Issuu

Glenorie Village Investigations Feedback Summary Report April 2025

hornsby.nsw.gov.au

We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of this land, the Darug and GuriNgai peoples, and pay respect to their Ancestors and Elders past and present and to their Heritage. We acknowledge and uphold their intrinsic connections and continuing relationships to Country.

Hornsby Shire Council ABN 20 706 996 972

Contact us PO Box 37, Hornsby NSW 1630 Phone: (02) 9847 6666 Fax: (02) 9847 6999 Email: hsc@hornsby.nsw.gov.au Customer service (telephone and online) hours: 8.30am–5pm Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays) hornsby.nsw.gov.au

Visit us Hornsby Shire Council Administration Centre at Hornsby Library, 28-44 George St, Hornsby NSW 2077

Office hours Please check the website for the latest opening hours for the Customer Service Centre and how to book an appointment with a planner.

Disclaimer Every effort has been made to provide accurate and complete information. However, the authors assume no responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages arising from the use of information in this document.

Copyright Notice No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or stored in a database or retrieval system, or transmitted or distributed in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise without written permission from Hornsby Shire Council. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2025, Hornsby Shire Council

Contents 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

BACKGROUND

WHAT WE CONSULTED ON

HOW WE CONSULTED

HOW YOU RESPONDED

6.1

Glenorie Stakeholder Groups Feedback Session

6.1.1

Demographic Data

6.1.2

One thing about Glenorie

6.1.3

About Lot Sizes

6.1.4

About Services and Local Roads

6.1.5

Mapping Exercise

6.1.6

About Agriculture

6.2

Community Feedback Session

6.2.1

Demographic Data

6.2.2

About Glenorie

6.2.3

About Lot Sizes

6.2.4

About Services and Local Roads

6.2.5

Mapping Exercise

6.3

Survey

6.3.1

About Glenorie

6.3.2

About Lot Sizes

6.3.3

About Services, Open Space and Local Roads

6.3.4

About Agriculture

6.3.5

Opportunities and Constraints

6.4

Written Submissions

KEY INSIGHTS

7.1.1

Who we spoke to

7.1.2

What you shared about Glenorie

7.1.3

What you said about the Opportunities and Constraints

7.1.4

Ideas for the future of Glenorie

WHAT’S NEXT?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

FIGURES Figure 1: Visitors, views and visits to Council's ‘Your Say’ webpage

Figure 2: Council's 'Your Say' webpage

Figure 3: Stakeholder (left) and Community (right) sessions

Figure 4: Responses by method of participation

Figure 5: Stakeholder group participants demographics

Figure 6: Village Investigation Area and Preliminary Findings worksheets

Figure 7: Example completed Village Investigation Area worksheet

Figure 8: Composite of areas circled on the Glenorie Village Investigation Area worksheet

Figure 9: Community feedback session participants demographics

Figure 10: Village Investigation Area and Preliminary Findings worksheets

Figure 11: Example worksheet with stickers applied.

Figure 12: Which constraints are the most important considerations?

Figure 13: Composite of areas identified for inclusion and exclusion on mapping

Figure 14: Participant demographics

Figure 15: Participants by affiliation

Figure 16: Where should changes be considered

TABLES Table 1: Commonly shared insights for Glenorie Village

Table 2: Consultation Methodology

Table 3: Usage and access statistics for Council's ‘Your Say’ webpage

Table 4: Stakeholder and Community Session Details

Table 5: Information Collected via Feedback Method

Table 6: How we used your feedback

Table 7: Describe Glenorie in one word

Table 8: If you could pick one thing to improve Glenorie what would it be?

Table 9: Retain rural character

Table 10: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Table 11: Promote housing choice?

Table 12: Are there services essential to support additional housing supply?

Table 13: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Table 14: Student numbers, bus services and funding

Table 15: Comments by theme

Table 16: About agriculture

Table 17: If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

Table 18: Retain rural character of the area?

Table 19: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Table 20: Promote housing choice?

Table 21: What services would be needed to support additional housing?

Table 22: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Table 23: Selection of comments under most often mentioned categories

Table 24: If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

Table 25: Retain rural character

Table 26: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Table 27: Promote housing choice?

Table 28: What services would be needed to support additional housing?

Table 29: Where could you locate additional open space to support additional housing?

Table 30: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Table 31: Students and bus services

Table 32: Upgrades to services

Table 33: Agricultural activities

Table 34: Agriculture amenity impacts

Table 35: Have we identified all relevant opportunities and constraints?

Table 36: Have we represented opportunities and constraints accurately?

Table 37: Are there ways that any of these constraints could be overcome?

