Cherrybrook Station Precinct

2025-12 Submission from The Committee, West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association Inc.

Objecting to the Cherrybrook Precinct Rezoning Proposal

The West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association (WPHVPA) has been in existence for more than 30 years and represents about 4,000 households and more than 10,000 residents. Our area is bounded by Castle Hill Rd in the north, Pennant Hills Rd in the east, the M2 & Darling Mills Creek in the south, and Excelsior Creek in the west.   The Cherrybrook Metro Station is across Castle Hill Rd just outside our northern boundary.  The southern half of the Cherrybrook Precinct is located in West Pennant Hills Valley.

This submission is made on behalf of the residents of the West Pennant Hills Valley and reflects their views.

Executive Summary

Based on feedback received, the residents of the West Pennant Hills Valley (WPHV) are shocked, angry and appalled by the proposal for up to 9,350 new dwellings in the Cherrybrook precinct.  On behalf of our residents, we object to the current rezoning proposal.

We believe that the consultation period has been woefully inadequate.  Some of the information provided has been misleading or inaccurate and there should be further consultation when this issue has been addressed.

In 2022, we gave broad support to the plan for 3,200 new dwellings in the Cherrybrook precinct within 400m of the metro station.  Our residents feel betrayed that this plan has been dumped, without prior community consultation, in favour of a new rezoning proposal which allows for 9,350 new dwellings.  This is triple the number in the original plan and the absence of dwelling caps may allow even this number to be exceeded.

The proposed building heights are excessive and the development is not supported by adequate infrastructure.

The proposal for up to 28 storeys in the Town Centre is excessive over-development. Such buildings might be acceptable in an inner-city suburb backed by major infrastructure and amenities, but are completely out of place in a small outer-city suburb some 30km by road from Sydney CBD.  The proposal for up to 19 storeys on the steep land south of Castle Hill Rd, which is subject to landslip, is both excessive and risky. 

This proposal plans to squeeze a population equal to the entire city of Goulburn into the Cherrybrook precinct.  Experience has shown that congestion and over-crowding in this style of precinct can lead to increased crime rates.  Traffic congestion and a lack of parking will lead to increased stress.  The high-density living environments will heighten the potential for conflicts between owners with differing expectations, and living without a backyard may lead to mental health issues.  The gross overcrowding proposed for this precinct is unacceptable to existing and future residents.

The metro station is in Cherrybrook, the precinct is called Cherrybrook, but more than half of the new units will be on steep land in West Pennant Hills.  The Hills Shire Council (THSC) is already exceeding housing targets.  We do not need to create yet another ugly, congested, over-developed suburb, particularly one without supporting infrastructure. 

If the government really wanted to tackle the housing crisis, they would have built on the Landcom site some 3 years ago when the 2022 plan was finalised.  Those homes could have been occupied by now.  The proposed new units, particularly those in WPHV, will have expansive views and they will not be cheap. The new dwellings will be too expensive for those on average earnings. The new rezoning proposal seems likely to create windfall profits for speculative landowners, but seems poorly designed for solving a housing crisis. 

The purpose of urban planning should be to provide easily accessible infrastructure and amenities in an integrated way.  This proposal fails to consider that need.

This new proposal to allow 9,350 new dwellings must be rejected.

Our submission is split into 2 sections.  Section A deals with objections to the 2025 Cherrybrook Rezoning Proposal and Section B suggests a more acceptable alternative that would benefit both existing and future residents.

SECTION A - Objections to the 2025 Cherrybrook Rezoning Proposal

This section addresses the following issues:

1.      Supporting Documents and Public Information Session

2.      Infrastructure

3.      Building heights

4.      Dwelling numbers

5.      Traffic

6.      Parking

7.      Affordable and Social Housing

8.      Bushfire considerations

1.      Supporting Documents and Public Information Session

Some of the supporting documents such as the Traffic Study are misleading because they are based on the original 3,200 dwellings rather than the current proposal for 9,350 dwellings.  The artist’s impressions are misleading.  One report is out of date.  Questions at the Information Session on 25th November were answered incorrectly.

·        The Traffic Study is mainly based on an additional 3,200 dwellings.  There is some discussion of 5,200 dwellings, very little discussion of 7,200 dwellings and no discussion of the maximum yield of 9,350 new dwellings.    How can this document be used to support the proposal?

