The Sydney heritage home owners worried they’ll be swamped by apartments

David Tindale was philosophical when he first learnt the upper north shore street where he bought his 1930s house decades ago would be rezoned for high-rise apartments close to the railway station.

“We thought, ‘C’est la vie’, we’ve had a good 20 years here. We figured we would sell the house to a developer and find somewhere new. Then later we started to realise, we’ve got a big problem.”

David Tindale poured time and money into renovating his heritage-listed house on Khartoum Avenue in Gordon.Credit: Wolter Peeters

Tindale is among frustrated owners of more than 70 locally heritage-listed houses that have been ring-fenced from development under plans to increase housing density around Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon railway stations in the Ku-ring-gai council area.

The upshot, the owners argue, is their houses will be surrounded by apartments that will potentially block sunlight, impinge on their privacy and reduce the value of their properties.

It’s the most recent battle over balancing preservation with progress in Ku-ring-gai. The Minns government’s push to reshape Sydney’s suburbs with more intensive development along the rail corridor has been fiercely resisted by the local council and created mixed fortunes for home owners as property developers rush to replace freestanding homes with apartments.

The NSW government excluded heritage-listed properties from its transport-oriented development (TOD) scheme, which last May rezoned land within 400 metres of the four railway stations to allow buildings up to six storeys to deliver 23,200 homes. The council took the government to court in an attempt to block the plans and devised a compromise scheme, which was exhibited last month.

Under the council’s proposal, buildings up to 28 storeys would be allowed within 800 metres of railway stations. The council said it had aimed to position larger developments away from areas with a high concentration of locally heritage-listed homes or heritage conservation areas (HCAs). The council also proposes to grant development rights to heritage properties in higher-density areas if developers incorporate the protected buildings into their projects.

Tindale said the plans were “leaving a little anachronistic slice of heritage for no reason”.

“Not only does it inconvenience owners, but by leaving isolated glimpses of heritage in these areas you’re compromising exactly what it is you’re trying to achieve, which is to solve the housing crisis.”

The owners, who have banded together under a group named ABOUT (A Better Outcome Under TOD), are proposing the council distinguish between “high-value” heritage items that should be protected, and “low-value” heritage items that could be delisted to allow for new development.

In its submission on the council’s scheme, the group said: “We believe that being the custodians of community heritage should not result in reduced liveability or financial disadvantage for us.

“These are our homes and major investments, so like all other property owners in the area, we must be directly considered in the context of these new zonings.”

A Ku-ring-gai Council spokeswoman said 136 heritage items were at risk of being “effectively isolated and surrounded by high-density buildings” under the government’s TOD rules.

“Using the [council’s] preferred scenario, 120 heritage items will be fully protected, meaning they will be located within low-density residential zones and preserve their existing setting.”

The results of the public feedback on the council’s preferred scenario will be reported to councillors later this month.

Tindale said his home was likely to have lost one-third of its value and would be harder to sell. He wants his home stripped of its heritage protections, but he’s been warned the process could take 18 months and cost $200,000 – with no guarantee it would be delisted.

“Frankly, it just seems ridiculous. We’ve been screwed badly by this. I feel like a test case. I just see the situation we’re in spreading out to the other TOD areas.”

Peter Tulip, who is chief economist at the Centre for Independent Studies think tank, agrees. He believes heritage laws should be amended to include a building’s context in the listing criteria.

Changes to planning rules are poised to reshape Ku-ring-gai’s suburban streets.Credit: Wolter Peeters

“I’m really not sure who this benefits apart from maybe a few heritage zealots who insist on other people living in a museum,” said Tulip, a Roseville resident who is involved in the Sydney YIMBY housing advocacy group.

He acknowledged the owners of the area’s “stranded” heritage houses were “not the most sympathetic story”.

“These are people sitting on $5 million houses complaining they can’t sell them for $12 million.

“But the extra value really reflects the benefit to society and the potential future residents who stand to live in well-located housing.”

Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment founder Kathy Cowley said the effects of the government’s push for higher-density development in the area would be “devastating”.

“It will completely wipe out any original housing we’ve got, and we’ll have heritage houses completely stuck between six- or nine-storey apartment blocks.

“I really feel sorry for the people in heritage homes. The developers will just build around them.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.