Table 38: Suitable and Unsuitable Areas

Table 39: Opportunities and constraints

Table 40: Submission feedback

Table 41: Areas frequently identified for improvement

Table 42: Agriculture at Glenorie

Table 43: Opportunities and constraints commentary summary

Table 44: Suggested changes to the draft OCWP

Table 45: Where should changes be considered

Table 46: Combined responses - Lot sizes

Table 47: Combined responses - Retain rural character

Table 48: Combined responses - Accommodate onsite services

Table 49: Combined responses - Promote housing choice

Table 50: Services and infrastructure

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Executive Summary

Hornsby Shire Council is currently implementing the long-term recommendations of the Hornsby Rural Lands Study by undertaking place planning investigations in and around Glenorie Village. As part of this process Council prepared a draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper (draft OCWP) for discussion with the community. The draft OCWP details the initial outcomes of planning and environmental investigations in and around the Village. Targeted community consultation with the Glenorie Community was undertaken in November and December 2024 to discuss the initial findings of the draft OCWP as well as the future of Glenorie. Feedback was sought on what the community would improve about Glenorie, which local constraints require careful consideration, the current state of services and utilities.

211 Responses were received

83%

85%

of participants were Glenorie residents

of participants were Glenorie property owners

Consultation was conducted directly with local residents, landowners, and stakeholder groups. We achieved our goal of consulting directly with the local community, with over 80% of participants living or owning property in Glenorie. Some of the feedback included the following:

Top 2 improvements you want in Glenorie

Active & Public Transport

Top 2 constraints you want us to consider in Glenorie

Traffic and Roads

Bushfire

Ecology

Combined responses – top 3 lot sizes to accommodate character, services and housing diversity

Preferred Lot Size

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Common insights on key topics are tabulated below, some of which include opposing views highlighting different opinions on how the future of the village should look. Community Feedback Topic

Commonly shared insights

Areas the community highlighted for improvement

» Public transport and active transport should be improved including more buses and footpaths in the village. » Improve the road network and fix traffic problems on Old Northern Road and at Dural. » More affordable and diverse housing should be provided. » More shops should be considered for the village. » Conversely, there were opinions that Glenorie doesn’t need any changes, to protect the existing village and rural character.

Local constraints that require careful consideration

» Bushfire prone land should be avoided, and evacuation routes considered. » Bushland areas and watercourses should be prioritised for protection to provide habitat and natural areas. » Land use should be carefully considered and land use conflict between agriculture and residential land managed. » Flooding and creek lines should be managed. » Study area boundaries should be carefully considered.

Services and utilities

» Public transport frequency should be increased. » Local and regional roads should be upgraded. » Sewer access should be carefully examined. » A local service station should be provided. » Properties should prioritise town water connections.

Where should change be concentrated

» Change should be within 400m of the village. » Conversely, some were of the view that consideration should be given to all land within the study area. » Cleared and unproductive land should be prioritised.

Table 1: Commonly shared insights for Glenorie Village

This report outlines the detailed and thoughtful commentary provided by the community, which sheds further light on the areas of investigation for the project. Key insights from this Feedback Summary Report will assist the preparation of a Glenorie Village investigations report and place plan.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of feedback received during targeted consultation with the Glenorie community undertaken as part of the Glenorie Village Investigation Project. This report collates and recounts information received from the community to inform decision making in the next stages of the Glenorie Village Investigation Project. All feedback and submissions were considered as part of the analysis. This report does not attempt to capture all the information put forward in feedback or submissions, nor does it attempt to respond to issues and ideas raised by the community. Instead, the report highlights the overall consultation strategy, summarises the feedback received, and outlines key topics and suggestions.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Background

The Glenorie Village Investigation Project (Glenorie VIP) is a recommended action of the Hornsby Rural Lands Study (Hornsby RLS). The Hornsby RLS recommends that a Place Plan be prepared for Glenorie Village and that as part of this process, investigations should be undertaken into environmental living opportunities on 5,000m2 to 10,000m2 allotments near Glenorie Village. The Glenorie VIP seeks to undertake the planning investigations required to create a village place plan and identify the feasibility of environmental living opportunities close to the village.

Consultation Context The Hornsby RLS involved extensive, Shire wide public consultation, directly informing the recommendations of the Study, including those related to Glenorie Village. As a consequence of the broad consultation under the RLS, the Glenorie VIP community consultation described in this report was focused on a target audience who has the most local knowledge and insights for the Glenorie area, being local residents, landowners, and local community / stakeholder Groups. Targeted consultation with Glenorie residents, landowners, and local community / stakeholder groups under this project facilitated conversations with those who are familiar with the local area, informing the next stages of the Glenorie VIP and ensuring any knowledge gaps are filled before the project progresses. Table 2 outlines the context of the Glenorie VIP exhibition within the wider Hornsby RLS project, as well as the approach for future public exhibition stages, such as the exhibition of a draft Village Place Plan. Consultation Stage

Consultation Method

THEN (2020)

Hornsby Shire wide exhibition:

Rural Lands Study Consultation

» Over 230 emails sent to people in rural areas (including Glenorie) » Over 3000 letters posted to rural land owners » Advertisements in 4 local newspapers » Dedicated project webpage » Community Sessions » 323 total submissions received