·        The Traffic Study is also limited in scope and gives a misleading impression that roads outside the study area will not be impacted.

·        Some of the artist’s impressions are misleading.  For instance, page 52 of the Masterplan shows some buildings in Neighbourhood 2 that are much lower than the maximum incentive height allowed - see page 17 of the Explanation of Intended Effects.  A developer is unlikely to build fewer storeys than allowed.

·        The Biodiversity Assessment Report (Jacobs 2025) excludes land in the State Significant Precinct (SSP). ‘The study area excludes the SSP site.‘  The 2022 Biosis report does include the SSP, but the data has expired ‘if a development proposal is not lodged before the end of June 2024, field data will need to be recaptured and the assessment updated’.  An updated BDAR must be provided.

·        One of our residents was told at the Information Session that all units in the precinct would have a parking space.  This contradicts information in the Design Guide.  The Town Centre parking rates on pages 16/17 of the Design Guide, clearly state that not every unit will have a parking space.

The lack of accurate supporting information is concerning.  Accurate and up-to-date documents must be provided and there must be a new period of consultation.

2.      Infrastructure

The rezoning proposal is not supported by adequate infrastructure.  The government must provide funding for new infrastructure such as schools, playing fields and road upgrades.

·        The proposal does not include plans for any new state schools.  Local schools such as Cherrybrook Public and Cherrybrook Technology are already operating with many demountable classrooms.  The Hills Shire Mayor has stated in a Mayoral Minute on 11th November that ‘The original Cherrybrook Place Strategy identified the need for at least one additional primary school and one high school to support the projected 3,200 dwellings. Now, with plans for triple that yield, the Government has offered no concrete solutions. The exhibition material vaguely references commitments to two new high schools and six primary schools across North West Sydney - none of which will service the Cherrybrook Precinct.’

·        The precinct will be home to 23,275 residents.  It is ridiculous to suggest that a population of this size will not require any new schools.  At the very minimum, the precinct must have a new government primary school on site.  If residents are being encouraged to reduce car ownership, the school must be within walking distance of the proposed dwellings. 

·        There will be 2 new playing fields required on the Hornsby side and 3 new fields required in The Hills.  Sites must be found before any development goes ahead.  The sites must be easily accessible on foot or by single use public transport with frequent services, including off-peak.  If the government is serious about reducing car ownership, playing fields must be included within the precinct.

·        The government must fund a southbound bus lane through WPHV.  It is unacceptable for a school bus to take more than half an hour to travel a couple of kilometres through WPHV. This has been discussed many times in the past.  The population of WPHV will more than double and both new and existing residents must be encouraged to use public transport.  There is no room on our roads for more cars.

·        There are no immediate plans for a grade-separated crossing of Castle Hill Road.  This safer way of crossing the road must be provided to encourage the new residents of WPHV to walk or cycle to the metro.  Signalised pedestrian crossings can be frustratingly slow for pedestrians and cyclists, and they will slow the traffic on Castle Hill Rd, encouraging more traffic to use local rat-runs.

3.      Building heights

We do not support the incentive building heights that allow up to 28 storeys in the Town Centre and up to 19 storeys on the south side of Castle Hill Road.  Many of our residents are shocked, angry and appalled by the excessive incentive building heights proposed.

·        Many of these tower blocks will be built on the ridgetop and are far too high to be screened by trees.  The resulting colossal skyline will be totally inappropriate for a small, outer-city suburb. 

·        The proposed heights exceed those in the adjacent suburb of Castle Hill which has a major town centre with shops, banks, medical centres, schools etc.  Our smaller suburb should have much lower height limits, reflecting the lack of infrastructure.

·        Page 84 of the MasterPlan confirms that most of the precinct land south of Castle Hill Road is subject to landslip.  Although construction on this land might be possible with extensive works to stabilise footings, it is clearly unsuitable for tall tower blocks that will overshadow and overlook everything below. 

·        The current system of using private certifiers will not provide investor or resident confidence that building work has been completed to a satisfactory standard, particularly on the land-slip area south of Castle Hill Road.  Sydney suburbs, including adjacent Castle Hill, are already littered with empty, defective apartment blocks, many of which are built on much easier sites.  Private certifiers must not be used for buildings in landslip areas.

