- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 30 March 2006
St Ives and Ku-ring-gai Building Development
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 8 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 21839
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.32 a.m.]: I move the motion of which I have given notice, as amended by leave:
That this House, in support of the meeting of residents of St Ives and other areas of Ku-ring-gai on 21 June 2003:
(1) condemns the Government for continuing to inflict its overdevelopment policies upon the community of St Ives and Ku-ring-gai;
(2) objects to developers destroying St Ives and Ku-ring-gai streetscapes and natural environment and depriving the community of appropriate amenity and adequate infrastructure; and
(3) calls on the Premier and the Minister for Planning to relax the extent of the Government's overdevelopment policies and return full planning powers to the democratically elected council.
What is being sought by the Government and the concerns of the Ku-ring-gai community and its representatives at State and local level must be seen through the prism of choice. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and I have argued that Ku-ring-gai needs a diversity of housing choice to meet today's needs and the needs of the future. There are those who do not want change but I believe the majority accepts there is a need for a variety of medium-density housing. As the last six or eight years have shown, reluctance on the part of some members of previous councils—not the current council—has meant delay in accepting greater quantities of medium-density housing.
As a consequence the Government has upped the ante and five-storey and six-storey developments are now being imposed on Ku-ring-gai. They are grossly in excess of what is reasonable and what was originally sought about eight years ago by the then planning Minister, Craig Knowles. We have no confidence or faith in the planning process now that the Godzilla-like Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, is intent on imposing the worst options on a number of parts of Ku-ring-gai. A classic example of that is a development in Tryon Road, Lindfield, which is very much like the Titanic, standing above all and overshadowing the surrounding residential area. One has only to see it to realise what a poor planning decision led to its construction.
I call on the Minister to acknowledge that Ku-ring-gai Council has at least made some progress and that the community of Ku-ring-gai, particularly St Ives, has accepted the need for more medium-density housing. The Minister should allay some of the residents' worst expectations. The residents of Eden Brae and other complexes in the immediate vicinity have fought, with no effect, the State Government, and to some degree the council, to resist five-storey development in an area that has no railway station and no substantial transport. The only arterial transport route is Mona Vale Road, which is already congested because of the St Ives Village Shopping Centre. The intersections are congested not only in peak periods but generally. The intensive development that the Government and the Minister are insisting that St Ives accept will compound that problem. We face a situation in which many residents will not be able to enter or leave their homes or streets.
A traffic study has been produced to support development in St Ives town centre. I accept residents' submissions that that study has major flaws. It has to be independently reviewed. Some questions have to be adequately answered before any decisions are made based on that study. Transport infrastructure is either inadequate or absent. There is no mass transit system; buses are the only form of public transport in this area. Mona Vale Road is not only an access road for people living in the area; it is an arterial road, one of three that exit to the northern beaches. It is a major corridor for the northern beaches.
Ku-ring-gai residents have been punished for the intransigence of previous councils. At the last council election a couple of years ago the majority of the elected councillors received a mandate from the community to take a different approach. They have to accept, whether they like it or not, that there must be more medium-density housing. They have done that. They have changed the nature of Ku-ring-gai Council and the reputation it had for objecting to almost everything. It is worth putting that on the record because it has not been acknowledged by the Minister for Planning, who in recent debates has insisted on relying on two-year-old data in relation to Ku-ring-gai Council's record. The Minister has claimed there have been ongoing delays in the determination of development applications [DAs] and there have been excessive legal expenses. I want to put on the record what the council has achieved in the past two years, predominantly under the leadership of Councillor Adrienne Ryan and the majority of councillors. Outstanding DAs have been reduced from 1,000 in November 2003 to 373 past month.
Ms Diane Beamer: Only 373!
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: There will always be a number of outstanding DAs, but reducing them by two-thirds is a remarkable achievement. There has been a 42 per cent reduction in the median processing time for all types of applications from 111 days to 78 days. The council is heading in the right direction in reducing that figure further. There has been a 31 per cent reduction in Land and Environment Court appeals, which has caused some pain for councillors. Council responded to what the Government sought and what the community expected. Between the years 2003 to 2005 there was a 26 per cent reduction in legal costs and those costs are being further reduced. There have also been increases in staff delegation, with less involvement of councillors and more reliance on staff. Those are the sorts of directions in which all councils should be moving. It is the direction in which, albeit belatedly, Ku-ring-gai council is moving, so credit should be given where it is due.
The Minister failed to acknowledge the council's achievements in that regard and he has unreasonable expectations of it. Ku-ring-gai has got the message: There must be more housing choice and it must include medium-density housing. Some places can absorb greater than three-storey development. In the absence of a rail line St Ives is not the location in which to have five-storey development. In my view development at St Ives town centre should be now more than three-storey. However, the council is locked into it because the Government is determined to impose five-storey development.