NOW Glenorie Village Investigations Community Consultation

Targeted to Glenorie residents, landowners and local Community Stakeholder Groups: » Over 500 invitations to participate sent to Glenorie residents and landowners in Hornsby Shire » Invitations sent to 10 local Community Stakeholder Groups » In person Community Feedback Session with Glenorie residents and landowners – approximately 120 attendees » In person feedback sessions with local community and interests groups » Dedicated project webpage

FUTURE Glenorie Village Place Plan Exhibition

» Future Shire wide exhibition of a draft Glenorie Village Place Plan will allow all Hornsby Shire residents to provide feedback

Table 2: Consultation Methodology

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Audience Size

What we consulted on

The consultation comprised of the exhibition of a draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper (draft OCWP) that detailed the results of planning investigations undertaken in and around the Glenorie Village. The draft OCWP was the primary source of information for the project. At the Stakeholder Engagement Sessions, hardcopies of A1 maps titled “Glenorie Village Investigation Area” and “Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings” were provided for comment and review. These A1 maps were taken directly from the draft OCWP, detailing the Glenorie Village Investigation Area, as well as mapping outlining preliminary findings.

Glenorie Village Investigations – Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper

Glenorie Village Investigation Area - A1 Map

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings - A1 Map

How we consulted

During November and December 2024, members of the Glenorie community participated in consultations regarding the future of Glenorie. They were invited to provide feedback on the draft OCWP through various online and inperson pathways:

Online “Your Say” webpage and Survey A dedicated ‘Your Say’ webpage (Figure 2) was prepared to share information on the project with the community and gather feedback. The page was designed using the Social Pinpoint web platform (yoursay.hornsby.nsw.gov.au), which is a web-based engagement platform that provides a single place to find and participate in community engagement projects for Hornsby Shire Council. The ‘Your Say’ webpage was published on 1 November 2024 (the first day of the exhibition period) hosting background project information, the draft OCWP and detailing ways for the community to engage on the project. The page also hosted an online survey and outlined how written submissions could be sent to Council. Information related to accessing the webpage was sent all residents and landowners within the Hornsby Shire Council administrated portion of Glenorie. Over 2,000 people visited and viewed the ‘Your Say’ webpage during the exhibition period (November and December 2024). Table 3 outlines key metrics on how users visited and interacted with the webpage. Activity Overview Number of webpage views

4,066

Number of visits

2,947

Percentage of visits that last a minimum of 1 active minute

34%

Number of visitors

2,014

Number of returning visitors

118

Number of Glenorie Community Surveys Completed

Number of people who signed up for the Community Feedback Session

103

Number of project followers

(number of visitors who have subscribed to the website)

Referral types

(How people reached the ‘Your Say’ webpage)

Direct

562

Websites (e.g. hornsby.nsw.gov.au)

139

Search Engines (e.g. Google, Bing)

210

Social Media (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn)

1,189

Campaigns (e.g. Council E-News)

N/A

Table 3: Usage and access statistics for Council's ‘Your Say’ webpage

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Figure 1 shows activity on the website during the public exhibition period, including visitors, views and visits. Activity on the website peaked during the first week of the exhibition period with the largest traffic being recorded during the final week of November and first week of December. This period coincided with the timing for the Community Feedback events, (discussed below) and local media coverage. 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Visitors

Views

Visits

Figure 1: Visitors, views and visits to Council's ‘Your Say’ webpage

Note: » ‘Visitors’ are number of unique users that have entered the website. » ‘Views’ are total number of times a visitor views any page on the website. » ‘Visits’ are number of individual browsing sessions a visitor has on the website.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

31/12/2024

29/12/2024

27/12/2024

25/12/2024

23/12/2024

21/12/2024

19/12/2024

17/12/2024

15/12/2024

13/12/2024

11/12/2024

9/12/2024

7/12/2024

5/12/2024

3/12/2024

1/12/2024

29/11/2024

27/11/2024

25/11/2024

23/11/2024

21/11/2024

19/11/2024

17/11/2024

15/11/2024

13/11/2024

11/11/2024

9/11/2024

7/11/2024

5/11/2024

3/11/2024

1/11/2024

Figure 2: Council's 'Your Say' webpage

Online Survey The Glenorie Community Survey was available on the “your say” project webpage throughout the engagement period. The survey sought feedback on Glenorie Village today, lot size preferences, services and roads, agriculture and the draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper. The survey could be completed at any time during the exhibition period and for up to a week after the in-person feedback sessions, allowing those who attended the sessions to provide further post session feedback. In total 76 completed surveys were received.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

In person feedback sessions Two in-person feedback events were held with the Glenorie Community during the consultation period, reaching a combined audience of approximately 140 people. Attended by project consultants, Council officers, and available Councillors observing the proceedings, these sessions sought feedback on the draft OCWP and the future of Glenorie. At both events, attendees were invited to complete a live survey and participate in mapping exercises. Further details dates and attendees of these events are outlined in Table 4. In Person Feedback Session

Date

Attendees

Glenorie Stakeholder Groups Feedback Session

26 November 2024 – Glenorie RSL

Approximately 20 representatives from stakeholder organisations that operate in and around Glenorie including: » Glenorie Progress Association; » Hornsby Rural Areas Association; » Hornsby Hills Koala Project; » Glenorie Rural Fire Brigade; » Galston Area Residents Association; and » Arcadia Galston Residents Association.