·        It is difficult to see how the higher buildings could contribute to a net zero emissions target. Even if the entire roof space is used for solar panels, a 28-storey building cannot produce enough power for so many apartments.

4.      Dwelling Numbers

The Hills Shire has been unfairly targeted in the current re-zoning proposal.

§  The original rezoning proposal allowed 1819 new homes on the north side of Castle Hill Rd (Hornsby) and 1375 new homes to the south (THSC).  The new rezoning proposes 4256 new homes for Hornsby and 5085 new homes for THSC.  The new rezoning proposal increases the number of new dwellings by a factor of 2.3 in Hornsby and a factor of 3.7 in THSC.  This unfairly targets The Hills Shire Council with a larger proportion of the increase in dwellings.

§  The Cherrybrook side of the precinct is relatively flat and new residents can easily walk to the metro.  The WPHV side of the precinct has steep gradients that will make it challenging to walk to the metro.  To maximise efficient use of public transport, the high-rise buildings should be concentrated to the north of the precinct in Cherrybrook.

§  It is unclear whether or not dwelling caps have been proposed.  There must be an overall dwelling cap, plus dwelling caps for each neighbourhood, and dwelling caps for each key development site.  If dwelling caps are not imposed, key sites such as 4A & 4B (fig 5, page 14 of the Explanation of Intended Effect) could be covered with buildings of the maximum height, once a developer has satisfied the incentive height conditions. 

§  The artist's impressions of the new rezoning could only be considered realistic if each development site has a dwelling cap.

§  It is expected that the 5,085 new dwellings in WPHV will result in just 432 people crossing Castle Hill Rd to use the metro on a regular basis. (Traffic Report p85).   This number is calculated using the average for a TOD site, but given the steep gradients, the number is likely to fall below this estimate.  Why is our valley being grossly overdeveloped for such a small number of additional metro trips?  If the new residents are not generally going to use the metro, why do they need to be crushed into this tiny area?

§  For the sake of this relatively small number of pedestrians, Castle Hill Rd will be obstructed by several signalised pedestrian crossings and traffic will divert through WPHV.

5.      Traffic

The proposal will lead to a huge increase in traffic on already congested roads.  The Traffic and Transport Study was mainly based on an additional 3,200 dwellings.  This proposal allows up to 9,325 dwellings but there is no modelling of this scenario.  The study area was restricted to a small area adjacent to and within the precinct. (Traffic and Transport, page 3).  There was no attempt to study the wider impact on local roads.  The effect on local traffic cannot be assessed using an incomplete and misleading report.

·        Future planned upgrades of the intersections at Highs Rd/CountyDr/Castle Hill Rd and Coonara Ave/Castle Hill Rd/Edward Bennet Dr will allow increased traffic flows through WPHV.

·        The traffic study did not consider impacts on Taylor St/Aiken Rd/OakesRd/Jenkins Rd – the WPHV ‘rat-run’ which is already seriously congested during morning and afternoon peak travel times.

·        The proposed additional right-turn lane from Castle Hill Rd (eastbound) onto Highs Rd (southbound) will actively encourage traffic to use the WPHV rat-run in order to avoid several sets of traffic lights, including pedestrian crossings, on Castle Hill Rd.  A grade separated crossing over Castle Hill Rd could alleviate some of the congestion on Castle Hill Rd and reduce the use of the WPHV rat-run.

·        A discussion in the Traffic Report regarding a potential upgrade to the intersection of Old Northern Rd/Castle Hill Rd noted that: ‘. … releasing this key pinch point would have downstream impacts on other intersections.’  Similar considerations for Highs Rd appear to have been deliberately ignored.  Why hasn’t the downstream impact on Taylor St/Aiken Rd/ Oakes Rd/Jenkins Rd been modelled?

·        Minimising traffic in the precinct is a stated objective – will it be achieved by sending more traffic through WPHV?

·        There is no mention of a southbound bus lane through WPHV.  This infrastructure is needed to encourage the use of public transport and alleviate traffic congestion

6.      Parking

Commuter parking at Cherrybrook Station is already inadequate.  The existing commuter carpark is generally full by 7am.  This proposal will decrease available ‘overflow’ on-street parking spots, while increasing the demand.

