MEMBER for Davidson Jonathan O’Dea and Member for Ku-ring-gai Alister Henskens recently released a joint statement attacking Ku-ring-gai Council over what they described as “unnecessarily proposed dramatic increases in heights and densities” in council’s 2020 Draft Housing Strategy.  

According to the state MPs, the current zoning in Ku-ring-gai will achieve the targets set for council’s in the Greater Sydney Commission’s 6-10 year housing plan. 

“Instead of spending money on footpaths and roads, the council has spent over $2 million on an unnecessary and now abandoned draft housing plan” according to Mr Henskens. 

“If it had gone ahead, Council’s proposal would have had extreme adverse impacts on the cherished local character of Ku-ring-gai.” 

The State government recently assessed Ku-ring-gai’s revised housing plan and found that council could meet dwelling requirements under existing zoning. 

Ku-ring-gai Mayor Jennifer Anderson called the MPs comments “appalling” and argued that pressure from the NSW State government was responsible for the redundant housing plan. 

“Mr Henskens and Mr O’Dea need to own that fact, instead of levelling accusations that the Council has wasted funds preparing a strategy that their government demanded of the Council. They should be apologising to the residents of Ku-ring-gai for the State Government’s waste of ratepayers’ funds.” Said Mayor Anderson. 

This exchange forms part of a years long back and forth over the Ku-ring-gai Draft Housing plan between State government MPs and Ku-ring-gai Mayor Jennifer Anderson. 

In September of last year Mayor Jennifer Anderson had a heated debate in the media with NSW planning Minister Rob Stokes over the housing target. 

Stokes had expressed concerns that Ku-ring-gai was not doing its part to meet the housing targets, accusing the council of “throwing its toys out of the cot” with regards to the target.

“It is clear from the correspondence that I and my Councillor colleagues have been receiving in ecent weeks that the overwhelming majority of our community does not want more development beyond that already existing in current zonings”

Mayor Anderson responded.  She cited a letter from Mr Stokes which states that the housing targets were not a legally binding commitment and maintained that existing zoning would meet the quota. State then government threatened to step in and appoint an administrator if Council did not make more serious commitments. 

Ultimately after a review it was determined that existing zoning would in fact be sufficient. 

Reviewing the timeline:

Ku-ring-gai Council drafted a housing plan to meet the requirements set by the State Government  which included plans for new “Town Hubs” in Lindfield, Turramurra and Gordon. These planned hubs included a range of new infrastructure and facilities that had been sought after by community groups like Support Lindfield. But they were also zoned for high-rise buildings, including the potential for 15 story buildings in Lindfield, Turramurra and St Ives, and up to 20 story buildings in Gordon. 

Community groups such as support Lindfield, alongside MPs Henskens and O’Dea expressed concern over the proposed plans, criticising the proposed plans for allowing “Chatswood high rises” which could disrupt the “leafy north shore” character of the area. 

Support Lindfield, Heskens and O’Dea were supportive of revitalizing the Turramurra and Lindfield town centres but opposed to plans to build high rises 15 or 20 stories high, preferring a lower limit of around 7 to 8 stories. 

Ultimately all planned development was abandoned in favour of maintaining existing zonings. 

Support Lindfield is still campaigning to get the village hub built and is backing candidates who will re-introduce plans to build a hub. Their goal is to create a social hub for the suburb that improves the area and includes a range of new facilities while maintaining the character of the suburb. 

Due to the community outrage over proposed high rises, Ku-rin-gai Council chose to abandon the housing plans on September 22nd  (See our October 2020 edition for more details). 

Mayor Anderson called the move a “unequivocal rejection of the greater Sydney housing targets”, while also arguing that current zoning will achieve the required number of dwellings.  She cited Jonathon O’Dea and Alister Henskens opposition to the proposed housing plan in a November letter to Rob Stokes where she outlined council’s rejection of the housing targets. 

Some Councillors expressed displeasure at the way the housing plan was handled. 

A Mayoral Minute was issued barely an hour before the Council meeting held on September 22nd commenced leaving no time for comprehensive review by Councillors of the changes made to the amended strategy.

Several Councillors felt that they didn’t feel comfortable being asked to vote as they didn’t know what they were voting on having not reviewed the housing strategy amendments in time for the meeting. 

These changes concerned the decision to focus on existing zoning, effectively throwing out the proposed village hub plans. Council was agreed on rejecting the housing plan but had not agreed on the specifics of how the plan would be amended. The vote was postponed by 5 Councillors who argued that they needed adequate time to assess the Mayor’s proposed changes. 

The Council then voted on October 22nd not to proceed with increased heights or new zonings.