Community Feedback Session

28 November 2024 – Glenorie RSL

Approximately 120 community members of Glenorie and surrounding areas

Table 4: Stakeholder and Community Session Details Invitations to attend the Stakeholder Groups Session were sent to local community and stakeholder groups from Council’s database as well as local groups identified by Councillors. Invitations to the Community Feedback Session were sent to all Glenorie residents in Hornsby Shire via hardcopy letter or email. In total, 10 local groups were invited to the Stakeholder Session, and over 500 invitations were sent to residents and landowners for the community session.

Figure 3: Stakeholder (left) and Community (right) sessions

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

How you responded

Feedback on the draft OCWP was gathered through the following methods: 

The survey on Council’s webpage;



2 x in-person sessions;



Written submissions (letter or email).

In total, 211 responses were received from all sources during the community consultation period. This chapter summarises the responses received through each method of consultation. Part 7 of this report provides an overall summary of emergent themes from all consultation methods. Figure 4 identifies responses by method of participation and Table 5 outlines which types of information was collected for each feedback method. Community members may have participated in multiple methods, such as attending an in-person session and providing a submission. 140

120

100

0 In Person

Website Survey

Figure 4: Responses by method of participation

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Written Submissions

Feedback Pathway

Information Collected

Participants

Live Surveys

» Basic information on participants, including place of residence, property ownership status, whether they lived in Hornsby LGA and whether they used their property for agriculture.

» 120 Participants (20 stakeholder group session and 100 community feedback session participants).

» Lot size preferences, based on rural character, local services and housing choice. » Preferences on funding sources for village improvements. Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings Mapping Exercise

» Participants were provided with three stickers which could be used to highlight which constraints are the most important considerations.

» >100 participants (stakeholder group session & community feedback session).

Glenorie Village Investigation Area Mapping Exercise

» Where participants would locate any additional housing in Glenorie.

» >100 participants (stakeholder group session & community feedback session).

Online Survey

» What the participant would like to improve about Glenorie, such as village improvements and service enhancements.

Online Feedback

In-Person Feedback

» What the participant would like to improve about Glenorie, such as village improvements and service enhancements.

» 76 completed surveys.

» Lot size preferences, based on rural character, local services and housing choice. » Preferences on funding sources for village improvements. » Whether the draft OCWP accurately captured the opportunities and constraints around Glenorie. Written Submissions

Written Feedback

» Where participants consider to be unsuitable for additional housing.

» Free form to provide any commentary. » Detailed commentary on OCWP and project direction.

Table 5: Information Collected via Feedback Method

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

» 15 written submissions.

How we used your feedback Information collected via the feedback pathways outlined in Table 5 is presented in Part 6.1 to Part 6.4 of this report. To allow the feedback to be summarised and presented in a format that is understandable, protects privacy and allows for comparison of ideas, feedback has been lightly refined. How data collected has been used within this report is further detailed in Table 6. Response Type

How your feedback has been used

Live Surveys

» Answers have been grouped by theme to allow for a better understanding of key issues. » Commentary that identifies a specific property address has not been identified. Street names have been preserved. » Units of measurement, such as acres, hectares or square metres have been standardised. All information is presented in square metres in this report. » Select individual responses have been reproduced in this report, where the responses are indicative of many similar responses or where a response provides a unique insight into a topic. Where these responses are used, minor editing has been undertaken to correct grammar, fix spelling or for brevity. » Word clouds have been created for the live survey questions that displayed results in this format. In these word clouds, responses are grouped into topics. The more frequently a word or topic is mentioned, the larger it appears in the word cloud.

Mapping Exercises

» Circled areas on maps have been collated. » Commentary that identifies a specific street address has not been identified. Street names have been preserved. » Comments provided on maps have been digitised. » Select individual responses have been reproduced in this report, where the responses are indicative of many similar responses or where a response provides a unique insight into a topic. Where these responses are used, minor editing has been undertaken to correct grammar, fix spelling or for brevity.

Online Surveys

» Answers have been grouped by theme to allow for a better understanding of key issues. » Commentary that identifies a specific street address has not been identified. Street names have been preserved. » Units of measurement, such as acres, hectares or square metres have been standardised. This report presents all information in square metre format for graphs and figures. » Select individual responses have been reproduced in this report, where the responses are indicative of many similar responses or where a response provides a unique insight into a topic. Where these responses are used, minor editing has been undertaken to correct grammar, fix spelling or for brevity.

Written Submissions

» Reponses have been grouped by theme to allow for a better understanding of key issues. » Reoccurring matters raised have been identified and reproduced. » No identifying details have been published with the exception that community organisation or stakeholder groups who provided a response have been listed.

