment A3 – Draft Ku-ring-gai Southern Heritage Conservation Area Review, October 2024.
The purpose of the review was to confirm whether the 28 existing heritage conservation area boundaries were appropriate based on current NSW heritage industry practice and standards. A survey of HCAs was undertaken between July and October 2024.
The draft review was completed in October 2024 and confirms that all 28 conservation areas are worthy of protection. Some boundary revisions are recommended for either merger, increase, or decrease. The more significant boundary adjustments recommended include:
· Extend the boundaries of the Robert Street/Khartoum Avenue HCA (C39) to include the properties on the northern side of Khartoum Avenue; and
· reduce the boundaries of the Garden of Roseville Estate HCA (C37) to remove the properties on the southern side of Bromborough Road.
To understand the relative significance of Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs in a wider Sydney context, Council prepared a comparative study. This study was also completed in October 2024.
The study finds that Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs have no equal for demonstrating the development of Sydney’s suburbs during the twentieth century, in terms of the cohesive and intact Federation and inter-war housing, the singular pattern of development along the rail line spine, and high proportion of architect designed dwellings. Refer Attachment A4 – Comparative Study: Conservation areas of Ku-ring-gai and Sydney suburbs, October 2024.
The principle for the “minor amendment case” is to protect selected HCAs based on planning considerations rather than heritage considerations. The considerations are to prioritise protection of HCAs:
· High concentration of heritage items;
· that are located more than 200m from the rail station; and
· that are contiguous with adjoining HCAs outside the 800-metre study boundary.
Figure 13 contrasts the loss of HCAs under the TOD with how Council’s approach to protecting HCAs by transferring potential dwellings to commercial areas.
Figure 13 – HCAs preserved by transferring potential dwellings to commercial areas
Principle 4 – Minimise impacts on the tree canopy
The key principle is to improve canopy protection and replenishment in new high-density residential areas by reducing densities of apartment buildings (when compared to the TOD SEPP) and include similar controls to Council’s DCP relating to deep soil (40-50%), site coverage (maximum 30%), and tree replacement.
New high density residential areas will have a range of allowable heights from 5-8 storeys and density range of 1.3:1 to 1.8:1 to allow flexibility to accommodate heritage items, existing trees, and riparian lands.
It is noted that reducing densities of apartment buildings will require more building height or more spread to accommodate the same number of dwellings.
Figure 14 contrasts the loss of canopy under the TOD amendments with Council’s existing approach to protecting canopy by allowing more flexible development controls and introducing deep soil and site coverage controls.
By way of example, the current KLEP has a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 for apartment buildings which is about 50% lower than the TOD SEPP which has an FSR of 2.5:1.
In the first case, twice the area would need to be allocated for new housing in Council’s scenarios to match the TOD. The spread could be reduced by increasing the FSR to a range of 1.5:1-1.8:1 with increased building height to between 5-8 storeys and retaining minimum requirements for deep soil, site coverage, building setbacks and tree replacement. The intention is not to achieve the same dwelling yield within a block as the TOD SEPP as this would result in excessive heights.
It is noted that Councillors’ requested staff to calculate the impacts on canopy for each of the scenarios. Time constraints for reporting have meant this information is not currently available however the information will form part of the exhibition material.
Figure 14 – Improved canopy protection
Principle 5 – Manage transition impacts
The key principles are:
· to ensure any future changes to planning controls allow for an acceptable interface between areas of different density or use;
· to avoid changes that are ‘mid-block’ or along property boundaries;
· to utilise existing roads, lanes or open space as the transition from high density to low density; and if required; and
· to create a new road, lane, walkway or open space as a transition boundary.
Figure 15 illustrates this principle on the left where TOD sites (shown in red) abut single houses (shown in blue). The diagram on the right shows how these transition impacts can be managed by extending the development area and/or adding new roads as transitions.
Figure 15 – Managing transition impacts
Principle 6 – Ensure appropriate building heights
The TOD amendments will result in uniform building heights across the centres at the cost of tree canopy and heritage. This principle is based on the understanding that increasing building heights in the centres is necessary for both the protection of HCAs and tree canopy.
Building height will be managed by:
· Ensuring building heights are appropriate to the regional, district and local context:
Figure 16 shows the four TOD station precincts in Ku-ring-gai sit between a number of strategic centres with building heights ranging in LEP height from 250m (approx. 70-75 storeys) in Chatswood, 110m (30-35 storeys) in Hornsby and Macquarie Park, 45m (12-14 storeys) in Frenchs Forest, and 70m (20-22 storeys) in Epping and Dee Why.