Rezonings to enable five-storey development have progressed on a number of sites and are progressing on others. I do not believe council is locked into five-storey development. That is one area in which the Minister should be prepared to relax his expectations. Council has shown that it is prepared to do that. A number of people in St Ives have said to me, "We understand that we have to cop it. We do not want it but we will still cop increased density and increased development in our neighbourhood. It is the extremes that are unfair." Given that a number of these complexes are no more than a decade old, it is ludicrous to expect people who have chosen to retire there—they have made a major shift in their lives and they have downsized—to move out because their lifestyle has been stolen from them.
There has been an acceptance of choice. I do not believe there is any good reason to impose the densities that the Minister is insisting should be absorbed by Ku-ring-gai and St Ives. The fact that there is an election in 12 months time has not been lost on me. With a change of government there is a reasonable expectation that development in St Ives will be revisited. We should not go back to a blank page but we should reconsider imposing five-storey developments in a couple of locations in the St Ives town centre as the impact on existing dwellings and home owners would be excessive. I am sure this issue will be revisited with a change in government. A Liberal government would have a more realistic approach and more empathy for residents and their choice of lifestyle, neighbourhood, and its amenity and character.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.42 p.m.]: It is apposite that the Minister in the Chamber is the former Minister for Planning who helped to visit so much of this disaster on Ku-ring-gai municipality. I look forward to the Minister participating in debate and attempting to explain the Government's rationale for what is being done, not only in St Ives but in Ku-ring-gai generally. I support the honourable member for Davidson partly because I have the privilege of representing part of the St Ives area—albeit a small part—that includes the St Ives village shopping centre.
I raise and reprise the concerns I have had about what has been going on at St Ives. When St Ives and Wahroonga originally developed as suburbs at the turn of the last century, both were comparable suburbs. Both were areas that were regarded as desirable places to live on larger acreages, often with an orchard out the back. On their return from work people would work in their gardens, raise their families and enjoy the lifestyle that was offered in areas like St Ives and Wahroonga. One of the big events of that time was the advent of the north shore rail line, which saw changes to Wahroonga but not similar changes to St Ives. Both areas still continue to be wonderful places in which to live, but their character has changed.
Nothing the Government has done in the time it has been in office has changed the historical fact that a railway line to St Ives does not exist. It is a landlocked suburb at the crossroads of two major arterial roads. It has existing traffic problems. The sort of development density being visited on the area by the State Government will increase traffic in the area and consequences for local residents. A week ago the honourable member for Davidson and I sat down with residents from the area who demolished the traffic study on which many of the plans being put forward for St Ives have been based. They demonstrated that, in the course of a block, 100 vehicle movements a day somehow or other had been lost. That is, cars coming in at one end of the street compared with cars coming in at the other end of the street simply did not add up.
They demonstrated serious flaws with the sorts of solid foundations that are meant to exist before one starts engaging in these planning tactics. I join the honourable member for Davidson in saying that the Government should pause and look at what is going on in St Ives. The problems that afflict St Ives started with that ill-fated and flawed amendment to State environmental planning policy 5, the first sign that developers were targeting St Ives. That was the advent of large developments, or large numbers of units on blocks, growing up in a higgledy-piggledy fashion along Mona Vale Road, allegedly for people aged over 55.
That started to change the character of the area, particularly the section opposite the St Ives Village Shopping Centre, which had already delivered to Ku-ring-gai a degree of housing choice through what I think are some wonderful townhouse-style developments that were enjoyed by residents of all ages, had an appreciable value and fitted in superbly with the surrounding environment. It was a density development of the right scope, the right height and the right depth that suited the area. The State Government is now rezoning areas adjacent to those townhouse developments to impose tower blocks or apartment blocks that will stick out like a proverbial sore thumb and diminish the value, the worth and the desirability of a series of pleasant developments that had occurred there over a number of years.
I will continue to raise in this House my fundamental concern about the State Government's planning policies and its repeated failure at any stage to match the developments and densities it is imposing, whether in the electorates of Ku-ring-gai, Davidson, Georges River, or St Marys, with a similar commitment to upgrading infrastructure and services to meet current demands in those areas and the demands of the current population. That is evident on my favourite road—it is not really my favourite road—which is at capacity during peak hours when sport is being played in the area and the delays are enormous.
The Government has no plans to resolve any of those problems. All that the Government says is, "Let us just make more clearways", which is anathema to retailers who are struggling and trying to make a living by plying their trades in an area of residential amenity. One would expect them to be providing a service and not having to battle with the Roads and Traffic Authority to keep their doors open. We are experiencing similar problems right across that area, whether it is brown-outs in relation to power, problems with sewerage and water, or whether it is roads or rail for the rezonings that are occurring down the north shore rail line.