Table 6: How we used your feedback

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1

Glenorie Stakeholder Groups Feedback Session

The Glenorie Stakeholder Groups Feedback Session was held in-person on the evening of 26 November 2024 at the Glenorie RSL. The session was attended by approximately 20 representatives from stakeholder organisations that operate in and around Glenorie including: 

Glenorie Progress Association;



Hornsby Rural Areas Association;



Hornsby Hills Koala Project;



Glenorie Rural Fire Brigade;



Galston Area Residents Association; and



Arcadia Galston Residents Association.

Other attendees included project consultants, with Council officers and available Councillors observing the session. An interactive ‘slido’ presentation was held with participants, led by the project consultants. Participants were asked to provide responses to on-screen questions throughout the presentation. Participants were able to enter their responses using their personal phones or written responses. Responses were anonymous and at the session and live results were displayed on screen to allow for real time results and further discussion of topics. Responses were received from 18 attendees. Feedback received is outlined in Section 6.1.1 to 6.1.4 below.

6.1.1

Demographic Data

Stakeholder groups were asked three survey questions on their demographic data, as recorded in Figure 5. 66% of Stakeholder Group participants provided responses to the survey question.

Figure 5: Stakeholder group participants demographics

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1.2

One thing about Glenorie

Stakeholder Group Participants were asked to “Describe Glenorie in one word”, and “If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie What would it be?” Table 7 and Table 8 below detail the responses to the questions including a word cloud visualiser and answer frequencies. Describe Glenorie in one word

14 participants provided 18 unique topics. Topics

Times mentioned

Quaint

Lifestyle

Biodiverse, Fragmented, Great, Home, Liveable, Nature, Openness, Opportunity, Peace, Tired, Restrictive, Semi-rural, Space, Tranquillity, Unique, United

Table 7: Describe Glenorie in one word

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

14 participants provided 12 unique topics. Topics

Times mentioned

Public transport

Housing diversity

Roads

Access, Fire safety, Food, Less trucks, More residents, NBN, Protect biodiversity, services, Streetscape amenity

Table 8: If you could pick one thing to improve Glenorie what would it be?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1.3

About Lot Sizes

Stakeholder Group Participants were asked three questions about lot sizes at Glenorie: 

What lot size do you think is appropriate to retain the unique rural character of the area?



What lot size do you think is appropriate to accommodate onsite services (where required)?



What lot size do you think is appropriate to promote housing choice?

Responses are presented below including graphs detailing the how many people identified various lot size ranges and additional commentary related to each question. What lot size do you think is appropriate to retain the unique rural character of the area?

Commentary A mix depending on how far from the village centre

One to 1.5 acres (4,000m2 to 6,000m2) as a buffer zone to larger lot sizes

Hybrid approach with a mix of options. Smallest being 750sqm as you approach the village growing as you move away

Large lot sizes BUT we could potentially keep the rural character by building only in the very centre of town, townhouses and villas with green space around them (and not too many of them, not crowded)

No changes to current lot sizes

Keep lot sizes as is, people live here because of existing character

Table 9: Retain rural character

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What lot size do you think is appropriate to accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Commentary Sewerage is going to be a problem and run off into the creeks

This day and age any developments should be provided with Town sewer

Pump out sewer for smaller lots

Asset protection zones for bushfire prone land should be considered in order to utilise lots that would otherwise be situated in logical areas adjacent to the existing R2 lots

Leave this to the experts. So long as people are safe and lifestyle is not compromised

No change to existing lot sizes

Table 10: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What lot size do you think is appropriate to promote housing choice?

Commentary A mix of lot sizes rather than just one size, perhaps rules around subdivision of “anomaly lots” that already do not comply with lot sizes

A mix of housing should be available

Single level low maintenance homes suitable for aging population who have lived in the area a long time but don’t want to move to seniors retirement living

Allow variety of housing types and lot sizes to achieve reasonable growth

Terrace housing options closer to the village, growing to 500750m2, moving out further to acreage

Smaller land to support affordability

Table 11: Promote housing choice?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1.4

About Services and Local Roads

Stakeholder Group Participants were asked five questions focused on services and local roads. These questions sought feedback on which services may require augmentation to support the current or future community, as well as how these would be funded. Questions asked included: 

Are there services essential to support additional housing supply?



Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?



Where could you locate additional student numbers?



Would additional bus services be required?



How could upgrades to local services and utilities be paid for? By who?

Participants could provide multiple responses to the questions, which are detailed below.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Are there services essential to support additional housing supply?