Figure 16 – LEP building heights across the northern region
Building height will be managed by:
· Using building heights to reflect the hierarchy between the centres where Gordon is the largest centre with the greatest heights; Lindfield is the second largest centre; Roseville third largest and Killara is the smallest centre with the lowest heights.
· Locating the tallest buildings on centrally located mixed-use sites close to the rail station including the Gordon Centre and Council’s Community Hub Sites in Lindfield and Gordon.
· Transitioning building heights from tallest in the centre closest to the station to lowest on edges to provide a transition to surrounding low density areas.
Principle 7 – Support Local Centre Revitalisation
The TOD Program is not a centres policy, it is just a housing policy. It includes no incentives or initiatives to expand or augment commercial and community facilities or services within TOD station precincts. Arguably, it perversely disincentivises the provision of non-residential uses in nominated TOD centres.
The Atlas Economics study (Confidential Attachment A1) finds that the sites within the E1 Local Centres zones, typically the two storey buildings along the retail strip and low-rise commercial buildings, are unlikely to redevelop under the TOD amendments as for the most part they require higher densities for redevelopment to be feasible. Evidence of this is shown by example below:
Example 1
– Owners of the Gordon Centre in Gordon have submitted a formal planning proposal pre-lodgement meeting request for redevelopment of the centre with building heights between 15-26 storeys and an FSR of 8.0:1.
Example 2
– A planning proposal submitted by the owners of a two-storey commercial building at 345 Pacific Highway, Lindfield seeks building heights of 15 storeys and an FSR over 4.0:1
What these examples show is that the TOD amendments are likely to create a ‘donut’ effect whereby high-density residential development will occur around the commercial centre while the centre remains unchanged. This will result in a lack of amenities for a growing population. Furthermore, if the TOD amendments remain in place, Council will likely continue to receive planning proposals from landowners within the E1 zone for new developments with significant building heights, see Figure 17.
Figure 17 – The TOD will create a “hole in the donut” and not support revitalisation of the centres
Council will support revitalisation of the centres by:
· Promoting mixed-use development that incorporates speciality retail and supermarkets to address the undersupply of retail across the LGA;
· supporting redevelopment of key sites in the centres including the Gordon Civic Hub, Lindfield Village Hub, and the Gordon Centre through provision of appropriate building height and FSR (subject to feasibility modelling); and
· utilising Council land as a catalyst for revitalisation and delivery of community infrastructure such as new libraries, open space and community centres.
E1 commercial zones should have:
· Building height for sites in the commercial zones of greater than 8 storeys; and
· a maximum FSR for sites in the E1 commercial zones of greater than 3.0:1, subject to detailed feasibility analysis, see Figure 18.
Figure 18 – Council scenarios will promote revitalisation of the centres
Assumptions & Limitations
Preparation of the scenarios has involved making a range of assumptions and limitations, these are set out below.
Scenarios
· The options presented in this report represent high-level scenario planning only.
· Built form modelling has not been undertaken. This work will commence post-February 2025 if Council adopts a preferred scenario for further development into a planning proposal.
· The primary objectives of the scenarios presented is to test whether it is possible to protect all HCAs and a greater percentage of tree canopy by transferring dwellings to alternative suitable locations.
· The scenarios are designed to assist Council and the community in deciding whether they are willing to trade building height for protection of HCAS as well as achieve other best-practice planning outcomes such as canopy protection.
3D Model
· A 3D model has been prepared that is intended to assist Councillors and the public understand and visualise what it would look like to move dwellings from one place to another.
· The model uses volumes that represent dwellings numbers – NOT actual buildings.
· The volumes are defined by:
– site boundaries in the case of large sites or;
– street blocks in the case of residential areas and;
– a height assumption in metres (refer built form principles);
– an FSR assumption (refer built form principles) is added to the volume to generate Gross Floor Area (GFA); and
– an average dwelling size of 90sqm is used to calculate total dwellings in the volume.
· The model is iterative so height and FSR adjusted backwards and forwards to achieve required dwelling yield.
Limitations
· The model uses volumes that represent potential dwellings – NOT buildings.
· All scenarios are indicative only and are subject to further detailed modelling and to further refinement and investigations.
· Detailed feasibility analysis has not been undertaken at this stage. This will be undertaken once Council has selected a preferred option, at the same time as built form modelling is underway. Assumptions may change as a result.
Dwelling Numbers
· Council’s estimate of 23,200 dwellings has been adopted as the target yield across the 4 centres.
