What factors influence and shape local communities’ acceptance of higher density built form? PLAN7122 Final Planning Project

Ziad Naim z3434482

MPLAN

Faculty of Built Environment

Research Supervisor:

Gethin Davison

1

TABLE OF CONTENT

PART 1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Compact City and Sustainable Urbanism 3

1.2 Methodology and Limitations 4

PART 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Characteristics of the Compact City 6

2.2 Density and Mobility: Historical Perspective 7

2.3 Resistance to Higher Densities: Main Aspects 9

2.4 Environmental Sustainability of the Compact City 12

2.5 Proactive Participation Processes 13

2.6 Mobility and Density: What could be the best practice? 15

PART 3 CASE STUDY: THE RUAP NEAR KENSINGTON 16

3.1 Why Kensington 16

3.2 Kensington’s Local Context 16

3.3 The new CSELR, a catalyst for change? 18

3.4 The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct 20

3.5 UAP for Kensington and Kingsford 21

3.6 Investigating the RUAP 24

PART 4 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 26

4.1 Aims of Survey 25

4.2 Study Area and Methodology 25

4.3 Survey Results 27

4.4 Summary of Survey Results 34

2

PART 5 INTERVIEW WITH JOANNA HOLE 37

5.1 Kensington’s Characteristics and Issues 36

5.2 Discussion of Survey’s Results 37

5.3 Light Rail and Potential Densities along the Corridor 37

5.4 Council Role in the RUAP Process 38

5.5 The RUAP Introduction and Community Reaction 38

5.6 Interview Questions 39

5.7 Feedback from KPC members 42

5.8 Summary of the Interview and Feedbacks from KPC Members 42

PART 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 44

6.1 Concerns by Community and their Validity 44

6.2 The View from Local Government Perspective 45

6.3 Community Planning Activist 46

6.4 Conclusion 47

PART 7 REFERENCES 49

PART 8 APPENDICES 53

APPENDIX 1: Project Information Statement - Research Survey 53

APPENDIX 2: Survey Form 54

APPENDIX 3: Project Information Statement - Research Interview 56

APPENDIX 4: Interview Questions 57

APPENDIX 5: Project Consent Form 58

APPENDIX 6: Commonly Used Abbreviations 59

3

1. Introduction

1.1 Compact city and sustainable urbanism

The strong link between cities’ urban form and sustainability has contributed to the emergence of the

Compact City concept (Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, p.2). The promotion for

this concept has been more relating to the spatial dimension of the human settlement, more specifically,

dealing with the notions of location and mobility, and their impacts on the consumption of energy and

resources, suggesting an alternative for the traditional phenomenon of urban sprawl (Rerat 2012, p.

116). However, with its claimed benefits, the concept of the compact city still one of the most debated

concepts in the urban policy (Publishing, O. 2012).

In Australia, the growth is amongst the highest in the OECD countries, and larger capital cities,

including Sydney, achieved a population growth of 50% faster than the rest of the country between the

years 2011-2012 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013, p.3). While the Australian cities

are accommodating the largest stake of growth, their densities still amongst the lowest in the world

(Woodcock 2011, p.344), which is to be associated with urban sprawl growth pattern. Hence, the idea

of the compact city, also referred to as “high-density, mixed use city”, is based on adopting an efficient

public transport system as a response to the “car-oriented” urban sprawl, and with processes usually

referred to as intensification and consolidation (Burton 2000, p.1969). This can be one of the

explanations for the race towards densification in a country with urban sprawl, such as Australia (NG

2009, p.24). However, this strong relationship between intensification and public transport implies the

importance of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as a mean of creating compactness and mixed

use around public transport nodes. For example, since the late 1990’s, the TOD has been a focus by

Australian governments to achieve urban consolidation policies (Searle 2011). In metropolitan

strategies, this approach involved proposing increased housing and job densities around planned and

existing transport infrastructure.

Despite the many benefits claimed by compact city supporters, high density and intensification version

of the compact city has proved to have negative influence on environmental and social sustainability

(Lin & Yang 2006), this can be explained in relation to the perceived impacts of compact city living,

such as overcrowding, congestion, pollution and loss of green space. Such impacts may outweigh the

positive claims of the compact city, usually promoted through land use planning policy (Burton 2000,

p.1970). Hence, the issue of acceptability of those compaction policies can be considered as an indicator

of the compact city success in achieving its positive claims (Howley 2009, p.792). Therefore,

acceptability of the compact city concept promoted by land use planning policy states the importance

of communities’ engagement in planning and implementation Processes. Improved community

4

engagement processes can create a sense of ownership over the outcome (Mahjabeen 2009, p.46).

Otherwise, dissatisfaction, with densification proposals may involve certain local community groups

adopting more aggressive political and legal measures to challenge objectives of sustainable urbanism,

usually promoted in metropolitan strategies (Ruming 2012). Also considering the value of informed

decision making to planning processes in a democratic society (Woodcock 2013, p.94)

Considering the discussion above, the issue of acceptability towards higher densities is the main subject

of this research. More specifically, the planning and delivery processes of urban consolidation

proposals, involving TOD approach, in terms of their capacity to balance between concerns and

aspirations of local communities, with objectives of metropolitan strategic planning. In order to

approach this subject, the research key questions is: What would be some of the main concerns, opinions

and aspirations of each of the following stakeholder groups, both affected and involved by a potential

higher density development ; local community; local government; and community activist.

1.2 Methodology and Limitations

The research methodology involved reviewing relevant literature, including conceptual frameworks of

the compact city, its feasibility, opposition to compactness, metropolitan planning delivery processes,

and good practises of community engagement in delivering urban compactness. The review specifically

considered the planning and delivery of urban consolidation through the mechanism of (TOD), being,

so far, considered as one of the most sustainable forms in achieving compact city objectives.

The Sydney suburb of Kensington was chosen as the case study for this research, due to a number of

reasons, including its central location, low to medium density character and being planned to embrace

a TOD model densification including the approved City-South East Light Rail project (CSELR) and

the proposed Randwick Urban Activation Precinct program (RUAP) by the Department of Planning.

The latter involved increasing the residential densities around the potential light rail stations on Anzac

Parade. However, the RUAP program has generated significant negative reactions by the local

community, and been put on hold since September 2013.

Whereas the subject of this research is attitude towards higher density, it was important to obtain

information about the local community’s attitude towards the RUAP in Kensington, and investigate the

relationship of this attitude with other variables that may generate knowledge about any causation

behind it. Association between independent and dependent variables was used to understand any

possible causation (McBurney1994, p.64). As those variables are characteristic to survey methodology

(De Vaus 2002, p.4), the latter was used as a mean of collecting information about the variables and

analysing them. Therefore a community survey was conducted in certain parts of Kensington, aiming

to study the attitude towards the RUAP and any possible factors behind it. Also, the survey method was

chosen as a mean of obtaining a larger amount of structured and statistical data, from a larger number

of people and in a relatively short time (Chapman 2004, p.28).

5

Considering the merits of research interviews in exploring and developing various realities and

perceptions about a certain case, mainly through exchange of ideas (Bauer 2000, p.45), survey results

and other research questions were shared and discussed in a semi-structured interview with strategic

planning coordinator at Randwick City Council. The aim of the interview was to yield a rich insight

into the opinions, attitudes, experiences and aspirations of different stakeholders who participated in

the RUAP process. In that sense, the multidisciplinary background of the interviewee, being a strategic

planner with an architectural background, was significantly helpful to the outcomes of the research.

Moreover, findings from survey and interview were tested against feed backs obtained via email from

two Kensington precinct committee (KPC) members. This provided an insight of their general view as

local community activists, also their experiences from participating in the RUAP community

workshops. The latter were organised by the Department of planning, the workshops only involved

precinct committee members, rather than inviting a wider sample of community in Kensington and rest

of Randwick.

In this methodology, structured data gained through the survey were mainly used to identify concerns

of the local community towards higher density proposals, as well as some of the local community’s

aspirations and expectations for their suburb. The other part of the methodology, comprising interview

with local council planner and email feedbacks from KPC members, focused on the management,

delivery and community engagement processes of the RUAP program.

Targeting each stakeholder group with the appropriate data collection method considered to be helpful

in terms of investigating and understanding the different circumstances of the RUAP from the

perspective of those three stakeholders. Hence, enabling to answer the research question, and help to

provide information about any possible factors that may influence the acceptability of higher densities

by local communities.

6

2. Literature Review

2.1 Characteristics of the compact city

Being based on the notion of the location and mobility elements of the spatial settlement, the compact

city concept has had a number of different explanations and definitions. Beside the higher density, terms

such as urban intensification or consolidation are also used in that sense. Neuman (2005) listed another

13 characteristics of urban compactness (Table 1). Amongst those characteristics or features, are

mixture of land use, fine grain subdivision, increased social and economic interactions, multimodal

transit and high degree of accessibility (p.14). In terms of governance, Neuman also list urban

infrastructure and coordinated land planning control. Moreover Burton (2002) has mentioned some of

those characteristics as advantages claimed by the compact city including conservation of country side,

less need to travel by car, support for public transport, more walking and cycling (p.1969). While

assessing urban sprawl, Galster (2001) presented for a number of compactness features such as; density,

continuity, clustering, mixed uses and proximity. However, the peruse for the compact city concept by

policy makers is based on the rationale that this concept addresses the goals of urban sustainability

goals, including benefits in terms of reducing petrol consumption, facilitating local energy-generating

technologies and conservation of land resources on the urban fringe for recreation, agriculture and water

provision (Publishing, O. (2012))

TABLE 1. COMPACT CITY CHARACTERSTICS. SOURCE: NEUMAN

7

2.2 Density and Mobility: Historical Perspective

The combination of the urban density, mixed use and public transit can be significantly related to the

original notion of efficient correlation between location of human settlements and mobility. Hence the

role of efficient public transport is evident as mean of implementing the concept of the compact city

and addressing some of its main objectives or features, such as accessibility and curbing the trend of

auto-mobile dependency (Jungchan Lee, Kiyo Kurisu, Kyoungjin An and Keisuke Hanaki 2014, p.3).

