Greater Sydney is being destroyed by a one size FAILS ALL undemocratic, developer driven planning agenda that will never deliver affordable housing and make the housing crisis worse.
The Sydney Morning Herald published this article about alternative TOD options even before Ku-ring-gai’s elected representatives had a chance to inform residents about them. Read the full SMH article below.
The plan to squeeze 45-storey apartment buildings into Ku-ring-gai
Apartments up to 45 storeys high would be squeezed into a section of Ku-ring-gai under a council move to appease the state government’s demands for increased housing density by creating alternative plans to the transport-oriented development scheme.
Despite the TOD scheme being in place since May, and the council taking the Minns government to court over the policy, councillors will on Wednesday vote on options to be put on public exhibition that would significantly increase density in some areas while maintaining large swaths of low-density heritage housing.
Buildings could be zoned up to 45 storeys around Gordon station. Credit: Edwina Pickles
Ku-ring-gai Council staff have given councillors three alternatives to the TOD program that focus on protecting heritage conservation areas within the LGA, ranging from protecting 78 to 100 per cent of them.
The trade-off to those heritage conservation areas remaining untouched is significantly higher building heights in other parts of the suburbs.
Under the first option, labelled “safeguard and intensify”, the council’s target of 23,200 new dwellings would be achieved by shifting density out of heritage conservation areas and into established commercial zones mostly within 400 metres of train stations.
Sites already zoned for commercial use around Gordon train station would be allowed to reach up to 25 storeys, while 10 storeys would be allowed around Killara station, 15 around Lindfield station, and 12 around Roseville station.
Dwelling numbers are based on council estimates and slightly differ to the state government’s estimates. Source: Ku-ring-gai Council
The second option, called “preserve and intensify”, transfers more dwellings away from smaller town centres Roseville and Killara to the larger Gordon and Lindfield and all heritage conservation areas would be protected.
Buildings in Roseville and Killara would be allowed to be zoned up to 25 and 15 storeys respectively, while Gordon could have 45 storeys and Lindfield 35.
The third option expands “preserve and intensify” to commercial zones within 800 metres, not 400 metres, of train stations, resulting in lower building heights.
The state government’s TOD plan does not overrule local heritage laws, meaning tall buildings could not, for instance, replace a heritage-listed house, but the report said because the plan “specifically excludes heritage items and provides no incentive for them to be included within future development sites, they are effectively isolated”.
The famous Harry Seidler-designed Horizon apartment block in Darlinghurst stretches 43 storeys into the sky, less than the 45 on the table for Gordon. Credit: Wolter Peeters
The report highlights the council would still need to establish new public green space, sporting facilities and other infrastructure to meet the increased density.
The options, if approved, would bring Ku-ring-gai Council in line with the 12 other Sydney councils that produced amended density plans in line with the government’s transport-oriented development push.
The council’s new Liberal Mayor Christine Kay declined requests for an interview. In a statement, she said: “The mayor does not endorse proposals to councillors.
“As a council, we vote based on all the information before us and we will be listening to what the community thinks about the alternative scenarios if the council votes to place the report on exhibition.”
Planning and Public Spaces Minister Paul Scully said he was “cautiously optimistic that Ku-ring-gai councillors might be willing to do their part in confronting our housing challenge”.
“Perhaps a good starting point would be to end the legal action and concentrate resources on strategic planning – an option that has always been available to them,” he said.
Sam Ngai, the former mayor who led the council’s action against the state government and now serves as a councillor, said he expected residents to fight hard against each of the options.
“It’s not like you have a choice. If you choose not to act, it’s just [the TOD plan],” he said.
“At the end of the day, we have to meet those targets. Each of these scenarios give you that number of dwellings, but give you different heights in different places.”
FOKE urgently wrote to Ku-ring-gai Council requesting that the Extraordinary Meeting be rescheduled to ensure residents had an opportunity to comment on this critical planning matter. However, it will proceed for WED 20 Oct 2024.
At the Extraordinary Meeting of Council on Wed 30 October Ku-ring-ga Council will discuss their legal case against the TOD SEPP. Even though it will be discussed as Confidential Business it is important to have as many residents present in the Chambers.