·        The proposal does not allow for increased parking at the station.  Whilst providing additional parking may attract more cars, they will generally arrive before 8 am and will not contribute to the main rush hour traffic.  Having a park and ride facility is a far better outcome than having commuters drive all the way to work.  Additional parking must be provided at the station.

·        In the Town Centre, at least 60% of the studio and one-bedroom apartments will not have on-site parking.  At least 30% of two-bedroom apartments will not have on-site parking. (refer to pages 16/17 of the Design Guide).  Whilst this may lead to lower apartment prices, it will put even more pressure on street parking.  If an apartment can be bought without a space, it will encourage residents to use street parking.  Even if street parking has time limits, it can be far cheaper to pay a few fines than to pay extra for an apartment with a carpark space.

·        Having a walkable development adjacent to the station will increase the use of public transport, but every unit must have a parking space because there are so many journeys that cannot be made by bus and/or train.  For instance, the proposal does not include a public primary school within walking distance and although school buses are an option, they do not generally service before and after school care.  Working parents will need to drive children to/from school.  Other destinations such as sporting fields, swimming pools, beaches, hospitals, family and friends may also be inaccessible by public transport.  Taxis/Uber and share cars are not a viable option for families with young children due to safety requirements around car seats 

·        We support the reduced use of cars but the proposal is unrealistic.  We are not living in a city such as Tokyo or London where multiple transport routes criss-cross the city; we are not even in an inner-city suburb of Sydney with an extensive bus network.  The metro is a single train line serving a limited number of destinations.  You cannot expect residents to abandon car ownership in an outer-city-suburb with limited onsite facilities and limited public transport routes.

·        Even if all units are provided with a parking space, there will be some investors who buy an apartment to use the parking space for themselves and then lease the apartment without parking.  This will happen because the metro car-park is inadequate and it will put even more pressure on limited street parking.  Additional parking must be provided at the metro station.

·        Many of the existing residents of West Pennant Hills Valley and Cherrybrook live too far from the station to walk there.  Out of peak hours, the bus services are infrequent.  The MasterPlan, on page 99, states ‘There is a severe lack of bus routes to the south of Castle Hill Road’.  Repeated requests from the residents of WPHV to improve bus services have been unsuccessful.   Additional parking must be provided at the station and in the Town Centre so that all local residents can access the station, new cafes and community space.

·        The proposal recommends that on-street parking is further restricted, especially within 600m of the station.  We do not support having additional parking restrictions on local roads because this simply shifts the problem rather than solving it.  Also, a commuter going by train to the city may find that risking a parking fine is cheaper than the cost of driving with associated tolls and CBD parking.

·        There must be a ‘kiss and ride’ drop-off zone provided on the south side of Castle Hill Road.  This will make it easier for residents living south of the metro to drop-off passengers without having to use Bradfield Parade. 

The lack of supporting infrastructure and amenities is a missed opportunity to create a less car-dependent community.

7.      Affordable and Social Housing

The proposal does not include any plans for social housing.  A minimum of 5% social housing should be provided on the Landcom site.  If we don’t take the opportunity to provide social housing on government owned land, where can it be provided?  The Landcom site opposite the metro station would be an ideal location.

8.      Bushfire considerations

The proposal appears to ignore recommendations made in the Strategic Bushfire Study.  The following issues listed on page 17 need to be considered for multi-storey buildings:

·        ‘Higher residential densities for evacuation

·        Avoiding locating high rise buildings in higher elevations or on ridge tops;

·        Increased demand on road infrastructure during evacuation;

·        Higher external façade exposed to bushfire attack;

·        Additional fuel loading from car and storage facilities

·        Potential for balconies and external features to trap embers and ignite combustible materials;

·        Increased exposure to convective heat due to height.’

This proposal has placed all of the tallest buildings on ridgetops. 

It seems unlikely that 23,000 residents could be swiftly evacuated from the precinct during an emergency.  Increased demand on road infrastructure during an evacuation has not been investigated because the Traffic Study has not considered the traffic volumes from an additional 9,325 dwellings.  On page 32 of the Bushfire Study it says ‘It is recommended that traffic studies are undertaken to confirm the capacity of the road network to accommodate increased vehicle movements resulting from rezoning.’