· This does not include additional dwellings that may be delivered under the in-fill affordable housing provisions in the Housing SEPP which provides a floor space ratio (FSR) bonus of 20–30% and a height bonus of 20–30% for projects that include at least 10-15% of gross floor area (GFA) as affordable housing. This may result in significant additional dwellings and building height and density.
Built Form
· The model is not an accurate representation of height or FSR on any one site.
· Height and FSR are applied based on broad principles and are subject to detailed feasibility analysis.
· E1 commercial zones have heights between 8 storeys and 45 storeys and an FSR range of 3.0:1 to 10:1.
· Heights in E1 Commercial zones do not include retail and commercial GFA and actual building heights maybe 1-2 storeys greater to accommodate this GFA.
· New high density residential areas have heights of 5-8 storeys with a FSR range of 1.5:1-1.8:1 to allow for minimum 40-50% deep soil and minimum 30% site coverage.
· Where TOD areas are retained, they have heights of 6 storeys, FSR of 2.5:1, 7% deep soil, 0% site coverage.
· Where new high density residential areas are outside the TOD Development Area, the prospective Low and Mid-Rise SEPP, which has baseline FSR of 0.8:1, has been taken into account and the potential dwelling yield from the LMR SEPP has been discounted from the total dwelling yield of the scenario.
· Building heights do not take into account the 20-30% bonus height bonus available under the in-fill affordable housing provisions in the Housing SEPP
7. Preparing draft scenarios
Four scenarios have been prepared for each of the centres impacted by the TOD SEPP. In terms of how they relate to Council’s resolution from 08 May 2024:
Base Case (TOD SEPP) = Scenario 1
Minor Amendment Case = Scenario 2
More Extensive Case = Scenarios 3a and 3b
The Scenarios are described below, and diagrams are provided in Attachment A5 – TOD and Alternative Scenarios.
Scenario 1 – TOD SEPP – Status Quo
Scenario 1 is not an option as such because the TOD controls are in place now. It is included for comparative purposes only
Scenario 1 is better described as Council’s interpretation of what development might look like as a result of the TOD controls. Attachment A5 – TOD and Alternative Scenarios.
While the assumptions are described in detail in this report the following is noted:
· As noted previously in this report about 40% of the lands affected by the TOD are considered unlikely to redevelop for a range of reasons.
· Scenario 1 shows land that Council anticipates will develop because of the TOD SEPP, these are shown coloured and the areas where no change is assumed are left blank (no change) in the diagram.
· While the TOD SEPP allows 6-storey apartment buildings and 7-storey shop-top housing buildings, Scenario 1 does not show 7-storey buildings because as noted previously in this report redevelopment within the E1 zone (shop-top housing) is considered unlikely due to feasibility under TOD controls.
Key Features
· Provides no protection for Heritage Items– not consistent with Principle 2
· Provides no protection for HCAs – not consistent with Principle 3
· Provides minimal protection for tree canopy – not consistent with Principle 4
· Creates transition impacts – not consistent with Principle 5
· Uniform building heights and density – not consistent with Principle 6
· TOD controls not feasible in E1 commercial zones – not consistent with Principle 7
Summary of Key Statistics
· Building heights 6 storeys (22 metres)
· Density FSR 2.5:1
· Number of dwellings 23,200 (based on Council estimates)
· Extent wholly within TOD boundary (generally 400 metres from station)
· HCAs protected 0%
Alternative Scenario 2 – Safeguard And Intensify
Scenario 2 stays largely within the TOD boundary (400 metres) but instead of maintaining uniform building heights like the TOD it increases building heights in the commercial centres to protect HCAs. Refer Attachment A5 – TOD and Alternative Scenarios
Key Features
· By transferring dwellings to the E1 commercial zones this option safeguards a large proportion of HCAs (78%) across the TOD areas.
· Improvements in canopy protection are achieved by transferring dwellings from HCAs to the commercial areas and by changing TOD controls including reduced densities, flexibility in height and deep soil controls as per Principle 4.
· Heritage items are protected by removing TOD controls from surrounding areas or allocating development rights as per Principle 2.
· Transition impacts are managed by expanding or contracting development boundary as per Principle 5.
· Increased building heights and density in commercial zones will support revitalisation as per Principle 7.
· Maximum building heights – Gordon 25 storeys, Killara 10 storeys, Lindfield 15 storeys & Roseville 12 storeys.