In most recent years the concept of the transit oriented development (TOD), which mean the association

of higher densities and public transport nodes, has been established as one of the best means to achieve

desired forms of compactness (Mees 2012, p.373). TOD is also at the core of metropolitan planning in

Australian cities such as Sydney, where the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney has also set

objectives of TOD by planning for growth around existing or planned transport and road infrastructure

(NSW DoPI 2013, p.9). However the implementation of the TOD was a later version of earlier concerns

of intensification in NSW, which can be dated back to Sydney’s first metropolitan strategy in 1948

(Searle 2011, p.1421), being reflected in the early 1960’s, when town planning controls in Sydney

allowed the development of medium density three stories apartment buildings in existing low density

context. This can to a great extent be related to the legislation of the strata title which enabled the

individual ownership of units in apartment buildings (Randolph 2006, p.474). Searle (2011) explains

that the earlier wave of medium density intensification came as a response for a number of factors

amongst which, the post war long boom, oil crisis in 1970’s, pressure on government infrastructure

costs, demographic changes and housing affordability.

Searle (2011) also emphasises that the TOD model of densification has largely replaced earlier medium

density implementation in Sydney, roughly around late 1990’s. It allowed a more intense spatial

concentration of densities around existing and accessible transport infrastructure nodes, introducing to

the current form of high density apartment buildings (p.1424). The significant continuous increase in

apartment buildings, from the beginning of 1990’s and upward (Figure 1), was mainly achieved by that

shift from “blanket” medium density development to spatially focused higher density TOD. Other

drivers for that surge in apartment buildings number included discretionary development system in

Sydney and FSR bonus for residential developers, who also realised the financial gains from extensive

densification that had fewer infrastructure levies (p.1423).

8

Since the intensification started in Sydney, with its “blanket” pattern, local communities resistance to

that form of density was the other side of this early attempts of this process, partially towards the

medium density walk up apartment, blaming them to be “incompatible” with their surrounding low

density fabric and lacking landscaping green space (Searle 2011, p.1421).

Searle also argues that the emergence of the TOD was a major factor in reducing local communities’

negative attitude towards urban intensification and high density apartment buildings; he also uses the

graph in (figure1) to support this claim (p.1424). Despite the increase in higher densities and change of

attitude towards TOD based urban consolidation, the localised resistance to urban consolidation by local

communities is still considered an obstacle to implement the compact city policies in Sydney and other

Australian cities. Sites of potential densification become, to a great extent, sites for “community

resistance” (Ruming 2012, p.421).

Resistance to higher density, patterns and factors behind it are amongst core subjects to be investigated

in this research. Factors shaping acceptability or rejection of compact city are important in the sense

that they address the informed decision making process in democratic societies (Woodcock 2010, p.94).

Communities are main stakeholders in those decision making processes. Their role in tackling or

facilitating strategic planning sustainability objectives, such as compact city, is quite evident. For

example, in Melbourne, the political fear of residents’ adverse reactions towards higher density

development, was considered as one of the major factors that led to failure delivering the objectives of

Melbourne 2030 policy (Woodcock 2010, p.95). In Sydney, despite the surge in higher density

FIGURE 1. MULTIPLE-UNIT DWELLING STARTS, SYDNEY AND TORONTO, 1967–2006.

SOURCE: SEARLE (2011)

9

development for the last 25 years, urban consolidation efforts by state government are still interrupted

by opposition of NIMBY groups and local government authorities (Searle 2011, p.1429).

In the next section, aspects such as the patterns of NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups, their concerns,

social and environmental feasibility of compact city and delivery of urban consolidation will be

investigated through review of relevant literature and examples. The final section in this chapter will

highlight successful examples and promising approaches of implementing the compact city concept,

both in Australia and overseas. It will also introduce questions on how to achieve best practise of

compact city promotion and delivery, in terms of sustainability and acceptability by local communities

affected by consolidation.

2.3 Resistance to Higher Densities: Main Aspects

Cultural context is one of main shapers of general public aspirations towards the ideal form and settings

for the compact city. The concept city has been considered as alien to Australian culture and city

dwellers (Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, p.86). This claim could bet true,

especially when considering the low density form as a product of the “egalitarian” society in Australia,

associating the low density detached house with the notion of home ownership, which is considered as

one of the positive life aspects in Australia (Forsyth 1997, p.47). However, here are some of the other

aspects characterising the NIMBY debate, both in Australia and overseas.

2.3.1 Localised Characteristics of the Place

Despite a number of similarities and common grounds in aspirations and concerns expressed by NIMBY

groups resisting higher density developments, the localised and divergent cultural dimension of

NYMBY’ism is quite evident in shaping the concerns and aspirations of different local communities.

For example, the use of the elastic term of “character” by opposition groups as a main factor in their

opposition to densification proposals, and how would this term would be defined due to highly localised

and different environmental and cultural contexts (Davison 2011; Dovey 2009). As the localised

cultural context is one aspect of the NIMBY phenomenon, other aspects worth investigation are

relationship to government bodies, strategic planning framework, and potential environmental and

social impacts foreseen by local communities affected.

2.3.2 Strategic Planning Framework for promoting higher densities

The Metropolitan Development Program in Sydney is one of the means to control the balance of

development between low density urban growth and urban consolidation in established centres (Searle

2011, p.1425). The metropolitan strategies for Sydney usually designate growth locations, due to

accessibility to existing or planned infrastructure, and also set numerical housing targets addressing

10

factors such as population growth and spatial distribution. The role of those targets in implementing

urban consolidation is observed by the percentage of targets dedicated to urban consolidation or infill

development in existing urban areas. In the latest draft metropolitan plan of Sydney, only 50% of the

total target figure (545 000 new houses by 2031) was dedicated to the existing urban area (NSW DoPI

2013). This is compared to about 70% in the former two metropolitan strategies (NSW DoPI 2010;

NSW DoPI 2005). Through subregional strategies, which follow the implementation of Metropolitan

strategies, infill development and urban consolidation housing targets will be mobilised and distributed

to different established suburbs and centres in Sydney, due to factors such as capacity, accessibility and

availability of infrastructure. However, targets seems to be the main objective of urban consolidation

consumed by NIMBY and higher density opposition groups while mobilising against urban

consolidation and intensification proposals, usually promoted by higher tiers of government. This is

evident when observing the opposing local community groups, constantly challenging the validity of

new densification proposals, mainly by comparing proposed density figures with set-forward numerical

targets in the metropolitan and subregional plans (SMH 2009).

Understanding the role of dwelling targets can also help in shaping attitude against higher density and

urban consolidation. Findings from (Ruming 2014) emphasise that groups mildly opposing higher

density development, identified as “ambivalent opponents” can turn into “staunch opponents” once

realising that targets are meant to promote development rather than limiting it. In the meantime, the

other group identify by Ruming (2014) as “staunch opponents” were more aware of the purpose of

targets as a mean to increase density and not the opposite (p.259). Another important observation by

Ruming (2014) is the big gap between survey respondents’ ideal development targets and those set in

the metropolitan plans, about 29% of the respondents reported a dwelling target for existing urban areas

of less than 10% (p.258).

The opposition to higher density is reactionary and localised. It increases once the higher density

development is proposed in one’s suburb (Ruming 2014, p.260). Staunch opponents are more likely to

join local community groups to challenge development, which may explain their higher awareness of

local government policy (p.258). On the other hand, supporters for higher density are more aware of

metropolitan wide planning. Despite those significant differences in terms of policy awareness, Ruming

(2014) states the fact that his survey result does confirms a generally low level of awareness on

Metropolitan strategy level, about 60% unaware of metropolitan strategy plans (p.259). Furthermore,

this emphasises the need for better community engagement procedures, especially when promoting

higher density developments (p.264).

11

2.3.3 New strategies used by the opposition groups

By studying the case study of residents’ backlash against higher density in the established low density

Sydney suburb of Ku-Ring-Gai, Ruming (2012) uncover new strategies adopted by opposition groups

to legitimise their claims against higher density developments. Those strategies included engaging

wider population, sometimes on metropolitan level, involving the media and getting organised in more

affluent and powerful LGA wide community structures. The latter community organisations may

involve capable people with professional backgrounds or political connections, capable of intensifying

the mobilisation against higher density proposals. Sometimes, those organisations tend to engage wider

Sydney population in local planning issues, using some local elements of environment and heritage as

issues of Sydney wide significance. Ku-Ring-Gai is an example of conflict between state government

interest and local government parochialism, considering factors such as political gain and satisfying

LGA wide voters. Moreover, in some cases, community frustration over higher density development

resulted in “anti –development” candidates to take control in a number of Sydney councils, in areas that

are mostly characterised by high socio-economics (Searle 2011, p.1422). Evolution in high density

opposition groups by using new strategies and tactics, such as political lobbying, highlights the

challenges to be encountered by the NSW urban consolidation polices.