In total 14 participants provided 13 topics, with 64% of participants identifying 2 or more essential services. Topic

Times mentioned

Public Transport

Sewer

Roads

Water

Electricity

Community Facilities, Fire, NBN

Ambulance, Drains, Hydrants, Police, Street lights, Yes

Public Transport

Sewer

Roads

Water

Higher frequency buses to get to Cherrybrook for better access to other transport hubs

Sydney Water Sewerage

Traffic Flow

Water

Buses (metro transit)

Sewer

Street lights

Hydrants

Road upgrades and widening

Town Water

Buses

Table 12: Are there services essential to support additional housing supply?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

13% 22% 13% New Line Road Old Northern Road Cairnes Road Cattai Ridge Road Other

26%

“Other” Roads

Cairnes Lane, Galston Road, Moores Road, Munros Lane, Wylds Road

Commentary received

» All roads leading into and servicing the immediate village area » We like out local roads because it keeps the rural way of life » Old Northern Road but probably increased (public) transport would help road impact

Table 13: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Where could you locate additional student numbers? At the session it was described that in answering the question, the audience could provide answers that address where school children could be educated, as well as where they might live in the area. Six responses were received from six participants. Commentary: » Allow multiple dwellings on acreage blocks » Adjacent to the village to benefit from public transport and retail amenity » Allow extra housing, by subdividing larger blocks to smaller blocks » Extra housing » Don’t » Additional classrooms Would additional bus services be required? Responses unanimously identified that additional bus services would be required, with all 11 replies affirming this view. The need for additional buses to Cherrybrook Sydney Metro station was mentioned on four occasions. Commentary: » Yes, the addition of Cherrybrook metro is great but there is a very poor bus service to allow people from Glenorie to get there. There is still the need to drive out of Glenorie to use the metro » They already are required for existing residents - public transport out here is woeful! » Yes, more frequent service not used properly so locals use cars » Yes, shuttles to the metro » Yes, other than just Old Northern Road How could upgrades to local services and utilities be paid for? By who? Responses identified a number of sources of funding, with eight respondents providing nine answers. Of these, the most popular response was the state government (four), followed by the developer (three) and then Council / rate payers (two). Commentary: » State government should co-fund with Sydney Water or home owners co-fund » Voluntary Planning Agreements or contributions » Contributions and taxes, user pays » Rates, developer contributions

Table 14: Student numbers, bus services and funding

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1.5

Mapping Exercise

During the Community Stakeholder Session, participants engaged in mapping exercises, reviewing and providing feedback on hardcopy worksheets of the draft OCWP maps, 'Glenorie Village Investigation Area' and 'Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings,' as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Village Investigation Area and Preliminary Findings worksheets

Draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper Feedback Extracts from the draft OCWP were collated into the Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings Sheet. At the session, attendees were invited to provide commentary on the constraints analysis to reinforce the work undertaken with local knowledge. Feedback could be provided by directly writing on the sheets, placing a “post it” note with ideas and feedback or circling / shading areas of interest on the worksheets.

Constraint Mapping and Opportunity Identification Figure 25 of the draft OCWP contains a composite map that identifies “highly constrained” and “moderately constrained” areas based on environmental, planning and hazard studies. This figure was extracted as the Glenorie Village Investigation Area A1 worksheet. At the session, attendees were invited to provide commentary on the map, circling areas for potential further review, as well as areas that they considered unsuitable. They were also invited to provide commentary in the form of post it notes. An example of a completed worksheet is shown at Figure 7.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Figure 7: Example completed Village Investigation Area worksheet

The mapping exercise collected a total of 42 comments, which covered topics including village character, natural environment, constraints, bushfire, road improvements and areas for additional housing. Of the comments received, four main themes emerged being, housing, bushfire, traffic and roads, and the natural environment. Commentary was received on Koala populations in the local area, location of local waterways, farming potential of surrounding lands and housing replacing agricultural lands. Comments received under reoccurring themes are outlined in Table 15. Theme

Commentary

Housing

» More housing right in the centre of Glenorie. i.e. Local to shops, would work for older people. » Additional housing along Cairnes road. Logical transition from R2 and natural extension to existing village housing. Multiple entry/exits. Cairns road / Tekapo road. » 5000-10000 does not provide enough diversity or housing options (affordability). » No housing in bushfire prone land, threatened species habitat, high biodiversity areas, riparian zones or flood areas.

Bushfire

» No housing on bushfire prone land. » Maintain 1km radius around high risk fire areas. » Greatest bushfire risk areas are north of Cairnes road to Tacoma drive so should be no additional housing. » If a devastating fire breaks through Glenorie, are there enough safety precautions in place? » Areas that are in close proximity of biodiversity land and bushfire land won't allow appropriate clearing for (bushfire) Asset Protection Zones.

Traffic and Roads

» Consultation says traffic is a low constraint. This is incorrect, Traffic is OK in Glenorie but is a major constraint at Dural, Old Northern Road, and New Line Road intersections. More dwellings in Glenorie worsen traffic congestion at Dural. » What is the plan for local road upgrades to ensure that there is suitable capacity? Will upgrades to roads impact rates? » Widen Old Northern Road. » Evacuation routes are a constraint for development. » Upgrade access to Cairnes road and Wylds Road. This would improve village access options.