· Building height range 5-25 storeys
· Density range FSR 1.3:1 to 8.0:1
· Number of dwellings 23,200 (= TOD SEPP)
· Extent largely within TOD boundary (generally 400m from rail station)
· HCAs protected 78%
Alternative Scenario 3a – Preserve & Intensify
Scenario 3a (Refer Attachment A5 – TOD and Alternative Scenarios) works largely within the TOD boundary and in the same way as Scenario 2 transfers dwellings primarily to the E1 commercial zones. The building heights are significantly taller, when compared to scenario 2, because:
· Dwellings are transferred from the smaller centres of Roseville and Killara to the larger centres of Gordon and Lindfield; and
· this option protects all heritage conservation areas.
Key Features
· Preserves 100% of existing HCAs in the TOD areas by transferring dwellings to areas within 400m of the rail stations – primarily to the commercial zones.
· Provides added protection to the smaller centres of Killara and Roseville by transferring dwellings to the larger centres.
· Improvements in canopy protection are achieved by transferring dwellings from HCAs to the commercial areas and by changing TOD controls including reduced densities, flexibility in height and deep soil controls as per Principle 4.
· Heritage items are protected by removing TOD controls from surrounding areas or allocating development rights as per Principle 2.
· Transition impacts are managed by expanding or contracting development boundary as per Principle 5.
· Building heights exceed heights in larger centres like Hornsby – not consistent with Principle 6
· Increased building heights and density in commercial zones will support revitalisation as per Principle 7.
· Maximum building heights – Gordon 45 storeys, Killara 15 storeys, Lindfield 35 storeys & Roseville 25 storeys.
Key Statistics
· Building height range 5-45 storeys
· Density range FSR 1.3:1 to 10.0:1
· Number of dwellings 23,200 (= TOD SEPP)
· Extent mostly within TOD boundary (generally 400 metres from station)
· HCAs protected 100%
· Maximum building heights Gordon 25 storeys, Killara 10 storeys, Lindfield 15 storeys & Roseville 12 storeys.
Alternative Scenario 3b – Preserve, Intensify & Expand
Scenario 3b extends the planning boundary to 800 metres from the rail station and in the same way as Scenario 2 and 3a transfers dwellings to the E1 commercial zones to protect HCAs. This option also transfers dwellings, as per scenario 3a, from the smaller centres of Roseville and Killara to the larger centres of Gordon and Lindfield. Building heights are lower in Scenario 3b when compared to Scenario 3a, because new development areas are added on the periphery. Refer Attachment A5 – TOD and Alternative Scenarios.
Key features
· Preserves 100% of HCAs in the TOD areas by transferring dwellings to areas within the 400m & 800m of the rail stations as per Principle 3.
· In addition, an area in Gordon has also been protected as it is recommended as an extension to the Robert Street/ Khartoum Avenue Heritage Conservation Area (C39) by the Draft Ku-ring-gai Southern Heritage Conservation Area Review, October 2024.
· Provides added protection to the smaller centres of Killara and Roseville by transferring dwellings to Gordon and Lindfield.
· Heritage items are protected by removing TOD controls from surrounding areas or allocating development rights as per Principle 2.
· Improvements in canopy protection are achieved by transferring dwellings from HCAs to the commercial areas and by changing TOD controls including reduced densities, flexibility in height and deep soil controls as per Principle 4.
· Transition impacts are managed by expanding or contracting development boundary as per Principle 5.
· Building heights are managed appropriately consistent with Principle 6.
· Increased building heights and density in commercial zones will support revitalisation as per Principle 7.
· Maximum building heights – Gordon 20 storeys, Killara 6 storeys, Lindfield 15 storeys & Roseville 8 storeys.
Key Statistics
· Building height range 5-20 storeys
· Density range FSR 1.3:1 to 8.0:1
· Number of dwellings 23,200 (= TOD SEPP)
· Extent Local Centre boundary (generally 800 metres from rail station)
· HCAs protected 100%
8. Summary of Scenarios
Scenario 1 is the base case. If Council decides not to proceed with one of the alternative scenarios either 2, 3a or 3b, then Scenario 1 will stay in place and the negative impacts described in this report, and earlier reports and presentations to the community, will likely eventuate.
· Scenario 2 achieves good planning outcomes in relation to most principles. The main disadvantage is that it does not protect all HCAs;
· Scenario 3a achieves good planning outcomes in relation to most principles however building heights are not consistent with Principle 6; and
· Scenario 3b achieves good planning outcomes and is consistent with all the principles described in this report.
Figures 19 and 20 show comparisons of the scenarios in terms of % of HCAs protected and comparative building heights.
