URBIS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY KEY ISSUES

§ Land Use and Response to Local Character:

The site has been included in the ‘TOD’ precinct
for Gordon Train Station, as it is highly accessible. The Housing SEPP permits residential flat
buildings, with height and floor space standards that represent a clear change for the local area
(which is predominantly lower-density housing, in the form of single detached dwellings). The
response to the current, but importantly the desired future character, will be an important
consideration for the project.

FOKE’s AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE FESTIVAL GORDON HERITAGE IN PERIL WALK (4.5.25) RESPONSE

§ Land Use and Response to Local Character:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The ‘TOD’ precinct was for 5 storeys, not NINE storeys. This is an abuse of the TOD principle for five storeys. The proposed additional density will make Gordon Train Station inaccessible to existing and future residents. Gordon Railway Station is a major commuter station and the project will overwhelm parking capacity and traffic, with the narrow streets, and the exits to Pacific Highway via Park Avenue and Mona Vale Road via Pearson Avenue. The community has expressed that this level of density is NOT the ‘desired future character’ of the area.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Design Review:

We note the Ku-ring-gai LEP does not specifically have a ‘design excellence’
clause, but we understand that a State Design Review Panel (SDRP) process may be required to
examine the design quality of the project. The Applicant is keen to explore an SDRP process
following the lodgement of the SSD to ensure the application can be lodged in an expedited
manner, in accordance with GA NSW’s ‘Wait Time Reduction Scheme’.

§ Design Review:

FOKE RESPONSE:

It is important that this application await Ku-ring-gai’s imminent LEP with its provision for ‘design excellence’ otherwise this proposal has ‘no social license’.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Heritage:

Unlike many other parts of Ku-ring-gai LGA, the site is not located within a Heritage
Conservation Area (HCA) and does not included any heritage items. As the site is in close
proximity to a heritage item and a HCA, the Applicant will carefully review these interfaces and find
appropriate design responses to respond to this.

§ Heritage:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The site is adjacent to a Heritage
Conservation Area (HCA) and Heritage Items. The proposal in its current form, will negatively impact on the adjacent HSC and heritage items.

Park Avenue is one of Gordon’s most significant heritage streets where the home of Annie Forsyth Wyatt (1885-1961) who founded the National Trust of Australia (NSW) that was a leader in the protection of NSW’s built, natural and cultural heritage. It is also the home of John Job Crew Bradfield (1867-1943) the revered Australian engineer who was the chief proponent of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the garden memorial named after him on the corner of Park Avenue and Rosedale Road. The proposal will have a huge detrimental impact to this cultural heritage.

Park Avenue is in close proximity to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-Fox Reserve. The grey-headed flying-fox has suffered major population decline over the last decade and are listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Potential Site Isolation:

The Applicant has sought to engage proactively with neighbouring parties to establish a significant site with limited constraints. While various attempts have been
made to include some of the neighbouring parties in the proposed development, with documented
offers made, these have been declined. Our view is that these interfaces can be managed.
Evidence that the Applicant has exercised all due steps to acquire the lot at No.2 Park Avenue,
Gordon in keeping with the site isolation planning principles in Karavellas v Sutherland Shire
Council has been provided to Departmental staff confidentially, under separate cover.

§ Potential Site Isolation:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The Applicant gave no opportunities to listen to neighbouring parties whose heritage, privacy, amenity, neighbourhood character will be drastically diminished by the development. The only effort to include some neighbouring parties is to offer them ‘inflationary’ property prices that will further fuel housing unaffordability.

That the applicant has not been able to acquire the lot at No.2 Park Avenue, Gordon is indication that the proposal fails to follow site isolation planning principles and is an unacceptable development.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Overshadowing/Solar Access:

Careful consideration will be given to solar access and
overshadowing of residential properties in the vicinity of the site.
Preliminary shadow analysis prepared by PTW shows two hours of solar access can be
maintained to neighbouring residential dwellings (to the south on Park Lane). Analysis has also
been included of the potential future context, which demonstrates future building envelopes would
be capable of achieving minimum ADG solar access requirements.

§ Overshadowing/Solar Access:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The proposal provides extremely poor solar access (only two hours) and will negatively overshadow residential properties in the vicinity of the site.
The future building envelope provides poor solar access.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Interface with 2 Park Avenue:

The design team has given early and detailed consideration to the
interface with 2 Park Avenue. The interface complies with ADG setback requirements at the lower
levels. While the upper levels do not fully comply, the facade design has been carefully planned to
address privacy concerns. Measures include high windows positioned (at 1.6 meters) and angled
window openings.

§ Interface with 2 Park Avenue:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The design team has failed to provide adequate consideration to the interface with 2 Park Avenue. The interface does not comply with the with ADG setback requirements to the upper levels. The ‘facade design’ solution fails to address privacy concerns. Measures include high windows positioned (at 1.6 meters) and angled window openings are insufficient solutions.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Residential Amenity:

The site benefits from excellent orientation which is beneficial for residential amenity with respect to solar access, natural cross-ventilation and outlook. The project team is currently examining the consistency of the project with the Housing SEPP (and NSW Apartment Design Guide).

§ Residential Amenity:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The site detracts from the visual amenity of neighbouring properties who will lose their solar access, natural cross-ventilation and outlook.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

§ Vehicular Access and Parking:

The project team is currently exploring the best way to
coordinate car parking arrangements (including the consolidation of basements), with a traffic
consultant engaged to work through these options.

§ Vehicular Access and Parking:

FOKE RESPONSE:

The project is on a choke traffic point to the Pacific Highway and already the traffic is at crisis point. The project is unacceptable because of its negative contribution to permanent traffic gridlock. In case of an emergency vehicles (ambulance, fire, police) will not be able to exit onto the Pacific Highway. The proposal endangers life.

The proposal should be refused on these grounds.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we are of the opinion that the site is strategically located and very well placed to
accommodate additional housing, in accordance with the objectives of ‘transit-oriented’ development.
In addition, the provision of 17% affordable housing (2% in perpetuity + 15% managed by a CHP for
15 years) provides a very positive response to the current housing crisis in NSW.
We trust the information provided with this letter provides sufficient details to provide the Department
with a comprehensive understanding of the proposed development to facilitate the issue of industryspecific SEARs.

CONCLUSION

FOKE RESPONSE:

In summary, Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) are of the opinion, particularly following its Australian Heritage Festival Event ‘Gordon Heritage in Peril’ where the walked past 3-9 Park Avenue, Gordon that the site was an unsuitable location to
accommodate this excessively large additional amount of housing, in accordance with the objectives of ‘transit-oriented’ development (only five storeys).

In addition, the provision of 17% affordable housing (2% in perpetuity + 15% managed by a CHP for
15 years) is an inadequate response to provide long erm affordability for essential workers such as teachers, nurses, police officers, railway staff).

AS SUCH THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REFUSED.