The Bushfire Study recommends that development fronting Coonara Ave must be restricted to 2 storeys because of proximity to Cumberland State Forest.  ‘Given the presence of the bushfire hazard in Cumberland State Forest, it is recommended that consideration is given to low-rise development typologies (i.e. no more than 2 storeys) fronting Coonara Ave.’

Bushfire considerations must be taken seriously.

On behalf of the residents of WPHV, we therefore strongly object to the new Cherrybrook rezoning proposal.

SECTION B – A more acceptable alternative that would benefit both existing and future residents.

In 2022, we gave broad support to the plan for 3,200 new dwellings in the Cherrybrook precinct within 400m of the metro station, provided that the necessary infrastructure was funded. 

We still support the 2022 rezoning that allowed for a maximum height of 5-6 storeys throughout the precinct.  However, in view of the fact that there is currently a housing crisis, we think that increased height limits on the government owned SSP site would be acceptable to our residents. 

We do not support any incentive building heights in WPHV because the land is very steep, the gradient makes it difficult to walk to the station and the site is subject to landslip.  Clearly, the land to the north of Castle Hill Rd is better suited to higher density.  Restricting the number of new dwellings in WPHV to 1375 as in the 2022 plan, would still provide a significant number of new dwellings without excessive overdevelopment.

In summary, we would support the following:

·        Moderate incentive building heights on the government owned SSP site (ie. less than 28 storeys)

·        Incentive building heights of 1 or 2 storeys on land outside the SSP on the north side of Castle Hill Rd

·        No incentive building heights in WPHV

Provided that:

·        A public school is funded within the precinct

·        At least 2 playing fields are located within the precinct

·        The capacity of Cherrybrook metro carpark is increased to between 800-1000

·        A grade-separated crossing is provided over Castle Hill Rd

·        The bus service south of Castle Hill Rd is improved and a southbound bus lane is provided through WPHV

This would create a walkable precinct for new residents, allow better access to the metro for existing residents, and relieve some of the expected traffic congestion through WPHV.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.  The WPHVPA is an important source of community feedback and we hope you will amend the rezoning proposal to provide a better outcome for both current and future residents.

Cherrybrook Station Precinct Place

Cherrybrook Station Precinct Consultation Outcomes report

Cherrybrook Station Precinct  What We Heard report

Cherrybrook Station Precinct Finalisation report

Cherrybrook Station SSP (Landcom site)

Potential increased affordable housing analysis

Response to retail issues in public submissions

Response to stormwater issues

Traffic and Transport assessment October 2022

SSP Final design guide

SSP Finalisation report

SSP rezoning

2022-08 Submission from The Committee, West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association Inc.

Rezoning Proposal for Landcom site adjacent to Cherrybrook Station

The West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association (WPHVPA) has been in existence for around 30 years and represents about 4,000 households and more than 10,000 residents. Our area is bounded by Castle Hill Rd in the north, Pennant Hills Rd in the east, the M2 & Darling Mills Creek in the south, and Excelsior Creek in the west.   The Cherrybrook Station is across Castle Hill Rd just outside our northern boundary.  The southern half of the Cherrybrook Precinct is located in West Pennant Hills Valley.

This submission addresses the following issues:

1.      Building heights

2.      Retail, open space, community space

3.      Landscaping, pedestrian and cycle links

4.      Parking, EV charging

5.      Traffic

6.      Infrastructure

7.      Affordable Housing

1.      Building heights

We support the proposed building heights of 5 storeys maximum when viewed from Bradfield Parade, together with the building heights of 20.5m for the B4 zone and 18.5m in the R4 zone, but the approving authority must ensure that developers adhere to these maximum heights.  The higher limit in the B4 zone must not be used for additional storeys.  Clause 4.6 height variation requests should only be considered for minor exceedances and must not be approved for additional storeys and/or increased yield.

2.       Retail, open space, community space

We support the proposal for cafes, a local supermarket, and community space. 

3.      Landscaping, pedestrian and cycle links

All native vegetation should be protected and we support the aim of increasing the tree canopy.  Pedestrian and cycle links should have natural shading from the tree canopy.