Figure 19 – Percentage of HCAs protected – comparison of scenarios
Figure 20 – Building heights – comparison of scenarios
Table 2 illustrates how each of the scenarios perform against the principles described in this report, where:
Green = acceptable outcome
Orange = poor outcome
Red = unacceptable outcome
Table 2 – performance of scenarios against the principles
9. Infrastructure
Development that increases the total number of dwellings within the TOD Areas are subject to s7.11 contributions under Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 for the provision of local infrastructure such as new parks, upgrades to existing park and some sporting facilities courts, community floorspace, public domain works, traffic and intersection upgrades, and new streets.
The local centres catchments along the railway lines currently continue to benefit from an exemption from the contributions cap that was first applied by Ministerial Direction in 2009 limiting total contributions to $20,000 for each dwelling. The current average rate per dwelling collected by Council is just under $35,000 per two-bedroom dwelling.
However, that exemption does apply to the areas of higher density which are now included in the defined areas of the TOD amendments.
With the introduction of the TOD SEPP in May 2024 the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 requires formal review so that Council can capture the maximum number of contributions. A review will run concurrent with the TOD scenarios strategic planning processes, whether or not in the form of a Council initiated alternative as advocated in this report, or the TOD Program as gazetted.
For Council to maintain comparable contribution rates going forward, the revised contributions plan will also need to be reviewed by the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). This limits the types of infrastructure that Council can levy for to a defined ‘Essential Works list’.
The Essential Works List is specified by IPART and is limited to the following public amenities or public services:
· Land for open space;
· land for community facilities;
· land and facilities for transport;
· land and facilities for stormwater management; and
· the costs of contributions plan preparation and management.
The essential works list is relevant only to those contributions plans that propose a contribution level above the relevant cap of $20,000 per dwelling.
Separate reporting on local infrastructure planning can go into this in more detail as the review progresses, however core detail as it relates to the TOD scenarios in this report are provided below.
New parks
Ku-ring-gai is characterised by natural areas and bounded by National Parks but historical development patterns around the oldest areas around the local railway stations provided for relatively fewer local parks in the areas where densification has already been occurring and will be significantly increased under the TOD SEPP.
The current contributions plan levies at a rate of 2.75 sqm per capita for local parklands and playgrounds (excluding sports fields and bushland area) . Over the life of this contributions plan, Council is on track to meet its delivery programme with the delivery so far of a number of new parks:
· Balcombe Park;
· Curtilage Park;
· Cameron Park;
· Boyds Orchard Park;
· Lapwing Reserve;
· Greengate Park, create;
· Lindfield Village Green;
· Bedes Forest (in progress); and
· Lindfield Village Hub park (in progress).
Additional acquisition of land for new parks in is underway in Roseville and Pymble.
The current rate of provision, which is already at a discounted rate, is unlikely to be sustainable in the TOD areas.
The increase in land values generally over the last decade and especially in the upzoned areas, as well as the unavailability of suitable land even on the periphery of the upzoned areas, means that it is cost-prohibitive to maintain this rate and also levy for public domain works and traffic & transport works, as well as any new impacts arising from the TOD Program (stormwater in particular).
A revised plan will need to consider reducing the rate of provision per capita but maintaining a comparable total land acquisition rate as Council has historically provided.
Over the life of the current s7.11 contributions plan, Ku-ring-gai Council has acquired 25,154sqm of land for new parks across Ku-ring-gai, focused in and around the local centres in areas of identified under-provision in the Open Space Acquisition Strategy, which represents approximately 78% to date of the original target at 2.75sqm per capita.
To maintain this rate would require acquisitions ranging from 71,104sqm to 166,667sqm in the TOD areas alone, at rates ranging upwards from an average of $5,400/sqm to date (in 2024 $) to approaching five figures in the up-zoned TOD areas – which simply is not feasible in terms of the total cost, the quantum of land available to acquire, and a resulting contribution rate that would crowd out funding of other infrastructure programs.
Reducing the per capita rate of provision to reflect similar rates of total acquisition and delivery as the current delivery programme, would result in a target delivery of two to three new parks per TOD area, which would need to be strategically placed and well-designed to cater for intensive demand, would also be difficult.
Further analysis and refinements will proceed around any preferred scenarios for exhibition for future reporting to council.
An analysis has been undertaken to determine which areas are poorly provided with a quality park within the industry standard of an 800-metre walking distance. All of the TOD areas are within priority catchments, notwithstanding some existing and recently provided parks, there is still work to be done, especially as redevelopment pressure increases.
Multi-unit housing places even greater demands on local parks because of the limited amount of private open space that can feasibly be provided to residents. Access to informal recreation is essential for the health and liveability of high-density areas, as well as providing a space that builds community connections.