In the 11 years that the Government has been in office is has repeatedly refused to match its desire to increase densities across this city. Ku-ring-gai, like other parts of this city, shares its load of population growth with a commitment to provide funding and resources to upgrade essential infrastructure and services that make any suburb, any city or any part of any city able to operate. After events in this place over the past couple of sitting days it is clear that these issues will not go away. The Minister for Planning has been equipped with vast new powers, which means he can pick off—as I am sure he will do because that is what his bureaucrats have been advising successive Ministers to do—parts of Ku-ring-gai.
To some extent, there is an inevitability about it. I share the views of the honourable member for Davidson about the next election. But my biggest regret is that, by the time there is a change of government, many of these areas will have been rezoned and developments will have started that will never be able to be unpicked. No future government will ever be able to unpick them. That is the lost opportunity that the honourable member for Davidson and I, as representatives of our communities, must confront.
It is galling that the former Premier—the man who was allegedly not a great sports afficionado but who delivered to the current Premier perhaps the best hospital pass in the history of rugby league—used to rave about his desire to provide a city that was more workable, more liveable and more attractive. In the developments that are being visited upon Ku-ring-gai—whether the flawed in-fill SEPP 5 developments, the monstrosities being built upon the six sites that Diane Blunder took planning control of after the last election, or what is proposed at St Ives—none of those goals are being met. It is not, as I have said repeatedly in this place, as though Ku-ring-gai is not prepared to share its load of this city's population growth. But for more than a century people have been attracted to my area, and to the entire north shore, by the detached style of housing, the tree canopy, parks, gardens, open space and the like.
Those who live along the "spine", which is how I describe the railway line and the highway, understand what is needed. Living adjacent to those services makes life in those areas perhaps not as pleasant as it might have been 100 years ago, and modern unit blocks can provide greater comfort for residents. But it makes no sense at all to diminish the residential character, the unique Ku-ring-gai character, of the remaining suburbs. Yet that is what this Government seems to be doing relentlessly. That is best evidenced by the developments that are occurring at St Ives, an area that is located well away from the railway line and major highway and that is already afflicted by traffic and transport problems. But the Government has no solutions that will offer traffic and transport relief to that area.
It is important that development, whether it is in my area or in other parts of the State, is balanced, as I said a week or so ago during debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. It will always be a balancing act. Even in developing Ku-ring-gai's spine we must strike a balance. We must ensure that there are appropriate interface arrangements so that rezoned areas do not start to bleed into the deeper suburbs of Ku-ring-gai—which, at the end of the day, is not what good governments should want, it is not what good planning should deliver and it is certainly not what my community wants to occur.
As I have said before, I live in a pocket of Roseville, surrounded by people whom I might laughingly describe as refugees from the inner west. They have come to that part of Roseville because of its attributes and the character and style it offers. They are as heartfelt in their passion about what the Government is doing to that character as those people who were born and bred in the area and who have never moved beyond the reaches of the north shore railway line in their lives. I am happy to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Davidson. I despair that it will not fall on fertile ears because of the new powers provided to the Minister for Planning, but one can only hope.
Ms DIANE BEAMER (Mulgoa—Minister for Western Sydney, Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [11.52 a.m.]: I felt a sense of déjà vu as I listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talk about planning matters in Ku-ring-gai. I visited Ku-ring-gai with the local member and talked to him about the issues there. I am reminded of the fact that we talked about developments around railway stations and he asked me why I was not approving a plan to secure greater development, where appropriate, around railway stations. The simple answer to that question was because the council would not bring that plan forward. I could not approve a plan that included those densities if one was not forthcoming. In 2003 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke in this place about the approach to housing in Ku-ring-gai. He said:
Unfortunately, that approach represents a continuation of the council politicking in this area that I have criticised before, the type of politicking that stupidly resulted in councillors contributing to delays in settling a residential strategy for Ku-ring-gai. It was stupid because it was based on the flawed view that if the issue was delayed and deferred it would somehow go away.
It is important that residents demand an end to this type of politicking by local councillors, which has worsened, not improved, the planning situation facing Ku-ring-gai.
As the honourable member for Davidson pointed out, there has been an election since then. Ku-ring-gai Council has been motivated to reduce the number of outstanding development applications and to consider the types of villages, and the growth within them, that it put to the Department of Planning for approval. We all know that housing choice is desperately needed in Ku-ring-gai. The local government area has a higher than average number of aged people. Almost all councils in New South Wales have prepared an appropriate residential strategy to provide a range of housing types, including medium-density housing and accommodation near railway stations, in particular. Yet almost five years later Ku-ring-gai Council has not devised an appropriate strategy.
