Transport-Oriented Development in Ku-ring-gai
On 31 March, Ku-ring-gai Council held a public forum to discuss the council’s proposed response to the state government’s planned development near train stations.
Speeches by local Sydney YIMBY members Matthew Hayes, Todd Cefai, Michael Clayden and Peter Tulip are below.
A Sydney Morning Herald report on the meeting is here.
An audio recording of the forum is here.
Speech by Matthew Hayes
Good evening Madam Mayor, Councillors, and all members of the public present.
Tonight, I’m speaking from my own experience as a proud, lifelong Ku-ring-gai resident in which I’ve represented it as its Youth Member in Parliament, in its Youth Advisory Committee, and as its Young Citizen of the Year.
I’ve just turned 18, and as anyone who’s turned 18 would know, your mind starts to focus on what’s next in this new adulthood, moving out of the family nest, and start a little nest of your own! Because of my disability, that nest will have to be here in Ku-ring-gai so that I can continue to access my existing medical services.
But for many people in Ku-ring-gai, including me, this is just simply impossible. With the average house costing $3 million, & an apartment costing $1 million, it’s impossible for young people to live here, & essential workers, who keep our community running!
Most have to commute from Western Sydney or the Central Coast to get to their jobs here.
At the current rate of housing supply here, I would have to live with my parents for the next 10-20 years before I would be able to afford a house in Ku-ring-gai.
We are in a Housing Crisis. Where there is not enough supply for houses, so the prices go up, and then that cycle continues till you get to a point where whole generations are priced out ever being able to live in one of the best places on earth!
The solution to this for decades has been suburban sprawl. Continually expand outside of a CBD and have people rely on cars in poorly planned areas with minimal infrastructure.
This is where Transit Oriented Development comes in. TOD is where we build medium dense buildings around train stations. This means you don’t need to rely on a car to get to work, school, parks, the shops, etc. Walking, cycling, and public transport is way more space efficient and way better for the environment! So, this is a much better way to plan our cities.
But I am also aware that the existing plan by the NSW Government has been done with minimal consultation with the community, and minimal awareness of what this community is.
This means stuff that the community wanted like more affordable housing, and housing that was conscious to the existing community was not included in the original TOD proposal.
And this has upset a lot of people in Ku-ring-gai. And I can understand why people would be scared of this change. It’s going to be a big change to our community. A once in a lifetime change!
But it’s a change that has to be made in a housing crisis, we need to up zone, we need to get more affordable housing, we have to do it for the benefit of not just the people of Ku-ring-gai, but for all of NSW!
I believe that the job for all of us, should be in this situation is not to resist, but to work cooperatively with the New South Wales government & residents to create the best possible outcome for all of us, the people of Ku-ring-gai.
Speech by Todd Cefai
My name is Todd Cefai, I'm a member of Sydney YIMBY and resident of Warrawee. me and my partner moved here because we fell in love with the tree coverage, the bush turkeys, national park proximity and ability to live near all this while having a reasonable train commute into the city.
The expert consensus is that more dense market rate housing improves affordability is on par with the expert consensus that vaccines save lives. More apartments means less families sleeping in cars,
If you think Ku-ring-gai is great you should want more people to enjoy it. At our apartment building we see parents who are able to get home from work while the sun is still up, the property is filled by trees, more tree density than many free-standing homes nearby have, further every apartment building means more of Australia can stay green and not become the terrifying heat island sprawl we see in the extreme edges of Sydney which is the counterfactual to building up. Apartments in Ku-ring-gai don't just house humans but preserve homes for wildlife.
Build up not out, that means more room for green.
Similarly claims of too much traffic are misplaced. People who live in TOD apartments use public transport. That's why we live there, its in the name, transit. Worth noting that the station parking at the new northwest metro is full by 7am. Station parking takes up too much space to scale. 100 parking spots is roughly 1/8th of a single train service. it's far better to let people live in walking distance.