2.3.4 Environmental and Social Impacts

Environmental impacts comprise another aspect in implementing the policies of the compact city.

Common impact foreseen by local residents as a result of potential intensification include demand on

local infrastructure, traffic congestion and car parking issues, change of demographics (influx of poorer

households/ renters), loss of streetscape, impacts on local environment, change of the reputation of the

area and loss of privacy (Ruming 2014, p.255; Searle 2011, p.1422). Most interestingly, there is

evidence of the significance of social factors, mostly related to the criticism of apartment unit living

within strata title. For example, research by Howley (2009) identified social features of the

neighbourhood, such interaction with neighbours, as significant drivers for current higher density

residents’ decision whether to stay or move to a low density suburb in a near future (p.796).

Furthermore, (Randolph 2006, p.475; East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, p.22) have also focused on social

cohesion factors, that may increase acceptability of strata title living, which is considered the most

common tenure form to embrace high density development. Significance of social interaction issues in

existing higher density development can be related to some of the characteristics of strata title. For

example, living in a great proximity to each other and sharing common facilities. Therefore design

quality of apartments and shared spaces could be critical in changing attitude towards compact living

(East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, p.60). Randolph (2006) also refer to further challenges facing the

development higher density apartment buildings, such as better inclusion of certain groups such as

families with children (p.485).

12

2.4 Environmental Sustainability of the Compact City

The environmental feasibility of the current version of the compact city, or its environmental

sustainability, is also challenged by experts and researchers. The challenge of the environmental

sustainability gains, claimed by the compact city concept is usually linked to its mobility patterns

outcomes, and its TOD mechanism. Neuman (2005) refer to evidence that compactness and

sustainability can be negatively correlated. Besides challenging social sustainability claims of compact

living, Newman also refer to evidence that while short trips to local activities increase, urban density

may not influence the long distance trips to specialised activities and employment (p.12). Rerat (2012)

also challenges the compatibility of the compact city with the requirements of sustainable development,

also criticising its unsustainable mobility patterns (p.118).

In his critique of its sustainability claims, Newman (2005) expands on the critique on the current model

of the compact city towards a more holistic level. Neuman used “intellectual traditions of sustainability”

such as capacity, fitness, diversity and balance to assess the sustainability of the recent compact city.

He also assessed the sustainability of the compact city, using sustainability common themes or features

including “place-specific conditions” and “process” (p.20). He arguesit was those two themes of

sustainability by which the traditional compact city gained its sustainable form. Neuman compares the

current version, which is usually promoted by professional elite (planners, architects, engineers and

developers), against the pre 20th century compact city that was built by local builders, using local

materials and local technology. Fitness to the surrounding context was the main result of such localised

practise (p.21). Moreover, pre 20th century town building was more participation based, through

provision of information and ideas. Newman also refers to the evolutionary process under which the

compact city gained its form, being built gradually “accumulating uses, meaning, size ……” over time

(p.22). Comparison between the original compact cities as “an evolving process of human

development” with the Developer’s marketing-based current version, states the importance of values

such as local-knowledge based participation and fitness to the surroundings as factors facilitating the

feasibility and acceptability of the traditional compactness.

The discussion above states the importance of prioritising sustainability when planning or promoting

for compact city concept. Sustainability here can be considered as a concept that directly reflects on the

everyday life quality of communities, whereas optimal densities can be considered as result of

prioritising the investment in future and “quality of life” (Raof 2009, p.38).

Considering the discussion above, the quality of life stands out as an important factor in promoting the

compact city. Participation and engagement of local communities are important in that sense, as means

of achieving a compact city with a better life quality, mainly by addressing and improving

environmental and social sustainability aspects of a place.

13

2.5 Proactive Participation Processes

The trade-off between commuity aspiration and objectives of metrpolitan strategy was covered by

woodcock(2012), while suggesting improvements to local communities enhagment in City of

Melbourne plans for intensification around established urban centres and near transit corridor. Urban

design approach was adopted by Woodcock, aiming to enable residents participating in community

workshops to choose out from multiple streetscape options. The three dimensional streetscape

alternatives were resulted from differing regulatory and development scenarios (Figure 2), later on;

those visions are compared with the relative desirability of local residents (p.95).

Moreover, the example from the suburb of Collingwood in Vancouver, Canada, does follow a

multidisciplinary approach (Davison 2013), similar to that applied by Woodcock in Melbourne. An

intensification project around the public transit station in Collinwood involved interactive community

workshops bringing together different stakeholders including city planners, the developer, community

leaders and members. The local community’s acceptability of the intensification in the area was a result

of its positive involvement in the planning process. For example, understanding the relationship

FIGURE 2. URBAN DESIGN 3D VISUALISATION AS PROPOSED BY WOODCOCK (2012)

14

between heights, take up rate and feasibility of the development. More significantly, the intensification

of the area was considered as an opportunity to maintain and enhance the character of the

neighbourhood. In the case of Collingwood the character was nothing about the physical shape of the

buildings or streetscape, rather its social fabric. The latter has been adequately addressed, together with

current neighbourhood problems when redeveloping an abandoned residential site in the middle of

Collingwood low density fabric (Figure 3). This development has also addressed objectives of social

sustainability, through provision of community, recreational and employment facilities which helped

build community’s “cohesion and pride” (Davison 2012 p.119).

FIGURE 3. COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE. SOURCE: DAVISON (2012)

2.6 Mobility and Density: What could be the best practice?

With its density and Transit components, the model of TOD, so far, stands out as one of the main

mechanisms to achieve urban consolidation in overseas and Australia. What are some of the possible

15

drivers of its success or failure, especially in Sydney? What could be the best practise in delivering

TODs to assure a more feasible, sustainable and consequently acceptable version of the compact city?

Especially when considering the concerns and aspirations of local communities affected by the

proposed densification. Another dimension need to be addressed is the acceptability of the transit

component of the development in addition to the density one. Part of the fear from the TOD is the fear

of changing the character of the area, lack of trust that the claimed TOD’s advantages would not be

delivered and, also corruption concern in the sense of government – developers lobbying on the cost of

the community (Rice 2001, p.179).

16

3. Case Study: The RUAP near

Kensington

3.1 Why Kensington

The suburb of Kensington was chosen as a case study for the research due to existence of established

low density pockets close to Anzac Parade, proximity to the CBD and being on the alignment of the

potential CSELR project. Also, Kensington was one of 8 suburbs targeted by the urban activation

program, proposed by the Department of planning and infrastructure (DoPI).

3.2 Kensington’s Local Context

According to information in Randwick DCP document, the suburb is quite characterised by its

proximity to the University of New South Wales, with people aging 20-29 comprising the largest single

groups (Figure 4). More than 60% pf dwellings in Kensington are apartment, flats or units, mostly in 3

stories apartment buildings, mostly occupied by younger people. Hence, about one third of Kensington

residents live within one block of the commercial strip (Randwick City Council 2013), though there is

the Raleigh Park apartment complex a bit further away from the Anzac Parade. The current zoning of

the commercial strip on both sides of the Anzac Parade is B2 (Town Centre), which generally

encourages residential/commercial mixed use development. The fine grain and the heritage architectural

character of the town centre area is maintained by an urban design focused DCP, providing block by

block heights and set back controls (Figure 5). The maximum height is 6 stories in majority of the

blocks.

FIGURE 4. AGE STRUCTURE IN KENSINGTON. SOURCE:

PROFILE ID

17

FIGURE 5. BLOCK BY BLOCK DESIGN CONTROLS IN KENSINGTON CENTRE DCP: KENSINGTON TOWN

CENTRE DCP (2013)

In terms of its Geography the suburb comprises a significant amount of open green space area, including

parks, golf course and the race course. This can be one of the reasons for the relatively low residential

catchment of Kensington, compared to other suburbs in Randwick, also located on the Anzac Parade

corridor, such as Kingsford and Maroubra. The lack of the natural catchment is considered one of the

main reasons for Kensington commercial strip not being evolved as much as other neighbouring centres

in the area.1 The town centre strip, is followed by another one block wide strip medium density zone

(R3), mainly dominated by three-story apartment walk up buildings with some pockets of federation

houses. This strip is attached to the race course from the east, and to a low density zone on the western

side of the Anzac corridor, followed by the apartment development at Raleigh Park and the low density

conservation area in Western Kensington (Figure 6).

The dominant density character in Kensington is a mix of low to medium densities. However, the arrival

of the new light Rail will introduce for new considerations regarding the viability of this urban form in

relation to the potential changes that might be triggered by such public transport infrastructure.

1 See interview with Joanna Hole, strategic planning coordinator at Randwick council, in Part 5.6

18

3.3 The new CSELR, a catalyst for change?

The 12 km long light Rail line with 20 stops starts from Circular Quay in the CBD, extending south to

central station before heading South East to join the Anzac Parade corridor. Near Kensington the line

branches off into two, one reaches to the health precinct in Randwick, the other one continues on the

Anzac Parade and finishes at Kingsford.

The project was declared as a Critical Significant State Infrastructure (TNSW 2013b), which means,

amongst other things, that it is not subject to appeal rights. The planning approval was obtained in 4th

of June 2014 (TNSW 2014). Work still in progress to commission tenderers to provide more detailed

documentation for construction works of the project.2

Kensington will have three potential stops, two near its town centre, and the third one near the UNSW

gate (Figure 7).

