In our last email in March, we undertook to investigate the SSDA (State Significant Planning Applications) that were beginning to be lodged in some HCAs (Heritage Conservation Areas) in Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, and Gordon under the ‘protection” of the State’s TOD that came into effect in May 2024. The Council's ‘new” TOD will generally restrict the density and location of apartment buildings away from HCA’s towards the town centres. It seems that applications inside the State TOD, but outside the Council TOD, that have passed through the preliminary assessment “SEARS Stage“ before 14 June will be “grandfathered” (under the State TOD). This is a somewhat normal arrangement that Planners call Transitional and Savings provisions. The effects are however dramatic to the streets where this will occur.
What is SSDA and what does it do?
It’s a separate way of getting a Development Application lodged, assessed, and approved through NSW Dept of Planning. It’s for applications over a certain construction cost threshold ($70m for apartments) that must include a % of affordable housing. Those below the threshold still go through Council albeit they are constrained by the regional planning panel’s role. The objective is to accelerate the approval and delivery of new larger scale development to address the State’s housing crisis. SSDAs set aside some planning controls like Councils Heritage DCPs ( Development Control Plan) provisions but applications still require proper heritage assessment. The applications are advertised/exhibited and subject to both Council and Resident/Community submissions. SSDA can be searched, reviewed and submissions made via the State Planning portal.
How did we end up in this “Planning No-man’s Land”
It goes back to early COVID in 2020 when all Councils were required by the state to prepare a Housing Strategy to identify additional land to be zoned for housing growth. Ku-ring-gai Council were uncooperative, rejected the growth targets and effectively made no change to their LEP. This entrenched the decade long view that Ku-ring-gai were recalcitrant heritage zealots who used planning to “salt the earth” preventing sensible development. Basically, NIMBYs living in $4m Federation Houses not pulling their weight.
Coming out of COVID the housing crisis became mainstream politically. Part of the solution was to remove planning blockages and zone more land for apartments near transport and amenity. Enter the TODs in early 2024 on 40ish Sydney Stations including 4 in Ku-ring-gai. Councils could choose to accept the State 400m template or do their own LEP but within a defined timeframe. All Councils complied except for Ku-ring-gai who attempted to mount a rebellion and undertook ill-advised court action. A ceasefire was finally agreed with Ku-ring-gai committing to prepare a proper TOD. In this they have done a comprehensive job and should be congratulated.
The 12 month “gap” has allowed time for developers to secure options over land inside the State TOD but outside the Council TOD. This difference wasn’t defined until Council's Preferred Scenario was exhibited on March 25 - but the train had left the station. Many thousands of hours have been spent by developers preparing applications. The lucky homeowners selling to a developer at nearly twice the property value win, while the neighbours left behind lose.
Like cruise ships that have run aground, overbearing and isolated 10 storey apartment buildings will appear on our domestic scale streets.
It’s a mess on a mess that no one wants to own. (Profanity edited)
What can we do?
Submissions on individual SSDA applications can be made during the exhibition period via the portal here:
There are now 19 or so SSDA applications in Ku-ring-gai, so please check for one near you. Over 50 objections or one from Council require the application/submissions to be considered by the Planning Commission. To be counted, submissions need to be individually framed and ideally specific. (The "I just don’t like it" basically gets ignored!) SSDA’s go through a State Significant Design Review Panel involving Architects, Landscape and Urban Designers who are more likely to reflect on appearance/impact issues than planners looking purely at compliance. We suggest putting forward desired design changes that would lessen/mitigate the impact. eg. one less storey to reduce overshadowing, setback upper level to lessen visual impact, greater boundary/street setback to keep gardens suburb/tree canopy, introduce domestic scale to maintain the streetscape, more building articulation to reduce bulk.
As always, reach out to us if we can help.