NSW is tired of councils, including Ku-ring-gai, failing to deliver on uplifting housing supply, nsw voters are sympathetic to heritage and other concerns raised here but not at the cost of failing to fix the housing crisis, if, as people claim, more housing supply cannot be delivered without negatively impacting heritage then it would be inhumane to prioritise heritage over housing.
If voters and councillors here want to continue to have locally devolved powers to shape the future of the KRG area you need to actually deliver housing, NSW voters are not going to have sympathy for local views when that trust is betrayed
Seeing a tall building is not a harm on par with a single mum skipping meals because rent is expensive.
Speech by Michael Clayden
Councillors, we are long overdue for this. How much longer are we going to sit on our hands while Ku-ring-gai drifts further into exclusivity, shutting out the very people who make a community function?
The status quo isn’t just failing Ku-ring-gai—it is actively harming it. We are watching our own community become a place only the wealthy can afford, forcing out young people, businesses, and diversity. And for what? To preserve some imagined past at the cost of our future? I can’t afford to move out and still live close to my family, and I’m not the only one. If we keep pushing out our young people, who will be left to staff our checkouts or provide the essential services we all rely on? Who will work in our childcare centres and aged care homes if we don’t even give them a place to live?
What is the point of delaying? Change is inevitable. You can either fight it and watch Ku-ring-gai stagnate, or you can embrace it and lead by example. We have an opportunity to shape our future—to allow a mix of housing types and tenures that serve the needs of all, not just the privileged few.
It’s time to stop making excuses. It’s time to get things moving in Ku-ring-gai—to build more housing, improve connectivity, and create a vibrant, active community.
Twelve months ago, we heard people say, We can’t just have blanket upzoning; we need to do this properly. So, the process was done properly—with community consultation and careful planning. And yet, here we are again, with the same voices still saying no. Let’s be honest—they were never arguing in good faith. They don’t want things done properly. They want endless delay, so nothing ever gets built. And that behaviour should discredit them.
All this compromise and delay are undermining the very values of Ku-ring-gai that we claim to uphold. Compromise only works when there is give and take. But those who continue to say no are unwilling to give anything up for the greater good.
It certainly won’t be the end, but this is a start for positive change in Ku-ring-gai.
Speech by Peter Tulip
My name is Peter Tulip. I’ve lived in Roseville for 12 years. I am also Chief Economist at the Centre for Independent Studies, where I research housing policy. And I am a member of Sydney YIMBY, as you can tell from my shirt.
I like the state government’s TOD proposal. But I prefer the staff recommendation. Because Ku‑ring-gai, like other councils, needs more high-rise apartment buildings. That is the solution to Sydney’s affordability crisis.
Strong evidence shows that increased density makes housing more affordable. It appals me to see Council deny this evidence. I don’t have time to discuss that, which is well-established anyway. but if anyone wants to ask me later about the research on affordability I would be happy to discuss it.
The staff report instead claims that support for the preferred option reflects a desire to save heritage areas. Which is not my view at all.
I support preserving buildings that are unusually old or attractive, like “Eryldene”. But most so‑called “Heritage Conservation Areas” don’t do this. They preserve ordinary suburban housing that is not especially attractive. While making the affordability crisis worse.
Like many home buyers, I would prefer to live in a lively, walkable neighbourhood, with the amenities that accompany high density.
I recognise that is not the view of many respondents to the Council’s survey. But those respondents are unrepresentative. They exclude the views of the potential home buyers we are locking out. They are a misleading basis for policy.
A disappointing feature of the report to Council is the obsession with heritage while neglecting what the community says it most wants, which is trees. Trees are more important for neighbourhood amenity and improve the attractiveness of streetscapes more than preserving old buildings.
You don’t need deep soil restrictions for tall street trees; you need to bury overhead wires. That is ordinarily too costly, but new construction provides an ideal opportunity. It makes the cost low and Section 7.11 contributions provide a way of paying for it.
Instead of taxing developers 10% for low-income housing, which the community does not want, it should use that money for burying wires and planting trees.
A constructive compromise would involve the high density the State government legitimately expects and the tree canopy residents say is a top priority. We should have both.