Main objectives of the project, in relation to the Sydney City Centre Access strategy (2013), include

the reduction of bus transport entering the city, urban renewal through revitalisation of public space and

improvement to reliability of travel time between trip generators and attractions along the alignment

(TNSW 2013 b, p.52).

Within the context of Kensington as one of the suburbs on the CSELR alignment, being only 6-7km

from the city, the potential for change is quite present. Due to potential reliability and increased

patronage capacity, compared with traditional bus network (TNSW 2013d, p.7), the new CSELR could

be a catalyst for change in Kensington. Examples from other cities in the world, with light rail projects,

have shown significant land use change patterns, both in land use type and intensity.

2 As explained by the CSELR project director during a project EIS consultation held at Randwick TAFE in July

2014, attended by the author

FIGURE 6. CURRENT LAND USE ZONING IN KENSINGTON. SOURCE: RANDWICK LEP (2013)

19

Transformation in urban shape and activities, is more likely to occur within the station’s catchment

area, usually defined as a radius of 300m-900m around LRT stops, corresponding to walking distances

of 5, 10 and 15 minutes (Calvo 2013, p.85). When light rail is a part of a TOD effort, or integrated with

local pro-development policies, significant changes to urban form and activities are very likely to incur,

including some increase in multi-unit residential and decrease in industrial uses, with different

magnitudes during planning, construction and operational phases (Hurst 2014).

FIGURE 7 LIGHT RAIL MA. SOURCE: TNSW (2013)

20

In terms of population density growth, the example of two LRT alignments in Madrid shows a

significant population growth on the first alignment, in which TOD and integrated planning principles

were applied with in the stations’ catchment area (Calvo 2013). Most interestingly, Calvo’s (2013)

findings also refer to increases in population, though significantly less, in the second alignment, where

the low density urban character kept unchanged (p.90).

In the case of the suburb of Kensington, those aspects of change discussed above are likely to be

intensified, due to the location characteristics. Proximity to the city, the university and some recreational

activities, are amongst those factors. Furthermore, population density in Kensington are still at 48, 67

persons per hectare (Profile id 2014), compared to a potential population density of up to 240 people

per hectare that can be supported by an LRT (Towers 2005, p.58).

With evidence of change brought by the provision of light rail transit, especially in relation to population

and dwelling densities, it is very important to understand how would that change response to the existing

character and sensitivities in a suburb like Kensington. How capacities of existing urban fabric,

community and economy, as described in the subsection of local context, would be addressed when a

TOD or an integrated planning approach is applied in the area. The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct

program, which involved a proposal to increase densities around the potential LR stops, will be

discussed by its objectives, management, delivery processes, including community and local

government engagement processes.

3.4 The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct

With the main objective to coordinate the strategic planning of housing and jobs with existing and

planned infrastructure, the AUP program has targeted areas with potential to provide a range of housing

and jobs options with greater access to public transport infrastructure (NSW DoPI 2012, p.5). In the

meantime, the metropolitan plan of Sydney has also described the UAP as a program targeting the

highly accessible suburbs to provide housing choice and prosperity (DoPI 2013, p.8). The Randwick

Urban Activation Precinct (RUAP) was also identified in the context of the “Anzac Parade Corridor”

City shaper, generally aiming to increase the “population density” and stimulating business, retail and

public transport (NSW DoPI 2013, p.24). Randwick has been also targeted by another UAP, which is

the Anzac Parade South, starting from South Kingsford and extending south to La Perouse. So far, there

are no plans for LRT for this segment of the Anzac Parade corridor.

The selection of UAP precincts is subject to nomination, which may come from different sources, such

as the DoPI, local councils and private sector. Thereafter the nomination should be endorsed by the

government based on advice from an “interagency precinct nomination committee” chaired by the

Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (NSW DoPI 2012, p.6).

21

The delivery process of the UAP should involve engagement with different key stakeholders, including

local community groups and local council staff. This is through the establishment of different working

groups with council, communities and agencies (DoPI 2012, p11), followed by a number of stages till

the precinct plan is finalised and approved (Figure 8).

3.5 UAP for Kensington and Kingsford

The Boundary for the RUAP proposal encompassed large parts of Kensington and smaller parts of

North Kingsford. The determination of this boundary was based on a 400 m catchment around the

potential light rail stations, which is equivalent to a 5 minutes walking distance to the station (Figure

9).

FIGURE 8. THE UAP PLANNING PROCESS. SOURCE:

NSW DOPI 2012

22

Most changes included mixed-use densification near LRT future stations near the Anzac Parade,

especially the commercial strip in Kensington, Southern parts of the race course and also Kingsford

town centre. From the urban design strategy produced through the planning process (Figure 10), there

are also proposal for a number of village centres near to main stops in Kensington commercial strip,

Kingsford town centre and another one near the stop at High Street.

The magnitude of changes in Kensington can be more realised by looking at the three dimensional

image for the proposal (Figures 10 and 11), taken from the councillor’s workshop document, where

heights of some proposed buildings reaching 65 m.

FIGURE 9. RUAP’S CATCHMENT AREA. SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING;

COUNCILLOR’S' WORKSHOP (2013). THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE

INTERNET, AND IT WAS OBTAINED FROM RANDWICK COUNCIL.

23

FIGURE 10. 3D VISUALISATION FOR RANDWICK UAP. SOURCE: DOPI COUNCILLORS’ WORKSHOP

(2013)

FIGURE 11. 3D VISUALISATION FOR DENSIFICATION IN KENSINGTON CENTRE. SOURCE DOPI:

COUNCILLORS’ WORKSHOP (2013)

24

The councillors’ workshops involved briefing a panel of three councillors by the DoPI staff about the

progress in working groups with council’s occupational staff and workshops with the community

precinct committee members.3

The whole planning process of the RUAP was meant to take about 6-7 months. Started in early 2013

and involved two community workshops or workgroups on 18th July and 1st August, thereafter, in

September 2013 the program was put on hold. Around the same period, in a community meeting called

by the local MP member, and attended by the DoPI staff, the local community demonstrated their

concerns and opposition towards the RUAP proposal (Daily Telegraph 2013). Amongst the most

significant concerns, were the 65m (20 stories) high buildings proposed on Anzac Parade, near

Kensington and Maroubra. Also concerns regarding the capacity of social and physical infrastructure.

There was an evident opposition towards this proposal.

However, as the aim of this research is to investigate the underlays of opposition against consolidation

or intensification, mostly delivered by a TOD mechanism, the investigation of the RUAP’s backlash

could yield some findings or future lessons in terms of how to approach, inform and engage local

communities when introducing TOD densification proposals. Hence the investigation will be limited to

Kensington’s share of the RUAP, considering its significant locational, economic and built form

characteristics discussed earlier in this section.

3.6 Investigating the RUAP

The investigation on the RUAP will be initiated by a community survey to measure the general attitude

of residents towards what has been proposed so far. Also the community’s aspirations about their area

will be included in the survey questions. Interview with the council strategic planner will be intended

to gain more insight about practices followed by the DoPI while delivering and planning the proposal.

Finally, email feed backs from two Kensington Precinct Committee members were aimed to provide

more understanding about processes followed in the RUAP’s community workshops organised by the

DoPI.

3 As explained by the interviewee in Part 5

25

4. Survey Methodology and Results

4.1 Aims of the Survey

With the aim of providing a better understanding of local communities’ reactions towards

implementation of higher densities developments, Research methodology involves conduction of a

community survey in Kensington. Engaging with community was aimed to look into the

implementation of compact city concept from a community perspective, trying to explore concerns,

aspirations and visions of local residents, and their validity.

The proposed RUAP program was a main subject of the community survey conducted in last September.

The reaction to the UAP proposal and higher densities in Randwick were assessed against a number of

variables, which covered aspects of higher density such as environmental impacts foreseen by residents,

concerns, needs and local community’s vision for Kensington. The results from this survey are to be

discussed with practitioners from the local council.

4.2 Study Area and Methodology

The field work involved surveying local residents in chosen low residential density blocks on both sides

of Anzac Parade in Kensington (Figure 12). The medium density blocks near Anzac parade and other

main arterial roads were excluded. Also, some low density blocks near the university were also excluded

as they accommodate a significant number of international students, which did not belong to the target

group of the study. Kensington Park is the limit for the study area from the South. Blocks after this Park

belong to the suburb of Kingsford. These blocks may have a number of different characteristics from

those of Kensington such as proximity to the university’s cafes and facilities, proximity to an evolved

town centre with an established retail and business mix and more dense urban form. Generally, residents

targeted are those who live in Kensington low density blocks, on both sides of Anzac Parade.

The survey design involved open question addressing aspirations and concerns of residents, followed

by close ended questions to determine groups as per their attitude towards RUAP and LR. Thereafter

open ended questions addressing impacts and attitude towards any possibility of living in a higher

density development.

26

Survey questions included two types of variables. First, dependent variables, with close ended question

aimed to obtain a specific attitude of residents towards higher densities proposal in Kensington. This

was represented by question six and seven in the questionnaire, which aimed to measure the attitude of

the community towards higher density and light-rail infrastructure. A scale of 1-5 was used to capture

those who strongly support, support, neither support or oppose, oppose and strongly oppose the

proposal. The other types of variables are explanatory variables, which were included as open-ended

questions, mainly aimed to provide explanation and help identify any possible factors behind the

specific attitudes.

FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA IN KENSINGTON

FIGURE 12. STUDY AREA LIMITATION

27

4.3 Survey Results

The survey was conducted through approximately 250 door knockings in a low-density residential

blocks in Kensington over two weekends, two Saturdays and Two Sundays, between the 13th and 21st

of September 2014. The total number of respondents was 30 people. Utilising the 3D images of the

RUAP proposal, responses to Question 7 (see Appendix 2) were divided into four groups according to

the attitude expressed by the respondents towards the implementation of high density developments in

Kensington.4 The majority of respondents had heard about the RUAP, but were not aware of the 3D

images. The size of each group is shown in figure 13 below. From Question 7, which was set to be the

dependent variable, 11/30 were categorised as “opponents”, 12/30 were “strong opponents”, and only

4/30 respondents and 3/30 were “supporters” and “strongly supporters” respectively. The majority of

respondents positioned themselves as “strong opponents” (Figure 13).

Considering the significant majority were amongst the “oppose” and “strongly oppose” groups,

responses to the open ended questions in the survey were aimed to provide explanations behind the

negative attitudes identified.

4 See figures 10 and 11 in Part 4, page 23

FIGURE 13. ATTITUDE TOWARDS POTENTIAL HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN KENSINGTON

28

The survey starts with questions revealing Kensington community’ views regarding what they like

about their area, also what are aspects that need to be improved? Those questions were aimed to find

out the community’s preferred future scenarios based on popular aspects, and also problematic aspects

that need to be addressed and improved in the future.

By answering Question 2 “What do you like about Kensington”, a significant majority of respondents

from all groups referred to the convenience of the central location and proximity to city, beaches and

other important facilities as one of the most popular aspects Kensington has (Figure 14).

Moving into Question 3 “What needs to be improved in Kensington” (Figure 15), shows the evident

need for better commercial strip in Kensington. Respondents from different groups have clearly

expressed their need to a local business centre with a descent retail mix of supermarkets, fruit and

vegies, bakers, butchers and other essential services that the area lacks. Respondents addressing this

issue referred to the inconvenience of them having to drive to nearest retail centres, such as East

Gardens, in order to meet their regular shopping needs. Descent retail and business mix with in a

walkable distance is the most significant aspect of improvement amongst respondents in the sample.

FIGURE 14. ASPECTS RESPONDENTS DO LIKE ABOUT KENSINGTON

29

4.3.1 Social Issues Foreseen by Respondents

Starting with Question 8; “What are some of the social impacts you foresee with this proposal (RUAP)”.

Answers included in most cases more than one impact or factor reported per individual respondent,

resulting with a total of 56 factors or impact predicted by respondents (Figure 16).

According to respondents, Kensington is a preferred location for parking for both UNSW students and

people attending sport and other cultural events along Anzac Parade near Kensington. In some cases

they park in Kensington’s side street and walk for about 15-20 minutes to their Destinations.

One of the most significant issues reported by participants was concerns over the currently critical on-

street parking situation in Kensington, and fears to be worsening if residential densities to be increased

in the future. This parking issue was a major concern to the oppose/strongly oppose groups, attracting

13 responses. People explained their concerns as this situation will be worsened by any potential

increase of densities, causing more problems in terms of everyday parking conflicts and competition.

FIGURE 15. ASPECTS NEED TO BE IMPROVED IN KENSINGTON

30

Other social factors that could have shaped the response of mild and stark opposition groups are the

traffic disruptions issues. Concerns regarding this factor were explained by respondents as higher

densities will add to the existing traffic jams in the area. Also increased “rat run” traffic in the area as a

result of higher density development. Social aspects of such concerns may relate to loss of the peaceful

and quite character of Kensington. This issue was limited to oppose /strongly oppose groups.

Third significant social factor is “more people/congestion”. This was explained in terms of possible

social problems and conflicts resulted from overcrowding. Another issue reported by respondents was

“loss of sense of community”, which was mainly reported by older people, falling within 60+ age

categories. Capacity of social infrastructure was also an issue significantly relevant to strong opponents

group.

FIGURE 16. SOCIAL IMPACTS FORESEEN BY RESPONDENTS AS A RESULT FOR HIGHER DENSITY

31

4.3.2 Economic Issues Reported

Economic impacts of any potential higher density development were mainly interpreted by respondents

in terms of advantages and disadvantages to shops and businesses in Kensington’s commercial strip,

and some other less significant impacts (Figure 17). A majority of oppose/strongly oppose groups and

also respondents from supporter/ strongly supporter groups (considering their small numbers), were

agreed on the fact that higher density could be good for establishing an attractive retail and business

mix for Kensington.

FIGURE 17. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FORESEEN BY RESIDENTS AS A RESULT FOR ANY POTENTIAL HIGHER

DENSITY IN KENSINGTON

32

4.3.3 Attitude towards Light Rail

Despite the fact that majority respondents in the sample have opposing opinions towards the proposal

higher density development and RUAP, a majority of oppose / strongly oppose groups from the sample

still share a positive view towards the potential light rail project (Figure 18).

FIGURE 18. ATTITUDES TOWARDS LIGHT RAIL

33

4.3.4 Why Choose to Live in a High Density Development

When asked about any reasons or factors that may shape a future decision of living in a high density

development, a reasonable share of participants expressed downsizing due to ageing and family

structure changes as main factors behind such a decision. Affordability was another possible factor in

that sense (Figure 19). Most interestingly a reasonable groups of opponents/strong opponents, entirely

rejected the idea of living in a high density development.

FIGURE 19. REASONS FOR WHY RESPONDENTS MAY CHOOSE TO LIVE IN A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT

34

4.3.5 Age and Income profile of respondents

Figures 20 and 21 illustrate age and income categories of respondents from different groups.

4.4 Summary of Survey Results

Despite the small sample represented in the survey (30 respondents), there were a number of results and

observations that could be associated with patterns and findings from the literature and examples

reviewed. A majority of the sample (23 people) expressed their opposition to the RUAP proposal, being

divided into 12 strong opponents and 11 opponents. Most significantly, social impacts, as identified by

respondents could be behind this negative attitude. Increased parking conflicts and competition where

the most significant social impacts frequently reported by opponents, strong opponents and few

supporters as well (need to consider the small share of supporters/ strong supporters in all results). This

issue was followed by other impacts foreseen as a result of potential densification including traffic

FIGURE 20. AGE CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS

FIGURE 21. INCOME CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS

FIGURE 20 AGE STRUCTURE FOR RESPONDENTS

35

issues and influx of new people and overcrowding. Those impacts, which can be identified as factors

are similar to some generic concerns identified in former research and literature (Ruming (2013); Searle

(2011).5 Furthermore, the convenience of the location, in terms of accessibility and proximity to main

attractions such as the city and beaches was the major popular feature of Kensington.

In terms of community visions and aspirations obtained through answers to open ended questions, the

need for an evolved town centre in Kensington with a descent retail mix including supermarkets,

groceries, services and cafés, was a major aspect of desired future improvements reported by a majority

of the sample’s opponent groups. Further aspects of improvement identified, included on-street Parking

and streetscape in the area.

Aging and family structure changes were identified as the main reason that could shape respondents’

future choice of living in a higher density development. This factor involved as well a representation

from both supporters and opponents groups in the sample. However a reasonable group comprised of

only opponents/ strong opponents entirely rejected the idea, not considering any future possibility of

moving into a high density development. Some people in this group initiated a longer side talks because

of this question, explaining about their own experiences and thoughts in regard to apartment and strata

title living. A mother of three children mentioned about the family’s bad experiences when they

temporarily lived in an apartment complex, while their house was undergoing renovation. According to

her, it was a time full of conflicts with neighbours who were annoyed by her children playing in shared

areas of the complex, having no much choice of safe play environment. Research by Randolph (2006)

and Easthope (1997) reviewed in chapter 2 does associate with such feedbacks, touching on the issue

of social interaction and social inclusion in strata title and apartment living. 6 Other people in this group,

especially elderly people, expressed their concerns regarding the lack of social interaction and cohesion,

such values are very important for people in this age group. This could be associated with the decreased

number of older people in apartment buildings (Urbis 2011, p.8). Other variables identified were

accessibility and availability of services, also affordability.

5 See Part 2, page 11 6 See Part 2, page 12

36

5. Interview with Joanna Hole, Strategic

Planning Coordinator at Randwick City

Council on 19-09-2014

The interview starts with a brief introduction on the research background information and reasons for

choosing the suburb of Kensington as a case study for this research:

● The introduction of the new light rail infrastructure along Anzac Parade

● The current low and medium residential density character in Kensington

● The mismatch between the current population density in Kensington and the potential increased

population density that could be supported by the future light rail transit7

● Community reaction and concerns regarding the proposal of Randwick Urban Activation

Precinct (RUAP) which comprised two UAPs, North Randwick, near Kensington local centre,

and South Randwick, starting in South Kingsford and extending to include suburbs to the South

of Anzac Parade corridor

5.1 Kensington’s Characteristics

Joanna responses to the brief on the objectives of the research and the case study by mentioning a

number of facts and characteristics about population, demographics and built form relevant to

Kensington. She starts with describing Kensington as a predominantly low density residential area with

more heritage characteristics compared to neighbouring Kingsford, which in addition, comprise more

high density developments. In terms of the activity mix, Kensington’s business centre has not evolved

as much as Kingsford’s business centre. Joanna relates this difference to the fact that Kingsford is close

both to university and a bigger catchment of population and employment. This is apparent by the

extensive and wide range of restaurants, cafes and other services offered by Kingsford commercial strip

compared to the less evolved local centre of Kensington, which is, according to Joanna, is further away

from the university, and in the meantime, does not have a “natural catchment” on its own right.