Some of the shared pathways are shown as 1.8m wide, which is too narrow.  In NSW, the recommended path width for shared pedestrian and cycleways is 2.5m – 3m so that pedestrians and cyclists can pass safely. 

The Landcom site and green village to the north of Castle Hill Rd should be connected to the area south of Castle Hill Rd by a grade separated crossing, preferably an overpass, suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists.  Any extra time taken to use the overpass will be offset by not having to wait for traffic lights.  An overpass will also improve traffic flow along Castle Hill Rd.

There should also be a ‘kiss and ride’ drop off zone on the south side of Castle hill Rd, to make it easier for residents to access the station from the south.

4.      Parking, EV charging

Commuter parking at Cherrybrook Station is already inadequate.  The station is likely to become more popular once the line is extended past Chatswood.  Whilst providing additional parking may attract more cars, having a park and ride facility is a far better outcome than having commuters drive all the way to work.  Additional parking must be provided at the station.

Many of the existing residents of West Pennant Hills Valley and Cherrybrook live too far from the station to walk there.  Out of peak hours, the bus services are infrequent.  Additional parking must be provided so that all local residents can access the station, new cafes and community space.

We do not support having additional parking restrictions on local roads because this simply shifts the problem rather than solving it.  Also, a commuter going by train to the city may find that risking a parking fine is cheaper than the cost of driving with associated tolls and CBD parking

The parking for the proposed apartments is inadequate at less than 1 space per unit.  A leading developer has recently been quoted in the press as saying:  ‘The units I can’t sell or lease are not because of a small balcony or small storage. It’s because they don’t have adequate parking.’  Every unit must be provided with at least one parking space. 

Having a walkable development adjacent to the station will increase the use of public transport, but there are many journeys that cannot be made by bus and train.  For instance, there is no public primary school within walking distance and although school buses are an option, they do not generally service before and after school care.  Working parents will need to drive children to school.  Other destinations such as sporting fields, swimming pools, beaches, hospitals, family and friends may also be inaccessible by public transport.  Taxis/Uber and share cars are not a viable option for families with young children due to safety requirements for car seats 

We support the reduced use of cars but we are not living in a city such as Tokyo or London where multiple transport routes criss-cross the city.  The metro is a single train line serving a limited number of destinations.

Additional parking must be provided for commuters and a more generous amount of parking must be provided for the apartments and users of the new cafes and community space.

The target of providing at least 10% of total parking spaces with EV charging is inadequate and will not future-proof the development.  The NSW strategy for EV cars will ensure at least 50 per cent of new cars sales are EVs by 2030.  It can be very difficult and expensive to retrofit EV charging capabilities at a later date.  The majority of parking spaces for the apartments should have EV charging capability.

5.      Traffic

The development will generate additional traffic through West Pennant Hills Valley, which is already congested in the morning and afternoon peak travel periods.

Data collection has been focussed on the major intersections close to the station and has not considered the wider impacts.  For instance, an increase to traffic using Highs Rd, will also impact traffic in Taylor Street, Aiken Road, Oakes Road and Jenkins Road.  This route is already heavily congested during morning and afternoon peak periods.  Further investigation of traffic impacts is necessary.

There will be an increase in traffic heading south through West Pennant Hills Valley to Parramatta.  The metro does not service this destination and there is no direct bus route.  A direct bus route linking Cherrybrook Station to Parramatta via West Pennant Hills Valley must be introduced to reduce traffic congestion on this route.

Minor upgrades to intersections are promised by 2031, with major upgrades for some intersections by 2041.  The intersection at Castle Hill Road/Highs Road/County Drive is already operating below an acceptable standard and must have a full upgrade before any development commences.  The effect downstream through West Pennant Hills Valley must also be investigated.

6.      Infrastructure

There are no plans for additional active open space and the development will exacerbate the existing shortfall of playing fields in our area.  Added to the increased demand due to development at 55 Coonara Ave, there is a need for additional playing fields.  The shortfall cannot be addressed by converting any existing surfaces to synthetic turf, because existing synthetic surfaces in the Hills Shire are not fully utilised and attract fewer bookings than natural turf playing fields.

