NSW
PARLIAMENT HANSARD TEXT
Wednesday 27th September 2006
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL
(Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.42 p.m.]: I
again raise a development issue affecting the Ku-ring-gai electorate and, once
again, it relates to the impact of a State environmental planning policy [SEPP]
upon the community I represent. I do so with a sense of déjà vu: it seems like
Groundhog Day. During the last Parliament I joined with local residents,
especially from North Turramurra, to argue the flaws of SEPP 5. Those flaws and
their adverse consequences for communities were eventually understood across
Sydney. That concerted effort resulted in much-needed changes to that planning
instrument. It also led to a review of SEPP 5, a review meant to ensure that the
intent of the policy—that is, providing housing options for seniors and people
with disabilities—was achieved in a way that did not cause local problems. In
March 2004 a replacement planning instrument, SEPP Seniors Living 2004, was
implemented.
State environmental planning policies are essentially regulations made by
planning Ministers under the authority of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act. I deplore the fact that, unlike every other regulation made
under State legislation, SEPPs are not subject to review or disallowance by
either House of Parliament. Given the critical consequences of these planning
instruments for local communities there is no valid reason why that exemption
continues. The exemption has helped create the increasing feeling of
powerlessness many residents in Ku-ring-gai and elsewhere in this city
experience in relation to development changes flowing from SEPPs. It is a sense
of frustration shared by many members of Parliament, yet the State Government
refuses to act. So in March 2004 an allegedly new and improved SEPP emerged, and
so did the flaws. Under that SEPP a completely inappropriate development is
being proposed for Wahroonga—not a section of Wahroonga adjacent to the Pacific
Highway, railway line or shopping centre, but a part I characterise as a deep
residential zone.
The area is part of an urban conservation area. It is bounded by some of
Wahroonga's finest streets and situated amongst a diversity of fine homes and
schools. It is the sort of locale that could be found in many parts of this city
where, in my view, the proposed development would still be entirely out of
character and unwarranted. This development proposes that eight new buildings be
constructed on the old John Williams Memorial Centre site at 35 Water Street.
The site also has access to Young Street and Billyard Avenue. If it proceeds,
buildings of up to six and seven storeys will be added to an area where
one-storey and two-storey homes predominate. The height of those buildings is
not easily apparent from the development application [DA] lodged with
Ku-ring-gai Council. For instance, in that document one of the new buildings,
B1, is described as five storeys and basement. In reality it is seven storeys, a
fact confirmed by the project's 3D model. Building E2, adjoining Young Street
and described as two storeys and basement, is actually four storeys high.
On bulk alone this project has no place on this site—or any similar site in a
residential area in Ku-ring-gai or elsewhere in Sydney. The John Williams
Memorial Centre was gifted to the State in 1951 for the use of sick and disabled
children. After the State Government obtained Supreme Court approval in 2002 to
vary the trust deed, the property was sold in 2005. It is home to Rippon Grange,
designed and built in 1898 by Howard Joseland. The buildings have been nominated
for State Heritage listing by the National Trust and are included on the
Australian Heritage Commission's Register of the National Estate. Rippon Grange
is a two-storey structure. Under this proposal seven storey buildings will dwarf
it without apparent objection from the State Heritage Office. That highlights
the enormous conflict of interest faced by the planning Minister: How can he be
responsible for both development and for preserving our built heritage?
The proponents argue that under SEPP Seniors Living this development is
permissible as the 23,000-square metre site is zoned for hospital uses. If that
is true, it demonstrates an enormous error in the SEPP. When most people think
of hospitals on the north shore, Hornsby Hospital, Sydney Adventist Hospital
[the San] and the Royal North Shore Hospital spring to mind—large, bulky,
sprawling sites that preceded their surrounding residential communities. It
would be one thing to propose a project of this scale for one of those sites,
but completely another to suggest such a development in an intact residential
community like this one. It is equally true that under this SEPP vertical
villages are envisaged, that is, projects that rise rather than spread. But the
instrument only intends them to be in higher-density locations. This part of
Ku-ring-gai is as far from a higher-density location as one could get—until and
unless, that is, the development proceeds.
Notwithstanding their actions elsewhere in Ku-ring-gai and this city, I find it
hard to believe that the State Government and its planners intended this policy
to be used to devastate a community in this way. That is why I have written to
the Minister for Planning drawing his attention to what I regard as a loophole
and seeking urgent redress of the issue. There are other factors explaining why
this project should not go ahead. A visit to Google Earth is the easiest way to
appreciate the importance of this, and surrounding areas, in relation to Blue
Gum High Forest. From this perspective, the link between the remnant blue gums
on the John Williams site and the Clive Evatt Reserve, Turiban and Mona Street
reserves, and Wahroonga Public School—the so-called bush school—becomes
apparent. Yet the DA records that 342 trees are to be removed, including 31 with
a tree significance rating of one or two on a scale where one is highest and
five is lowest.
Equally, the presence of a number of schools in this area already causes traffic
problems. In particular, parents dropping off and picking up students attending
the bush school use Water and Young streets. I cannot believe anyone is
seriously proposing to add to that mix additional vehicles from a 78-unit
seniors and disabled persons development. The project DA highlights one of the
problems, the narrowness of Young Street, yet that is the street earmarked as
the main access to the residents' 150-space car park. This issue is wider than
just this part of Wahroonga and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area. My enquiries,
and those of council, have failed to identify a similar development of this
type, that is, a significant high-rise for seniors living deep within a Sydney
residential suburb.
Like its flawed SEPP 5 predecessor, success with this development is likely, I
fear, to spawn others on similar sites across this city. I could summarise
residents' objections as, "Excessive in both size and scope and will be
detrimental to our current enjoyment of the amenities in the quiet, low-
density, leafy environment." Those words were used in an objection lodged by the
planning Minister's family to a proposed four-storey development in their
Beverley Park neighbourhood. In asking the Minister to review this matter, and
the planning instrument that may allow it, I urge him to think about those who
will live near a development three storeys higher than the one to which his
family objects.
More important, I urge him to think of the other families across Sydney who, if
nothing is done, could share the same fate. In the same vein I pay tribute to
those residents who are working hard to try to ensure this development does not
proceed. I encourage honourable members to go to the web site
www.wahroonga.org to get the details of this site and the impact it will to
have on the local area. I urge the Minister to have a look at that web site
because it makes it clear that this development is not suitable for a
residential area in Wahroonga or any other part of the city.
End.