Furthermore, Kensington is still surrounded by a number of bigger town centres such as East Garden,

Maroubra Junction and Green Square. This location characteristic makes residents of the area drive to

those centres for shopping, leisure and other activities, rather than relying on Kensington local centre

to meet their needs. While this situation has improved in the last 10 years, with more retail mix evolving

in Kensington, Joanna still think that “Kensington has not operated as a traditional local centre”, and

7 See Part 3 page 20

37

she concludes that getting the right retail and business mix is always going to be a challenge for

Kensington from “an economic point of view”.

The council contribution in responding to those challenges is through conducting major planning studies

on Kensington, covering different aspects such as the context, urban design, population, demographics,

and economic profile of the businesses in the town centre, land values and future trends and drivers.

Such studies takes about two years and once finished they are considered as a long 10-20 years plan.

Those studies recommend changes in zoning, controls and measures for economic revitalisation. With

some key aspects identified, such as a supermarket for the area, Joanna still referred to the difficulties

of redevelopment in Kensington. The difficulties relate to the small land holdings and existing strata

title on the commercial strip in Kensington.

5.2 Discussion of Survey’s Results

After going through characteristics, issues and future challenges of Kensington, the results of the survey

were quickly reviewed with Joanna. Amongst the major aspects and issues expressed in the survey and

highlighted in the interview:

● Residents’ pride and attachment to their area in terms of central location and proximity to city,

beaches, parks and other facilities

● A majority of opposition and strong opposition to the RUAP proposal which involved adding

higher densities to the area

● Need for a good retail mix comprising decent supermarket, grocery shops and cafe’s

● Concerns over potential social impacts resulted from increased magnitude of already existing

parking problem, especially when increasing residential densities in the area. Joanna confirmed

that this is already a “sensitive” issue. She also indicated to the fact that Kensington is a park

and ride suburb, many people drive from farther parts of Randwick and park in Kensington in

order to catch the bus to the city from Kensington

5.3 Light Rail and Potential Densities along the Corridor

In terms of light rail contribution to the increase of the residential densities along the Anzac Parade

corridor, our interviewee clearly refers to the light rail business case study, regarding patronage levels

required for operations of the potential light rail. The latter states that the demand for light rail ridership

already exists and does not necessarily rely on increasing population densities along the corridor.

Furthermore she argues that the main objective of the LR is to reduce the number of buses operating in

the city.

38

5.4 Council Role in the RUAP Process

The council role or involvement in the RUAP was brought up. Joanna describes the council as being

involved as a “stakeholder” in the process of the Urban Activation Precinct. In the meantime the council

did provide the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with some background information, data,

survey results and earlier planning studies about the study area. This is to provide the DoPI with

evidence based data that would assist them in undertaking well informed and reasonable decisions. The

involvement included setting up “Steering and working Groups” for the purpose of informing senior

level staff (counsellors) and other council staff about the progress of the UAP process. Also, the process

included conducting community workshops with members of precinct committees in Randwick.

According to Joanna, each workshop involved about 40 people from Randwick precincts. Outcomes

from those workshops, and also other matters were periodically briefed to and discussed with

councillors and council staff through the steering and working groups. Again, Joanna affirms that the

role of council in those periodic meetings only involved discussion of issues, providing advice and

background information and data, with no role in decision making. The DoPI also had provided

information and updates to the public via their website and letter drops in the study area, informing the

residents about the progress of the project.

5.5 The RUAP Introduction and Community Reaction

The interviewee states that he RUAP never came out to the public as a formal proposal, and it has been

on hold since September last year. A public meeting was organised by a state Labour MP at Juniors

club in Kingsford, the Department of Planning was invited to that meeting for briefing the community

on the RUAP proposal. The proposal raised a lot of concerns amongst community members. Those

concerns were mainly directed towards to South Randwick UAP which starts from south Kingsford and

extends all the way down to La Perouse. Joanna believes that dissatisfaction among the community

members was due to the “massive” study area of the proposal, which could not be digested by the

community attending the meeting. Also the fact that the two UAPs; the one around the light rail and the

south Randwick UAP was introduced together, causing more confusion in the meeting. Joanna says that

the UAP proposal for South Randwick took people by surprise. This was for a number of reasons,

amongst which, it was lacking any relation to a bigger strategic framework, such as the metropolitan

strategy, also lack of planning studies and plans for supporting infrastructure investment. Furthermore,

the community was also concerned about the proposal for the UAP around Kensington and North

Kingsford. As explained by Joanna, putting those two proposals together was not really a good idea as

the combined study area of both proposals encompassed about 40% of Randwick LGA.

Compared to the traditional process of making and amending planning policies by Randwick city

Council, Joanna points to the fact that the UAP program was meant to be done in a period of 6 months,

39

resulting in a major change zoning of a massive study area. This relatively short time frame was also a

concern for community.

Regarding the position of the council, and according to Joanna Hole, the council did resolve not to

support the urban activation precinct program to the extent that it is different from the current local

plans and controls. Amongst other reasons are local community concerns and the way the process of

the program was managed.

The interviewees also refer to the fact that the department of planning uses a standard procedure that

might not function in some proposed UAP locations around Sydney. This is due to a number of factors,

such as the demographic, land holding in the area weather private or public, maturity and level of

involvement of local communities and lot sizes.

5.6 Interview Questions

Why was the community concerned about the RUAP?

Community concerns were summarised as follows:

● Lack of relation to broader strategic framework; state and subregional strategies, especially

for the South Randwick UAP

● Inadequate project management procedures by DoPI, in terms of their objectives and how are

they going to achieve those objectives

● Lack of reasoning and rationale regarding the South RUAP; why the area was chosen? and

how to manage services and infrastructure

● The significantly massive study area, for both RUAP and South Randwick UAP

● The short time of the process in comparison to the time usually required to draft and

implement local plans and controls by Randwick council

● All those reasons resulted in the community considering the proposal as an “Ambit claim”

● Using a standard or generic procedure that might not work in certain areas with unique

characteristics

Who opposes the higher density or RUAP Program?

The interviewee finds it hard to answer this question as the RUAP never been subject to a public

consultation process, rather just workshops involving Precinct Committee members. She thinks activists

in the community are usually vocal regarding the development of higher densities in Kensington. Also,

most people that participate are people who are both interested and have time. Whilst, there may be a

number of people who are interested but do not have time to participate. This and other factors make it

very difficult to draw a whole picture of community’s opinion, especially when there is no public

consultation involved.

40

Whether the consultation process was proper and what really went

wrong. Would the opposition to the program change if it was

introduced in a different way?

Joanna thinks the early stages of information gathering involved some good procedures in terms of

involving the community and other stakeholders (including the council). Procedures included

community newsletter, working groups with council and community workshops. Joanna points again

to the optimistic attitude of DoPI in having the RUAP finalised in a relatively short timeframe; the

program was announced in early 2013 and was meant to be finalised and put on exhibition by June or

July 2013, which again, not a reasonable timeframe for such a proposal with a significant impact on

land use zoning in the area. Joanna still believe that the community workshops were “well intentioned”,

but they really needed to consult more widely after that, which did not happen because of the restrictions

of project tight timeframe. Also she indicates to some factors that could have changed the community

attitude towards the development such as; clear relationship to the broader strategic framework,

reasonable size of study area and clarity of objectives and rationale.

If the concerns of community are valid, how could we achieve

density sensitively? For instance where? And how to respond to

other concerns?

“A lot of people are resistant to change”, explains Joanna. She also believes that there must be a need

and drivers for higher density which should be explained, and that did not really happen in RUAP. An

issue highlighted here by Joanna is housing and employment targets set by Draft Sydney Metropolitan

Strategy, which is not yet adopted. Once adopted, it will be followed by subregional strategies with a

breakdown of housing and employment targets for each area or suburb. Randwick council has already

adopted housing and employment targets from the 2007 subregional plan in their planning controls. The

RUAP program should follow the implementation of 2013 metropolitan and subregional strategies.

Specifying the intensity and location of new densities rely to a great extent on housing targets specific

to certain areas and suburbs in subregional plans.

How to deal with current and future car parking issues and how to

make Kensington more attractive for businesses needed by the

community?

Joanna states the need for a combination of viable alternatives, which include incentives and

disincentives. Disincentives can include on-street parking demand management, whilst incentives

includes reliable and efficient public transport and investing in active transport modes; such improving

possibilities of cycling to the city, improving connections of cycle ways to light rail stations and

41

providing stations with adequate cycle parking. There is also a general belief that the “park and ride”

problem in Kensington will shift to Kingsford once the light rail start its operation.

In the case of Kensington, Joanna focuses on understanding of future role and future vision of

Kensington, based on economic factors. As the council realises the need for a supermarket in

Kensington, the challenge is in its location characteristics. As earlier indicated, Kensington is close to

facilities in Green Square and East gardens, to which residents used to drive and get their needs. As a

strategic planner who knows the area well, Joanna still consider the factors of location and lack of

natural catchment as limitations to establish a major business centre for Kensington. However, she

consider the light rail as an opportunity for bringing smaller footprint (metro style) shopping activities

to the area in order to meet casual everyday needs for the residents. Joanna continues arguing that major

local centres can also bring externalities to the area as traffic congestion, more parking issues and access

to trucks for delivery.

How can urban design help in delivering higher densities and

services needed by the community?

Urban design is critical and fundamental in terms of the “quality of density” that we are trying to

achieve.

How to deal with speculation by developers?