Sporting Facilities
The recently completed Ku-ring-gai Open Space and Recreation Needs Study will guide delivery of Ku-ring-gai’s open space and recreation needs and support a review of the s7.11 Contribution Plan, however, the growth predictions may now be significantly under-estimated as the implications of the TOD SEPP could be a potential increase in the resident population of up to 30% as compared to 5.1% between 2016 and 2021.
The open space and recreation needs study identified key priorities for Ku-ring-gai’s open space network to meet the future needs of the community including:
· Sports are still in high demand, but non-traditional sports are emerging. Local sporting clubs and peak bodies indicated that participation in organised sport remains popular in the Ku-ring-gai LGA, reporting a 41% increase in participation in the past five years. There is also increasing demand for spaces for informal social team sports, emerging games such as Padel and pickleball, as well as demands for more spaces for womens’ sports. This means sportsfields and sports spaces can no longer be single purpose or single code to meet needs.
The final report in 2023 for the Review of Supply and Demand for Sports Facilities in the NSROC region identified there is a significant shortfall in the provision of sporting facilities across the entire region and specifically areas impacted by the increase urban density around the transport corridors. As this report was completed in August of 2023 the impacts of the potential TOD sites were not considered however this significant population increase by up to 30% would put further pressures on the current provision levels.
Based on the modelling undertaken for the review, there is a need to increase the current supply capacity of the NSROC sports facilities by around 40% to 2026 (equivalent to 181Ha of total space) and to 49% to 2036 (equivalent to 222Ha of total space) prior to the impacts of the TOD. For Ku-ring-gai with the current supply of 104.95Ha with a demand of 128.32Ha by 2026, a shortfall of 23.37Ha. By 2036 the demand equates to 133.22Ha a shortfall of 28.27Ha. This would be equivalent to the entire Gordon Golf Course being playing surfaces.
Preliminary analysis suggests that maintaining current rates of provision of courts (including both tennis and netball courts) range from 30 to 40 new courts. Costs would depend on council’s capacity to utilise existing land. The cost of land acquisition for new sports ovals has always been cost prohibitive, including under the current contributions plan. As such, continuing to investigate ways of extending the usability of current fields by lighting and more robust surfaces needs to continue.
Community floorspace
The future capacity for Ku-ring-gai to levy for community floorspace is most at risk in the Government’s most recent review of development contributions. The Essential Works List does not permit levying for the construction of community facilities – only for the acquisition of land. The previous NSW Government was giving some consideration to the definition of strata floorspace (without fit-out) as land, but the views of the present administration are not clear.
Just to maintain current rates of per capita provision of community facilities would require targets ranging from an additional 680sqm to 1,600sqm of library floorspace and 1,200sqm to 2,850sqm of community floorspace. To place that demand in context, Council currently supports library floorspace totalling 3,321sqm across four facilities.
Regardless of whether or not the capacity to levy for strata floorspace (without fit out) is legally constrained, Council will still need to target more innovative approaches including leveraging its own land holdings and value capture.
Key Council sites include Turramurra Village, the Lindfield Community Hub site, the Turramurra Hub site and the land holdings around the St Ives local centre as well as some of its larger car parks.
Public Domain Works
Public Domain works are not explicitly defined in the Essential Works List but they are inherently part of the road environment. The Essential Works List arguably reflects having been drafted for a greenfield development scenario and is a poor fit for the highly pedestrianised densely redeveloping central areas around transport hubs. Public domain works also have a dual role as the provision of civic spaces blurs the role between traditional parks and wide footpaths serving dual transport and recreation roles. This is efficient but poorly clarified in the Essential Works List.
Civic/urban spaces play an important role in providing a gathering place for people of all ages and backgrounds in urban settings. They serve a variety of functions, including hosting events, festivals, and markets, as well as providing a space for people to socialise, relax, and enjoy the outdoors.
Despite the Ku-ring-gai’s increasing density, there is only one new civic/urban space, Lindfield Village Green – its success indicating a need to provide more of these spaces in the future in support of intensive redevelopment of the type to result from the current TOD Program or alternatives that Council may consider. The program to develop civic & urban spaces under the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2022 (which replaced the 2010 version) will continue to address this need. These public domain plans will need to be revisited in the context of any preferred scenario(s) or the TOD as gazette, with particular reference to increased pedestrian traffic accessing the stations and also in consideration of the dual role to complement to reduced rate of increased provision of local parks. Cost estimates will need to be commissioned relatively late in the process as these will date quickly. Preliminary discussions to justify the nexus of including these works will need to commence with IPART as soon as feasible.
