Balancing Heritage Protection with Housing Progress in Kur-ring-gai

Professional Associations

A very interesting article was shared last Tuesday in the Sydney Morning Herald about the impact of the Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) scheme on heritage homeowners in Gordon, Lindfield, Killara and Roseville (Gorrey 2025). The upshot of the article is that owners of heritage properties have become caught up in the new housing areas around the four train stations in the Kur-ring-gai LGA.

These heritage homeowners are concerned that the new development will devalue their properties by as much as a third of their potential selling price. What are they to do; sell up and move out, stay and fight the State Government, or delist their properties? Such a confrontation was always bound to happen when new development is brought so close to heritage areas.

With the Minns Government determined to proceed with development, they would likely build around the heritage properties. The proximity to these new

developments would potentially block out sunlight, impinge on privacy and alter the heritage character of the LGA.

The continuation with TOD has left the homeowners feeling stuck and unheard. The clarity that the affected heritage owners seek is not there.

I have been following these developments closely ever since TOD was first announced. I have also been writing about the need to cull the number of listings (Rappoport 2025) – not only in Kur-ring-gai, but everywhere in NSW. I have previously suggested that each LGA in Metropolitan Sydney should have a limit of say 25 listings only. The State Government should sift out and retain the 25 most unique, interesting and significant examples of cultural built heritage and daisy chain them all into a heritage tourist entity. In this fashion, both local and international tourists and residents who live in the LGA would better understand the heritage nature of the listings.

Daytime shot of a row of old, heritage-listed shopfronts in Roseville, NSW. Mix of brick facades with pointed, gable roof and sandstone, white facades with Art Deco parapets. Image is looking over the top of some very green trees and there are other leafy, green trees around, as well as some electricity poles. — Fig 1. A tree-framed view of Roseville shopping village on Sydney’s upper north shore. (Photograph by Steven Woodburn. In Lush, convenient and beaches within reach: is Roseville in the perfect spot on the upper north shore? By Elicia Murray. Domain, Sydney. 2019.)

At present, the listings are random, unconnected and misunderstood by most people who encounter them.

Our NSW heritage lists evolved randomly. In the 1980s and 1990s when most of the current listings took place, heritage lists were drawn up by Council which then advertised the preliminary lists for comment by owners. Most owners didn’t comment at the time because they didn’t understand what listing meant.

Yet those that did respond by requesting (insisting) that their properties be removed from the list were generally successful in getting them taken off. This explains the random nature of the lists – why many places listed are of dubious quality while other places of very high significance are not listed.

The NSW Government has not ever undertaken a comprehensive review of these lists. I believe there should be a comprehensive review given that we are all suffering from one of the worst housing shortages in our brief history. By reducing the list down in each metropolitan LGA, owners such as those caught up in the TOD quagmire would gain the clarity that they are seeking.

Reviewing and culling the lists down to the bone would also help residents understand what the best examples are. Embracing 25 items in your LGA as opposed to 3,000 would be easier for both residents and tourists to recognise the historical and aesthetic character of the LGA in which they live. Outsiders would also be able to glean the gist. In doing so, significant swaths of land would be freed up for new housing.

Daytime, afternoon overhead shot of Gordon Railway Station, NSW. The platform is empty and there is one train going by the station. The station has a cream-coloured, timber building on a brick base with some timber, brown benches around the platform. There is lots of greenery and some pink flowers to the right of the station. — Fig 2. Gordon Station, NSW. (Photograph by lex555. In Australia247. Sydney. 2019.)

I hope that you have gained a better insight into the balance between heritage and housing.

If you have any queries or related ideas, please feel free to email me at paul@heritage21.com.au.

Paul Rappoport

Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner

15 May 2025

References:

Barwell, David, “Ku-ring-gai: inside the north shore heritage homes in line for restoration funding.” The Daily Telegraph. July 13, 2021. Ku-ring-gai: inside the north shore heritage homes in line for restoration funding | Daily Telegraph

Gorrey, Megan, “The Sydney heritage home owners worried they’ll be swamped by apartments.” Sydney Morning Herald. May 6, 2025. Heritage home owners fear being swamped by apartments on upper north shore

Murray, Elicia, “Lush, convenient and beaches within reach: is Roseville in the perfect spot on the upper north shore?” Domain. November 20, 2019. Lush, convenient and beaches within reach: is Roseville in the perfect spot on the upper north shore?

Lex555, “Gordon Station.” Australia247. August 8, 2019. Gordon Station – Gordon NSW 2072, Australia

Rappoport, Paul, “Culling the Numbers of Heritage Listed Items in NSW.” LinkedIn. April 17, 2025. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/culling-numbers-heritage-listed-items-nsw-heritage-21-mf2bc/?trackingId=rPrqrpt%2BvUuYLxLVKieiTQ%3D%3D