The interviewee believes that developers’ speculation issues in Kensington are not present as it does

not have large development sites as, for example, in Green Square. Compactness and small individual

sites in Kensington have limited possibilities of speculation.

In that sense Joanna indicates the importance of the development process. She compares between the

built form and design outcome of Green Square by Meriton; and Victoria Park by Landcom. The

interviewee refers to the development outcomes of the latter as more favourable. This is because the

development sites were individually released on staged basis and different developers and architects

were engaged, resulting in a more diverse built form within the same master plan. Staging is good in

the sense of responding to changes in market demands and trends. This relates to a great extent to the

culture and code of ethics of different developers.

What lessons does the experience with opposition to proposal for

density in Randwick provide for future efforts at making our cities

more compact and higher densities?

When introducing proposals to the community, the most important factor to consider is timing as well

as understanding the community’s capacity to fully comprehend the information. The size of the study

area should be manageable, even if we have a large precinct, we can divide them into smaller precincts

and look at them as staged process in order to allow people to understand and digest the information.

42

Joanna indicates again the importance of the relation to a strong strategic framework. Finally, we need

to know what our drivers are for higher density and how relevant they are to the area or precinct.

5.7 Feedbacks from Kensington Precinct Committee members

Two feedbacks from KPC members were obtained via e-mail, responding to general enquiries about

their experiences from RUAP community workshops held by the DoPI last year.

The two feedbacks were consistent in expressing that the problem of the proposal was that it was not

being supported by targets from any recent subregional plan. The KPC members also re-addressed the

issue of timing, as indicated by our interviewee, describing it as inappropriate.

Both members were also frustrated and disappointed from the non-transparent procedures followed by

the workshop convenor and the DoPI staff. This could one of the reasons why both members focused

on the term of “corruption” in their email feedbacks.

5.8 Summary of the interview and feedbacks from KPC members

Both discussion of survey findings and outcomes of interview questions reveal a number of factors that

had influence on community’s reaction to the promotion of urban consolidation and higher density in

established low and medium density residential suburbs. Outcomes of the interview indicate to the fact

that laying out a mass transit infrastructure is not an adequate reason to dump higher densities on the

mobility corridor, especially when considering a number of valid significant impacts on the low density

residential fabric next to the corridor, such as in the case of Kensington. Variables to be considered are

the history of the suburb, its location characteristics, built form , density characters, community’s

capacity for change, size of land holdings and urban structure and the area’s possible future or future

vision based on economic and social factors. This implies the need to fit compact city model in respect

to those variables.

Despite setting up working groups with council practitioners and community workshops with precinct

committees, the UAP program for Randwick failed to achieve its goals and was suspended for a number

of reasons:

The time frame from conducting the studies to placing the proposal for public consultation was

relatively short (about 6-7 months). Particularly when comparing this time frame to the 2 years spent

by Randwick council conducting detailed planning studies to implement plans and controls to address

growth and socio-economic changes in the area.

The relation to the broader strategic framework was very weak and unclear. This was due to the lack of

numerical targets for housing, in a subregional plan that had not been introduced yet. The council has

already included the housing targets from the latest 2007 subregional strategy in their current local plans

43

and controls. Those numerical targets can be important and helpful to explain the rationale behind

increasing densities to the local community.

The immensity of the proposal’s study area caused confusion among the community. The issue of

massiveness requires the need for staging proposals. Staging could improve the community’s attitude

towards such proposals, as it helps produce articulated and diverse built form.

The Department of Planning used a standard procedure in introducing and managing its higher density

proposal. It was evident that the standard template has failed as it ignored some of the characteristics

specific to Randwick and Kensington.

44

6. Discussion and Conclusion

6.1 Concerns by community and their validity

In addressing the first stakeholder group in the research question, even when considering the small

sample of survey respondents, the results have shown a number of generic concerns that could have

helped in shaping the negative attitude towards the RUAP program (23 opponents out of 30

participants). Those concerns were largely consistent with findings from (Ruming 2013; Searle 2011)8.

Similarities are in some social and environmental impacts foreseen by residents as a result of any

potential densification effort in their suburb. In the case of Kensington, on-street parking issues were of

great significance, due to a number of reasons mentioned by residents, and confirmed by the council

planner. They were also identified within the potential social impacts of the development, suggesting

that the new higher densities will increase the magnitude of this impact. Moreover, another dimension

of concerns expressed by residents was in the form of reservations towards the apartment living.9 With

more qualitative input from some respondents answering this question, those concerns of social nature

can be considered in relation to Randolph (2006), suggesting that the strata title apartment market have

still not yet considered the inclusion of certain groups such as families with children. The apartment

market is also not attractive for elderly residents.10

In terms of aspirations of local residents, having an evolved commercial strip or a town centre in

Kensington was a significant aspiration expressed by many people in the sample, stating the need for

supermarkets and other services within a walking distance, rather than driving to other major centres in

Randwick. While commercial facilities demanded by residents such as superstores and groceries, rely

to a great extent on higher dwelling density (Burton 2001, p.1980), this can considered to be an

opportunity of a possible trade-off between local aspirations and strategic planning objectives.

While discussing the validity of survey results in an interview with the strategic planner at Randwick

City Council, the interviewee demonstrated some caution regarding the potential development capacity

of the commercial strip in Kensington11, stating a number of limitations that should be considered in

that sense, including the existing fine grain subdivision, lack of natural catchment and competition with

surrounding centres. The interviewee also considered other alternatives, such as smaller footprint stores

that could fit more suitably with the existing context.

8 See chapter 2, page 10 9 See chapter 4, page 33 10 See chapter 4, page 35 11 See chapter 5 , page 36

45

Regarding the on-street parking issues, the interviewee referred to possible future improvements such

as improving the cycle-ways connections to and from potential LR stations on Anzac Parade. Whereas,

such provisions are originally meant to support the potential LR in Randwick, they may, in the same

time help to mitigate the existing parking issues, by encouraging active transportation trips from other

suburbs in Randwick to Kensington. Responses to planned LR infrastructure like this one, if successful,

may improve the acceptability of the TOD proposals by community when realising improved quality

of their daily life. Some of the claimed benefits, which could make TOD more popular, include the

reduction of car dependency and revitalization of struggling shopping strips, especially those competing

with nearby car based shopping centres (Rice 2001, p.173). Therefore, addressing the issues of parking

and the struggling commercial strip could be critical in changing the attitude towards a potential higher

density proposal and make it more acceptable. Hence, utilising the transport part of the TOD In

improving the community’s life quality can be a factor in increasing acceptability of the subsequent

densification part. In the case of Kensington where the potential light rail was considered to be a

justification for the RUAP proposal, staging the delivery of transport/ densification stages of the

development can provide an opportunity for the community to realise any possible benefits that may

help them to better absorb any potential densities to follow. This is arguable in the case of Kensington

where the demand for the LR patronage is already existing (TNSW 2013, p.8), which could justify a

delay in the RUAP tills some negative factors, possibly shaping the rejection towards higher densities,

such as on-street parking, are waived.

6.2 The view from local government perspective

In addition to the discussion of community survey results, the interview part of the methodology has

mainly addressed the viewpoints from the perspective of the second stakeholder group in the research

key question, which is the local government. In this interview there were a number of interesting

findings regarding the RUAP delivery procedure including relationship to strategic framework, timing

and timeframe of the RUAP proposal.

In terms of the relationship to broader strategic framework, the RUAP involved the increase of densities

around potential LR stations without any targets for housing and jobs. This has led to a significant

backlash in the promoting of the RUAP, especially for local community groups, usually participating

in consultation processes of local plans, and using those targets in their debate for or against additional

densities.12 The issue of targets also shed the light on the aspect of timing. Within this strategic context

that considers targets as a mean of promoting higher densities in established centres, there should be

adopted subregional plans with breakdown of housing and jobs numbers for each suburb or area. In that

sense, it is more logical that the DoPI would propose urban consolidation upon availability of targets

on the local level.

12 See chapter 2, page 10

46

Timing was again a factor in generating debate against the RUAP. The precinct committee members

for Kensington were invited again to participate in the RUAP community workshops, just five months

after the latest LEP and DCP for Randwick council were gazetted. This was a source of frustration for

the KPC members, as they have just finished a lengthy consultation processes with Randwick Council

to integrate targets from latest 2007 subregional strategies in the new plans.

Regarding the timeframe of the delivery process, the department of planning aimed to deliver the

complete RUAP within a period of 6-7 months. According to the interviewee, this process has backfired,

especially when considering the magnitude of change that was suggested in the proposal. The

interviewee also compared this tight timeframe with two years spent by the local council to implement

their latest LEP and DCP, which involved changes of a significantly smaller magnitude.

Other issues indicated by our interviewee were the size of the proposal. This issue is relating to the

capacity of community in absorbing information attached to the proposal. In that sense, the interviewee

believe that breaking down the proposal’s study area into smaller one and staging the development

could help increase the acceptability of the proposal by the community. Staging in this context can be

associated with Neuman’s (2005) approach of the recalling the evolutional process of the old compact

city rather than its form, and in that sense he is referring to evolutionary building processes of the pre

20th century’s compact city. 13

6.3 Community planning activist

Regarding the last stakeholder group in the research question, the information was collected from two

Kensington Precinct Committee members about their experiences from RUAP community workshops

held by the DoPI last year. There was a critique towards the consultation processes in those workshops.