New Streets, Public Transport and Intersection treatments
This type of infrastructure is supported by the Essential Works List and, as described in traffic studies which will examine the impact of increased traffic generation arising from the TOD Program, identify mitigating works required. Council will commission cost estimates and include them in a draft works programme for the contributions plan together with their supporting nexus case. Unlike other contributions, these contributions are not levied pro rata per capita but by defined rates of traffic generation.
10. Next Steps
If Council endorses one or more of the scenarios for public exhibition this will be held for one month from mid-November to mid-December 2024. The diagram below shows a broad program which should be considered indicative at the time of writing this report.
Following exhibition, a report will be prepared that considers the outcomes of community engagement and recommends a preferred option. This report will come to Council in February 2025, in accordance with the time parameters set by Council at its meeting of 8 May 2024.
If adopted by Council, the recommended preferred scenario would form the basis for preparing a planning proposal in 2025.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme – Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
| Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective | Delivery ProgramTerm Achievement | Operational PlanTask |
| P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai | P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development | P2.1.1.1 Commence development of plans and strategies as required by the Greater Sydney Commission’s North District Plan. |
Governance Matters
Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting documents are based on a set of long-standing community values and aspirations which will fundamentally be undermined by implementation of the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program and proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP.
Risk Management
Council sought advice from Michael Hall SC in relation to likely operation of the proposed transport-oriented development program and changes to create low and mid-rise housing.
The summary of conclusions of Michael Hall SC is:
It is not possible to express firm conclusions, because of the lack of detail of the proposed policies particularly in relation to transport oriented development. But using the available information, my conclusions are:
(i) The proposals will have a significant impact on future development in the affected areas, and will greatly reduce Council’s ability to maintain the values reflected in the heritage conservation area listings.
(ii) Some existing planning controls in those areas, including minimum lot sizes and prohibitions on multi-occupancy, will be wholly disapplied. In effect, most protections for heritage or environmental values in the HCA’s which are currently reflected in prohibitions on types of development will instead be protected only as considerations in a merits review.
(iii) Other existing planning controls, including Part 5.10 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan, will continue to apply and to be required to be taken into account in assessing development proposals. However, a consent authority or the Court on appeal will also be required to take into account the fact that new types of housing, multi-occupancies, much smaller lot sizes and significantly greater height and FSR restrictions are now expressly permitted in the relevant areas. A consent authority will not be able to apply Part 5.10, or any other provision of the LEP, mechanically but will need to assess those matters in balance with the relevant proposed policies.
(iv) Overall, it appears inevitable that the character of the built and natural environment in the affected areas will change significantly and that neither the consent authority nor local residents will be able to prevent such changes.
Financial Considerations
The preparation of the TOD Scenarios has required significant staff resources, additional studies and programs to prepare and review the information e.g., Development Feasibility Study, Traffic Studies, Heritage Conservation area assessments and computer Urban Design programs.
These have been funded primarily from the Urban Planning & Design Budget within the Strategy Department at the expense of budgeted programs and initiatives. The costs for community consultation are separate and dealt with elsewhere on this EMC agenda.
Council’s Long Term Financial Plan is based significantly on capital works programs included in the approved s7.11 and s7.12 contributions plans. Works are costed, scheduled, and coordinated based on forecast dwelling production. The Long-Term Financial Plan will need to be significantly reworked in order to reflect implementation of the TOD Program perhaps in a far less orderly manner than has occurred in the past.
Meetings with the Department in relation to the TOD Program indicate a perhaps unreasonable assumption that development contributions will be available to deal with all infrastructure issues arising from additional housing. This is certainly not the experience of most councils in the past, particularly in the middle ring suburbs of Sydney.
It appears likely that in time there may be significant additional cost shifting arising from implementation of the TOD SEPP initiatives as the call on development contributions to fund various program initiatives becomes broader and ongoing exemptions from the contributions cap cannot be guaranteed going forward.
Social Considerations
The TOD SEPP and the proposed alternatives will all require new social infrastructure meet the requirements for increases in population this includes new parks, upgrades to existing parks, sporting facilities, community floorspace, public domain works and traffic and transport upgrades an overview of the required social infrastructure and future requirements is included in section 9 Infrastructure of this report.
Environmental Considerations
Heritage Studies
For heritage considerations, Council has undertaken further investigation of the subject heritage conservation areas in relation to their heritage listing (refer to attached Heritage Conservation Area Review, Attachment A4) and broader significance (refer to Comparative Study, Attachment A3). Both draft reports were completed in October 2024.