At the Extraordinary Meeting of Council on Wed 30 October Ku-ring-ga Council will discuss the Lindfield Hub Commuter Car Park Funding Deed. Even though it will be discussed as Confidential Business it is important to have as many residents present in the Chambers.
One Ku-ring-gai Councillor said she would NOT SUPPORT the legal action against the TOD in her FOKE Candidate Statement. The others did not supply answers to our Candidate Questions prior to their election. We believe they too do NOT SUPPORT the legal action
These Ku-ring-gai Councillors said they would SUPPORT the legal action against the TOD as stated in their FOKE Candidate Statements prior to their election.
How can we trust NSW Planning to deliver a liveable future when it is proposing planning changes that will lead to lower-quality, less sustainable housing, with no trees when we are expecting more intense future heat waves that will put lives at risk?
Housing is an issue. And all the talk and fury is about how to provide more housing, affordably. Yet right now, the NSW government is proposing and contemplating changes that will lead to lower-quality, less sustainable housing with worse amenities that will result in poorer health for occupants.
And the changes could quite possibly destroy the architecture profession in this state.
High-density housing at The Ponds in western Sydney. Credit:Wolter Peeters
How? Two major “reforms” are coinciding: amendments to building legislation and relaxation of design standards.
First, the Minns government vowed to introduce a single, consolidated building bill to simplify building legislation. So the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), which has been foundational for 30 years, will be replaced by the Building Bill, a draft of which was released in August. Already, you can see the shift; it’s not about homes, it’s about building or, more bluntly, property development.
The aim is to better regulate building, but the kicker is the registration system for architects will be integrated into the new Building Bill, and the Architects Act will be repealed. Yet, the Architects Act is fundamentally about consumer protection and the accountability of those designing our buildings. Essentially, by introducing registration requirements to most arms of the construction industry to enforce greater accountability, the government is lowering the bar. It may look like it’s homogenising the construction design sector, but it’s cheapening it.
It will allow building designers to be licensed like architects but not bear the responsibility of architects. Architects study for a minimum of five years, sit practice examinations, show professional development throughout their practising career and, most importantly, hold insurance. Serious accountability to ensure consumers are protected. Also, a registration board can deregister or fine them, and it all seems to be working just fine. So why change it, particularly when there are few complaints or deregistrations?
Furthermore, it appears future students needn’t bother with architecture degrees and postgraduate training because they will be able to do a TAFE diploma to do the same job with less responsibility.
It is even possible NSW architects will not be able to practise in other states because their education and registration might not meet the competency standards of the national accreditation body, the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia.
Simultaneously, the government is quickly assessing a NSW Productivity Commission review of housing supply, released last week, which wants to relax design requirements for apartments, including the need for most to have some direct sunlight. Understandably, advocates such as the Committee for Sydney and the Australian Institute of Architects raised concerns about diminished design standards, and I share those concerns.
There seems to be a theme emerging, and as director of the UNSW Cities Institute, I’m worried. Our job is to find better ways forward for our urban environments, to make them healthier, more liveable, equitable and accessible. These moves will send us backwards.
The blithe dismissal of a profession is serious business, particularly when the profession has adapted its education model and thinking to encompass healthier and more sustainable living with consumer protection and satisfaction as its primary focus. Lowering standards is an even more serious business. While some of the commission’s recommendations are logical, the lessening of standards for apartment design is unhealthy. Literally.
Sydney’s problem has not been over-development; it has been poor development.
The real problem of delivering affordable housing of an appropriate standard lies in the segmentation of services driven by a variety of contractual arrangements, all designed to avoid responsibility for poor design and shoddy construction. The proposed legislation aims to be a solution to this mess. The answer, however, is not dumbing down the quality of housing or eliminating the few checks and balances we have.
It all feels particularly counterintuitive in a city still reeling from when a number of our new apartment blocks started cracking and listing a few Christmas Eves ago. The new bill, as it stands, and some of the more worrying commission recommendations will encourage cheap design and harmful standards. While trying to solve the housing problem, they will take us back to the 1990s.
That definitely won’t make housing more affordable. It will make housing of lower standards that is unable, or unwilling, to contribute to better, healthier communities in NSW.
Peter Poulet is the director of the UNSW Cities Institute.