Most significantly, both two members of the KPC focused on the issues such as missing targets and the

controversial timing of the proposal. Other issues included infrastructure provision and lack of

transparency. The latter was due to the DoPI staff’s intention not to show the proposal plans and images

outside the consultation room.

According to one of the KPC members, they were not given any choices or alternatives to choose out

from, rather only one option which did not address in detail a number of concerns expressed by

participants. Also, participation was only restricted to precinct committee members, rather than trying

to reach out to a bigger sample from Kensington and other suburbs with in the study area.

Finally, an important observation is some significant differences in feedback and priorities between

opponents and strong opponents who participated in the survey, and activist on the local suburb level

(KPC members). This implies the challenge of attracting people from the first group in future processes,

helping to obtain a more representative feedback addressing issues specific to a certain place.

13 See page 12

47

6.4 Conclusion

In order to address the research key question, three different methods were used to collect information

from different stakeholders and identify factors influencing the community’s attitudes towards the

RUAP proposal near Kensington. The three methods included selecting a case study, conducting a

community survey, and interviewing practitioners as well as community members involved in local

planning matters. A number of factors were identified to possibly have influenced the community’s

acceptability of higher density development.

Consistent with findings and observations from literature reviewed in this research, quality of daily life

was a major concern for survey participants, who also reported a number of concerns, mostly related to

social impacts foreseen as a result of the potential increase in residential density. Moreover, the design

of the community survey intended to also embrace the aspirations and visions of local residents, helping

to identify visions and concerns specific to Kensington which can be carefully addressed in a well

evolved and transparent participation process.

Regarding density proposals within a TOD mechanism, such as the RUAP, it is arguable that some of

the impacts identified by community, such as car dependency and on-street parking, could be mitigated

by allowing a time gap between the operation of the light rail and the subsequent densification, if

economically viable. Improving quality, through benefits obtained by the transport component of the

TOD may help to influence acceptability and give justification for the intensification phase of the TOD.

While trying to understand some of the circumstances around the delivery of the RUAP in Randwick

and Kensington, issues including relationship to broader strategic framework, timing and timeframe of

the RUAP proposal were identified as factors that possibly shaped the strong opposition against the

proposal. Community members engaged in local planning issues were more concerned with the timing

and timeframe issues of the RUAP. Members of the KPC have confirmed the significance of these

issues while describing their experiences as participants in the RUAP community workshops.

Understanding the influence of those issues states the importance of considering them by the DoPI in

any similar future densification proposals.

The size and staging of the development were also described as possible factors. Based on personal

experiences with the RUAP and other similar intensification programs, the interviewee suggested that

breaking down the large study areas of developments into smaller ones and staging the development

could help the people to absorb the information and size of the development. These opinions by the

interviewee can be associated with suggestions by Neuman (2005) to recall the evolutionary processes

of the old compact city, rather than just its form.

48

Finally, the future challenge for programs such as the RUAP would be the engagement of a wider

sample of the community, rather than only members in the local community association or precinct

committee. Better representation for the community would yield a more extensive feedback addressing

the local and place specific concerns, needs and aspirations in future densification proposals.

49

7. References

Bauer, M. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook. London:

SAGE.

Burton, Elizabeth. (2000). The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban

Studies, (11), 1969.

Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban

Form? e-book, accessed on 18 October 2014,

<http://unsw.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=181079>

Calvo, F. (2013). Light Rail Transit Experience in Madrid, Spain Effects on Population Settlement

and Land Use. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, (2353), 82-91.

Davison. (2011). An unlikely Urban symbiosis: Urban intensification and neighbourhood character in

Collingwood, Vancouver. Urban Policy and Research, (2), 105-124.

Chapman, S. (2004). ‘Social Surveys’, in Research Methods (3rd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.

Daily Telegraph (2013). Randwick UAP forum: Hand planning powers back to council, accessed on

28.10.204,

<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/randwick-uap-forum-hand-planning-powers-

back-to-council/story-fngr8h22-1226754439801?nk=fb5ba131187decc1651c7fcb9fb77702>

Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013, The State of Australian Cities

De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Routledge.

Dovey. (2009). Understanding neighbourhood character: The case of Camberwell. Australian

Planner, (3), 32-39.

East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, Living well in greater density, June 2010

Forsyth, A. (1997). Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development. Journal of

the American Planning Association,(1), 45-60. Accessed 27.10.2014

<https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/cf/research/cityfuturesprojects/shelter/Livi

ng_Well_in_Greater_Density.pdf>

Golub, A. (2012). Spatial and Temporal Capitalization Effects of Light Rail in Phoenix. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, (4), 415-429.

50

Howley. (2009). Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater understanding of

residential behaviour. Land Use Policy, (3), 792-798

Hurst, Needham B. (2014). Public transit and urban redevelopment: The effect of light rail transit on

land use in Minneapolis, Minnesota.Regional Science & Urban Economics, 57.

Jungchan Lee, Kiyo Kurisu, Kyoungjin An and Keisuke Hanaki 2014. Development of the compact

city index and its application to Japanese cities Urban Stud published online 20 June 2014

Knaap J. Gerrit (2001). Do Plans Matter? : The Light Rail Plans on Land Values in Station Areas.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21:32

Lin. (2006). Does the compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in

Taiwan. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, (3), 365-380

Mees, P.(2012) “ Transport Planning”, in Thompson, S. (2012). Planning Australia : An ;overview of

urban and regional planning (2nd ed.). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mahjabeen, Zeenat. (2009). Rethinking Community Participation in Urban Planning: The Role of

Disadvantaged Groups in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies,

The, (1), 45-63

McBurney, D. (1994). Research methods (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub.

Neuman, M. (2005). The Fallacy of Compact City (Vol. 25, pp. 11-26). SAGE PUBLICATIONS.

NSW DoPI (2012). NSW Urban Activation Precinct Guideline, accessed on 27.10.2014,

<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/HousingDelivery/UrbanActivation/UAPGuideline.pdf>

NSW DoPI (2005) City of Cities: A plan for Sydney’s Future

NSW DoPI (2010) Metropolitan plan for Sydney 2036

NSW DoPI (2013). Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031

Profile id (2014), accessed on 29.10.204,

<http://profile.id.com.au/randwick/about/?WebID=130>

Publishing, O. (2012). Compact City Policies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development.

Randolph, B. (2006). Delivering the Compact City in Australia: Current Trends and Future

Implications. Urban Policy and Research, (4), 473-490.

51

Randwick City Council (2013), Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, Part

D,Kensington Town Centre, accessed on 29.10.2014,

<http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/13741/Kensington-Centre.pdf>

Raouf (2009), ‘The Sustainability of High Density’, in Ng, E. Designing High-Density Cities For

Social and Environmental Sustainability. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis

Rérat, P. (2012). Housing, the Compact City and Sustainable Development: Some Insights From

Recent Urban Trends in Switzerland. International Journal of Housing Policy, (2), 115-136

Rice, J. (2001). “There goes the neighbourhood? Orsaving the world? Community views about Transit

Oriented Development”, In Curtis, C. Transit oriented development: Making it happen (p. 291). United

Kingdom: Ashgate

Ruming, K. (2012). Multiple Suburban Publics: Rethinking Community Opposition to Consolidation

in Sydney. Geographical Research, (4), 421-435.

Ruming, K. (2014). Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposition in Sydney,

Australia: Unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions. Land Use Policy.

Searle, G. (2011). Planning Context and Urban Intensification Outcomes: Sydney versus

Toronto. URBAN STUDIES, (7), 1419-1438.

SMH 2009, Ku-Ring-Gai plan will swamp housing targets, say residents, accessed 26.10.2014

<http://www.smh.com.au/national/kuringgai-plan-will-swamp-housing-target-say-residents-

20090806-ebjf.html>

TNSW (2013) a, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume

1: Executive Summary

TNSW (2013) b, CBD and South East Light Rail: business case summary, accessed on 28.10.2014,

<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/media/131114-CSELR-Business-Case-

Summary-November-2013-FINAL-A4.pdf>

TNSW (2013) c, Sydney City Center Access Strategy, accessed on 28.10.2014,

<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/publications/sydney-city-centre-access-

strategy-final-web.pdf>

TNSW (2013) d, Sydney Light Rail Future, accessed on 28.10.2014,

<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/projects/Sydneys_Light_Rail_Future_Decem

ber_2012.pdf>

52

TNSW (2014) Sydney light rail, accessed on 29.10.2014,

<http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/cbd-and-south-east-light-rail>

Towers, G. (2005). At home in the city: An introduction to urban housing design. Oxford:

Architectural Press.

Urbis (2013), Australia’s Embrace of Medium and High Density Housing, accessed on 29.10.2014

<http://www.urbis.com.au/think-tank/general/australias-embrace-of-medium-and-high-density-

housing>

Woodcock, I. (2010). Modelling the compact city: Capacities and visions for Melbourne. Australian

Planner, (2), 94-104.

Woodcock, I. (2011). Speculation and Resistance: Constraints on Compact City Policy

Implementation in Melbourne. URBAN POLICY AND RESEARCH, (4), 343-362.

53

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Project information statement-research survey

54

Appendix 2: Survey form

55

56

Appendix 3: project information statement - interview

57

Appendix 4: Interview questions

58

Appendix 5: Project consent form

59

Appendix 6: Commonly used abbreviations

CSEL City and south east Light Rail

DoPI Department of Planning and Infrastructure

KPC Kensington Precinct Committee

LRT Light Rail Transit

RUAP Randwick Urban Activation Precinct

TOD Transit Oriented Development

UAP Urban Activation Precinct