7.      Affordable Housing

The target of providing only 5% affordable housing for our essential workers is inadequate.  The government owned land adjacent to the station is the ideal place to have a much higher target which can be agreed before the land is sold for development.  Essential workers such as teachers, police, fireman, nurses, aged-care workers etc must be provided with affordable housing close to public transport.  It has recently been reported that Cities and Infrastructure Minister Rob Stokes, has called for a 30% target for affordable housing on government owned land adjacent to public transport. 

The housing study recommends that affordable housing is tenure blind, but then states that affordable housing will be concentrated in a single building to improve management efficiencies.  This is not best practice.  To be truly tenure blind, affordable rental housing should be scattered throughout the development.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning proposal of government owned land adjacent to the station.

*********************************

2022-08 Submission from The Committee, West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association Inc.

Cherrybrook Station Precinct Place Strategy

The West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association (WPHVPA) has been in existence for around 30 years and represents about 4,000 households and more than 10,000 residents. Our area is bounded by Castle Hill Rd in the north, Pennant Hills Rd in the east, the M2 & Darling Mills Creek in the south, and Excelsior Creek in the west.   The Cherrybrook Station is across Castle Hill Rd just outside our northern boundary.  The southern half of the Cherrybrook Precinct is located in West Pennant Hills Valley.

This submission addresses the following issues:

1.      Proposed Growth Area

2.      Building heights

3.      Landslip

4.      Traffic

5.      Landscaping, pedestrian and cycle links

6.      Parking

7.      Infrastructure

8.      Option for implementing the strategy.

1.      Proposed Growth Area

We support the proposed growth area which restricts development to an area within 400m, or 5 minutes’ walk, to the new station and recognises the fact that the steeper topography south of Castle Hill Rd represents a slightly longer walk to the station than for land north of Castle Hill Rd.

There is land to the east and west of the green village which is identified as land that may be considered for future development of terraces and semi-detached housing in 10 years’ time.  The land is too steep and too far from the station to be included in the current growth area, and neither of those factors will change after 10 years.  It would be better to provide certainty for landowners by removing these areas from the Precinct Place Strategy.

2.      Building heights, street wall heights, setbacks

We support the proposed maximum building heights of 5 storeys and maximum heights of 18.5m, but the approving authority must ensure that developers adhere to these maximum heights. 

Clause 4.6 height variation requests should only be considered for minor exceedances and must not be approved for additional storeys and/or increased yield.  The current DAs being considered for 55 Coonara Ave will test the resolve of planning authorities.  This site lies within the wider precinct and has already been rezoned with a height limit of 22m, but the developer has submitted a clause 4.6 height variation request for extra storeys and heights up to 27m.  If approved, it makes nonsense of maximum height limits and will set an unwelcome precedent for the rest of the precinct. 

We do not support developers being allowed to exceed height limits to increase yield and build extra storeys.

The street wall height of 3 storeys should apply to all streets in the planned growth area, including development fronting Castle Hill Rd.   The additional setback on this major road is necessary to mitigate traffic noise and pollution and should not be used as an excuse to have a 5-storey street wall.

Additional setbacks may be required on the south side of Castle Hill Rd where the proposed growth area adjoins areas for future consideration.  There are no roads on these boundaries to assist with the transition from 5 storeys to 1-2 storeys.

3.      Landslip

Much of the land south of Castle Hill Rd is subject to landslip.  It is not clear whether this has been taken into account in the Place Strategy when deciding the density of development and location of new roads and links.  Further geotechnical investigations may be necessary.

4.      Traffic

The development will generate additional traffic through West Pennant Hills Valley, which is already congested in the morning and afternoon peak travel periods.

Data collection has been focussed on the major intersections close to the growth area and has not considered the wider impacts.  For instance, an increase to traffic using Highs Rd, will also impact traffic in Taylor Street, Aiken Road, Oakes Road and Jenkins Road.  This route is already heavily congested during morning and afternoon peak periods.  Further investigation of traffic impacts is necessary.

There will be an increase in traffic heading south through West Pennant Hills Valley to Parramatta.  The metro does not service this destination and there is no direct bus route.  A direct bus route linking Cherrybrook Station to Parramatta via West Pennant Hills Valley must be introduced to reduce traffic congestion on this route.