The senior living State environmental planning policy aims to meet the housing needs of an ageing population. If Ku-ring-gai Council would allow developments for seniors it could house its residents appropriately. Why should Ku-ring-gai residents have to leave their local area as they age? Every other council in New South Wales has planned to accommodate growth and the ageing population in its local government area. We all believe our local communities are special. I certainly believe Ku-ring-gai is a special place. But it is unfair on the other areas of Sydney for Ku-ring-gai to set itself up as an island, separate from the metropolitan area. I understand that councils want to maintain their areas' distinctive local character, but they must still do their bit to house Sydney's growing and ageing population.
I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the growth opportunities in Ku-ring-gai. Why can we not get from the council a sensible plan to accommodate the area's growth? The plans that we have received from the council—certainly the amendment that I signed off on—did not offer the best solution. But I cannot demand that the council plan for higher-density developments around existing infrastructure. It did not deliver such a plan to me. The council decided that if problems occurred there would be a massive reaction against the local environmental plan, which it proposed. That is one of the craziest things I have ever seen. The honourable member for Gosford, the Opposition planning spokesman, said in this place:
Only two months ago Mr Brogden stated that the planning approvals for major projects needed to be improved … and the Coalition is on the record as stating that planning at the local council level is a mess and needs to be cleaned up.
I suggest that the honourable member for Gosford believes that statement applies to Ku-ring-gai. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knew that the council's plans were flawed and wanted them to be improved. I urge Ku-ring-gai Council to lift its game. The Government opposes this motion. We want to deliver good planning results throughout Sydney for all the city's population.
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.57 a.m.], in reply: It is a shame that the Minister for Planning did not have the decency to attend this debate to put his views on the record and to acknowledge the achievements of Ku-ring-gai Council. He should be aware, as I am sure the Minister for Western Sydney is, that I have not been backward in criticising Ku-ring-gai Council for its planning delays over time, which have compounded the problems facing the Ku-ring-gai and St Ives communities. But we are where we are. Although some comments of the former Minister for Planning acknowledge an improvement in council, it is a shame that they do not fulsomely acknowledge that in the past two years Ku-ring-gai Council has come a long way since when she primarily dealt with it.
Ku-ring-gai Council has responded to a community acceptance that there has to be housing choice, which has been something that I and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been arguing for a great number of years. It is unfair to infer that in recent times Ku-ring-gai Council has been dragging its feet in accepting change. The debate has narrowed around the degree of change. It is accepted that some sizeable medium density housing is needed, but that it ought to be in appropriate locations and should include reasonable transitional provisions at the interface with existing residential areas.
The Minister for Western Sydney acknowledged that Ku-ring-gai Council has improved its motivation. She asserted a need for choice, particularly around railway stations, which has been acknowledged but which she has ignored. It would have been decent for her to give credit where credit was due. In fact, Ku-ring-gai Council is moving on a timetable provided by the Minister for Planning which it is keeping to. I have publicly called for the council to follow that timetable. At the same time some of what is expected by the Government is excessive. But the timetable has to be complied with because otherwise the council and the community most specifically will be punished for non-compliance, as indeed has happened over the past eight years because of the reluctance of former councils to meet the expectations which, I stress, were imposed on them. The council's lot is not an easy one but the majority of councils accept that they do not make the rules but have to comply with them.
It would have been good if the Minister for Planning went through a brief education process and had the opportunity to not only acknowledge what Ku-ring-gai Council has achieved but to apologise for making public assertions that are without foundation. Credit is due, and where credit is due it should be given. Ku-ring-gai Council has come a long way. Members of Parliament ought to understand that when people move into an area, existing residents cannot expect no change, but they can expect that the degree of change will not be so substantial that it makes it untenable for them to stay. What is being imposed in the town centre and precincts of St Ives will force many residents who have settled in their home as their last elective movement in life to move and relocate yet again. Why? Not because medium density housing is not in that area, because it is, they are living in it, but because the Government wants to impose something which is completely unacceptable.
The existing transport infrastructure will not be able to cope. The road infrastructure is not coping now even at the best of times, as highlighted in a recent traffic study. The ludicrous situation will be that traffic coming from the Pacific Highway along Mona Vale Road will only have one primary location in St Ives where it can turn right. Given the volume of flow that will be required—and as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the volume does not add up—it will completely choke residential streets. This matter has to be revisited and if it is not it will be revisited in March/April next year when the Coalition is in government.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 35
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher | Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr McTaggart
Mr Merton
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Noes, 46
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Chaytor
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Daley
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Ms Gadiel | Mr Gaudry
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:55 : Update this page