Council also reviewed and improved the non-statutory information about these and other Council conservation areas on the online State Heritage Inventory from 2023 to 2024, in line with Heritage NSW best practice and as reported to Heritage Reference Committee.
Traffic and Transport Studies
Multi-modal transport network models are being developed as part of Transport Impact Assessments (TIA) for the 4 TOD station precincts to inform and guide future transport infrastructure planning. An assessment of the existing transport network in the precincts will be undertaken first, to identify current issues. Following this, analysis of the impacts of the NSW Government’s TOD SEPP controls on the transport network will be undertaken, which is planned to be completed by December 2024. If Council adopts an alternative scenario to the TOD SEPP for public exhibition, it will also be assessed for its transport impacts, and this is likely to occur in early 2025.
The final stage of the TIAs will recommend and assess the impacts of new transport infrastructure or upgrades to support either the Government’s TOD SEPP or Council’s alternative scenario if one is adopted. During the development of the TIAs, collaboration is required with Transport for NSW (and other transport stakeholders), as traffic signals, traffic facilities or modification to state roads requires approval from Transport for NSW. One of the premises of transport-oriented development is walkable access to the centres, and particular attention will be paid to planning and prioritising safe active travel to/from the centres and taking into account public domain plans where they exist for the TOD Precincts. New or upgraded transport infrastructure may include new or modified traffic signals, new pedestrian and cycling facilities, traffic calming and a review of speed limits, and changes to traffic flows/road network layout and will inform a review of Council’s contributions planning regime.
Community Consultation
Community participation plays an important part in Ku-ring-gai Council’s decision making. Council is committed to effective community consultation and engagement, recognising the important connection between elected representatives, staff and the community and potential benefits derived by using these to make better decisions.
In order to meet Council’s resolution for a report back on “studies, scenario analysis and community engagement”, by February 2025, exhibition of draft scenarios needs to occur in late 2024. Given the nature of the process Council is undertaking in the development of alternate TOD scenarios, this consultation is best characterised as non-statutory. Formal consultation would arise only in the event Council resolves to progress a particular scenario as a planning proposal.
A separate report on this EMC agenda sets out a draft community engagement strategy for engagement on TOD housing options for Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon which meets Council’s key principles for a robust and transparent engagement process, albeit within a compressed timeline.
Internal Consultation
As appropriate, internal consultation has occurred with the Corporate Lawyer, Director Development and Regulation, Manager Corporate Communications and the Corporate Communications team, and the General Manager.
Councillors were briefed on the TOD alternative scenarios and the proposed community engagement strategy on 9 October 2024.
Summary
Four scenarios have been prepared for each of the centres impacted by the TOD SEPP. In terms of how they relate to Council’s resolution from 8 May 2024:
Base Case (TOD SEPP) = Scenario 1
Minor Amendment Case = Scenario 2
More Extensive Case = Scenarios 3a and 3b
The planning exercise that led to the development of these scenarios has demonstrated that the dwelling targets sought by the State Government through the TOD Program can be achieved while at the same time as recognising local objectives such as protecting HCAs and improving urban canopy outcomes. Similarly, these scenarios demonstrated that revitalisation of commercial centres can similarly be achieved.
To meet Council resolution exhibition of the draft scenarios is required to gain community input prior be reported back to Council in February 2025.
That Council:
A. Receive and note the contents of this report on alternative scenarios to the TOD SEPP amendments for the corridor between Roseville and Gordon stations.
B. Note that the base case (Scenario 1) represents the TOD SEPP as gazetted, not planning controls that pre-existed the TOD amendments.
C. Note that the primary objectives for the alternate scenarios outlined in this report are:
i. to retain and protect Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs);
ii. to improve urban canopy outcomes; and
iii. meet the dwelling targets stipulated by the State Government for the TOD Program.
D. Endorse Scenario 1 TOD (base case) for public exhibition for comparative purposes.
E. Endorse Scenario 2 for Roseville Ward for public exhibition.
F. Endorse Scenario 2 for Gordon Ward for public exhibition.
G. Endorse Scenario 3a for Roseville Ward for public exhibition.
H. Endorse Scenario 3a for Gordon Ward for public exhibition.
I. Endorse Scenario 3b for Roseville Ward for public exhibition.
J. Endorse Scenario 3b for Gordon Ward for public exhibition.
K. Note that a report will be submitted to Council’s February Ordinary Meeting outlining the outcomes of community engagement in relation to alternative scenarios to the TOD SEPP amendments.
| Bill RoyalTeam Leader Urban Design | Craige WyseTeam Leader Urban Planning |
| Andrew WatsonDirector Strategy & Environment |