Minor upgrades to intersections are promised by 2031, with major upgrades for some intersections by 2041.  The intersection at Castle Hill Road/Highs Road/County Drive is already operating below an acceptable standard and must have a full upgrade before any development commences.  The effect downstream through West Pennant Hills Valley must also be investigated.

5.      Landscaping, pedestrian and cycle links

All native vegetation should be protected and we support the aim of increasing the tree canopy.  Pedestrian and cycle links should have natural shading from the tree canopy.

Some of the shared pathways are shown as 1.8m wide, which is too narrow.  In NSW, the recommended path width for shared pedestrian and cycleways is 2.5m – 3m so that pedestrians and cyclists can pass safely. 

The Landcom site and green village to the north of Castle Hill Rd should be connected to the area south of Castle Hill Rd by a grade separated crossing, preferably an overpass, suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists.  Any extra time taken to use the overpass will be offset by not having to wait for traffic lights.  An overpass will also improve traffic flow along Castle Hill Rd.

There should also be a ‘kiss and ride’ drop off zone on the south side of Castle hill Rd, to make it easier for residents to access the station from the south.

6.      Parking

Commuter parking at Cherrybrook Station is already inadequate.  The station is likely to become more popular once the line is extended past Chatswood.  Whilst providing additional parking may attract more cars, having a park and ride facility is a far better outcome than having commuters drive all the way to work.  Additional parking must be provided at the station.

Many of the existing residents of West Pennant Hills Valley and Cherrybrook live too far from the station to walk there.  Out of peak hours, the bus services are infrequent.  Additional parking must be provided so that all local residents can access the station, new cafes and community space.

We do not support having additional parking restrictions on local roads because this simply shifts the problem rather than solving it.  Also, a commuter going by train to the city may find that risking a parking fine is cheaper than the cost of driving with associated tolls and CBD parking.

The new developments should all have generous parking provisions for residents and visitors.    All apartments must be provided with at least one space.  If an apartment can be bought without a space it will encourage residents to use street parking.  Even if street parking has time limits, it can be far cheaper to pay a few fines than to pay extra for a carpark space.

The majority of parking spaces for the apartments should have EV charging capability in order to futureproof the buildings.  The NSW strategy for EV cars will ensure at least 50 per cent of new cars sales are EVs by 2030.  It can be very difficult and expensive to retrofit EV charging capabilities at a later date.

Having a walkable development adjacent to the station will increase the use of public transport, but there are many journeys that cannot be made by bus and train.  For instance, there is no public primary school within walking distance and although school buses are an option, they do not generally service before and after school care.  Working parents will need to drive children to school.  Other destinations such as sporting fields, swimming pools, beaches, hospitals, family and friends may also be inaccessible by public transport.  Taxis/Uber and share cars are not a viable option for families with young children due to safety requirements for car seats 

We support the reduced use of cars but we are not living in a city such as Tokyo or London where multiple transport routes criss-cross the city.  The metro is a single train line serving a limited number of destinations.

Additional parking must be provided for commuters and users of the new cafes and community space.  The new apartments must all be provided with at least one parking space and there must be a generous allocation for visitors.

7.      Infrastructure

There is a need for 2 additional playing fields, preferably within 2km of the precinct.  Although a possible funding source has been identified, the fields have not been costed and a location has not been found.  There is already a shortfall of playing fields in West Pennant Hills Valley, and Hills Council has been unable to find any suitable land in our suburb.  A location must be identified in Cherrybrook before any land is rezoned.  Acquisition of the land must be costed so that infrastructure contributions can be accurately set.

There is a need for an additional public primary school and high school.  Possible sites for these new schools must be identified before any land is rezoned.  The primary school must be within easy walking distance of the proposed growth area.

8.      Option for implementing the strategy.

There are three options presented for implementing the plan.  We do not support the State led rezoning presented as Option 1.  We also do not support option 3 which allows individual planning proposals to be brought forward by landowners.  We do support option 2 which allows each Council to prepare their own planning proposal to implement the rezoning.  However, Hornsby and Hills Shire Councils will need to collaborate closely to ensure that developer contributions are fairly apportioned and cover the costs of infrastructure upgrades such as the new sports fields.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning proposal of government owned land adjacent to the station.