Natural Environment

» The bushland opposite Les Shore Oval and the round Tacoma is highly constrained. It is a potential local wildlife corridor, as koalas live in Glenorie on both Hills and Hornsby sides right near town centre. They need to be able to cross Schweble, Sermelfi, Cairnes, Ben Bullon, Glenorie Creek, Cola Creek, etc. » Wildlife corridor for koalas. » It would be good to get an understanding of the relationship between the RFS requirements and biodiversity. ie. clearing of land for Asset Protection Zones. » The bushland is highly diverse. » Vegetation mapping needs to be updated for Hornsby Shire before any rezoning takes place.

Table 15: Comments by theme

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

In addition to providing commentary, participants circled areas on the Glenorie Village Investigation Area map for inclusion or exclusion during the next stage of the process. Figure 8 contains a composite of areas circled on the map.

Figure 8: Composite of areas circled on the Glenorie Village Investigation Area worksheet The composite map above has four circled areas, with the area circled for agriculture being located in The Hills Shire Council Local Government area. Areas mentioned most frequently in responses include properties along Cairnes Road, especially allotments that adjoin the eastern side of the village.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.1.6

About Agriculture

Participants were asked two questions about Agriculture: 

Do you see a need for the adoption of measures to provide protection from agricultural activities?



Which types of agricultural uses require different measures to reduce amenity impacts?

Responses received to these questions are discussed in Table 16. Do you see a need for the adoption of measures to provide protection from agricultural activities? Feedback on this question highlighted two perspectives: » New homes should be protected from the impacts of agricultural activities. » Ongoing farm operations should not be disrupted by new homes. Which types of agricultural uses require different measures to reduce amenity impacts? Feedback was received from eight participants, who identified the importance of protecting existing agriculture. Rural land uses that were identified to have higher amenity impacts include large scale livestock farming and extractive industries. Comments received are outlined below: » Agriculture is important in this region. If additional housing is approved it shouldn't be on agricultural land, and perhaps residents would have to negotiate with farms such as tree lines to protect from sprays or spraying at certain times of day while resident is inside. » Avoid rezoning residential lots that are adjacent to agricultural farm land. » Livestock farming on a large scale could be problematic for neighbours. Large setbacks, big buffer zones, retain vistas and views. » In most cases the agriculture was here before the residential! » Protect agriculture and limit housing. » Not a problem agriculture is already here. » Protect us from the quarry. » Nil. Table 16: About agriculture

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.2

Community Feedback Session

The Community Feedback Session was held in-person on the 28 November 2024 at the Glenorie RSL. The session was attended by approximately 120 community members of Glenorie and surrounding areas. Of the attendees, 102 participated in an in-person interactive survey that was undertaken via “slido” software or hardcopy written responses. The survey allowed for participants to enter their responses using an online portal on their personal phones. Responses were anonymous and at the session, live results were displayed on screen to allow for real time results and further discussion of topics. If participants could not use their mobile device, hardcopy sheets of the questions were provided.

6.2.1

Demographic Data

Community members were asked four questions on their demographic data. Figure 9 outlines the results from these questions.

Figure 9: Community feedback session participants demographics

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.2.2

About Glenorie

Community Feedback Session participants were asked “If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie What would it be?” Table 17 details the response to the questions, including a word cloud visualiser and response frequencies. If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie What would it be?

32 different ideas were suggested from 94 participants Answer

Times mentioned

Service Station

Public Transport

Parking

Footpaths, Food options

Roads, Sewer, Subdivision

Traffic

Biodiversity, Housing diversity, Less trucks

Affordable housing, Development, More shops, No industry in rural areas

Access, Don’t increase population, Stickybeaks, Industry, jobs, Leave it alone, Busy bodies, Managed by one council only, More safe crossings, More youth activities, NBN, No change, No development, Services, Stop Development, Zoning.

Table 17: If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.2.3

About Lot Sizes

Community Feedback Session participants were asked three questions about Lot Sizes at Glenorie. These questions focused on rural character, services and housing choice as follows: 

What lot size do you think is appropriate to retain the unique rural character of the area?



What lot size do you think is appropriate to accommodate onsite services (where required)?



What lot size do you think is appropriate to promote housing choice?

Commentary Current lot sizes. Keep the agricultural land and bush land intact. Build small lots right at the shops if needed.

Leave it on the Hill Shire side.

Table 18: Retain rural character of the area?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Expand the smaller blocks in a confined area and leave the rest as is.

What lot size do you think is appropriate to accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Commentary As big as needed. Infrastructure must be done properly.

Sydney water already can't cope with sewerage from the village.

Table 19: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What lot size do you think is appropriate to promote housing choice?

Commentary Small blocks right in town like townhouses and villas very close to town not impacting on bushland or agricultural land.

2 acres (8,000m2) - move to density areas you are happy with.

Start from 800m2 blocks, need to have diversity and choices. Also need to incentivise developers.

1 acre (4,000m2) no smaller.

500m2. We need subdivision in Glenorie to benefit everybody.

As is. That’s why we all come here.

Table 20: Promote housing choice?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.2.4

About Services and Local Roads

During the Community Feedback Session, participants were asked two questions about services and local roads, aiming to gather feedback on which might need enhancement to support the current or future community. The questions included: 

What services would be needed to support additional housing supply?



Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Tables below detail the feedback received in response to the questions.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What services would be needed to support additional housing?

28 different topics were suggested from 92 participants. Topic

Times mentioned

Sewer

Public Transport

Roads

Service Station

Footpaths, NBN

Electricity

Water

Community Facilities, Jobs, More shops, Police

Food options, Less trucks, No additional housing, Parking, Schools

Airport, Ambulance, Bike Lanes, Childcare, Council, Fire, Health, Money, No change, Pub, Youth activities

Table 21: What services would be needed to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

12% 4% 40%

10%

New Line Road Old Northern Road Cairnes Road Harrisons Lane Others

34%

90 participants provided 124 responses to the question, identifying 15 local and regional roads. Road Name

Times Mentioned

New Line Road

Old Northern Road

Cairnes Road

Harrisons Lane

Cattai Ridge Road

Munros Lane

Galston Gorge

Wylds Road, Post Office Road, Boronia Road, Halcrows Road, Mid Dural Road, Moores Road, Sermelfi Drive, Timaru Street

Commentary Cherrybrook and Dural Bottlenecks.

Cairnes Road, Safety on bends and street lighting.

Fix all the potholes.

Road upgrades will depend on the final location of housing.

Higher frequency buses needed.

For the area of study which may result in only a few additional houses there might not be a need for any upgrades.

Table 22: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.2.5

Mapping Exercise

At the Community Feedback Session, participants engaged in mapping exercises, reviewing and providing feedback on hardcopy worksheets of draft OCWP maps, 'Glenorie Village Investigation Area' and 'Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings,' as depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Village Investigation Area and Preliminary Findings worksheets

Draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper Feedback Extracts from the draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper were collated into the Glenorie Village Preliminary Findings Sheet. At the session, attendees were invited to provide commentary on the constraints analysis to reinforce the work undertaken with local knowledge. Participants were provided with three stickers which could be used to highlight which constraints are the most important considerations. Additionally, participants could also provide feedback by directly writing on the sheets, placing a post it note with ideas and feedback, or circling / shading areas of interest.

Constraint Mapping and Opportunity Identification Figure 25 of the draft Opportunities and Constraints working paper contains a composite map that identifies “highly constrained” and “moderately constrained” areas based on environmental, planning and hazard studies. This figure was extracted as the Glenorie Village Investigation Area A1 Sheet. Attendees were invited to provide commentary on the map, circling areas for potential further review, Figure 11: Example worksheet with as well as areas that they considered unsuitable. Comments in the stickers applied. form of post it notes were also received.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

General Comments The mapping exercise collected a total of 39 comments written on maps and 231 stickers placed on constraints. Comments were centred around four main themes, being housing and development, subdivision lot sizes, infrastructure and services and the environment. Comments received under these themes are outlined in Table 23. Theme

Comment

Housing and development

» Smaller lot sizes to drive affordability, diversity, developer incentives to fund. Think beyond the next 5 years to allow further growth » Affordable housing - extend low density in borders of village » Affordable housing along Old Northern Road » Extend low density housing in the borders of the existing village. Tekapo/Cairnes road. » Affordable housing along Old Northern Road regardless of whether or not a watercourse runs through. A few of those lots have no habitat and no vegetation at all. Each lot should be assessed on its own merit » No changes should be progressed for the village

Subdivision Lot Sizes

» Reduce 25 acre (100,000m2) lots to 5-2.5 (20,000m2 – 10,000m2) It won't impact anything » I would love to see 1 acre (4,000m2) lots on my property to help my family for the future. » Subdivide 5 acre (20,000m2) blocks. If not 1 acre (2,000m2), then 2 or 2.5 acres (8000, 10,000m2). » Availability for all of area 1.5km from Glenorie Village to be subdividable into 2,0004,000m2. » Tacoma drive had small lots even though the creek runs just behind the properties. Therefore, all other properties along the riparian corridor or have a watercourse passing through should be allowed to subdivide

Infrastructure & services

» Infrastructure needs significant improvement before any of this can happen » Every time it rains the sewer overflows into the creek on Tacoma Drive » Even Council trucks rip up the road » Leave Glenorie ALONE, Fix what is here, Roads, Petrol station, Power (Glenorie first out in a storm) » Fix before change: Roads, Sewer, Transport, Electricity, Emergency services

Environment

» I have a small watercourse passing through (my property), but there is no vegetation or habitat. And certainly is not flood prone land. » Leave farmland. Leave bushland. Townhouses close to shops. » Harrisons Lane only has two growers left, rest not used for agriculture. » Use natural boundaries e.g. Creek and road, not an arbitrary circle. » We moved here for the rural environment. If people want to subdivide, then yes do it. But don't put unsustainable housing on small blocks just because you can. » Disagree with the biodiversity recommendation to exclude the riparian corridor from subdivision as many lots that have a watercourse passing through have got no vegetation or habitat. Each lot should be assessed on its own merit.

Table 23: Selection of comments under most often mentioned categories

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Which constraints are the most important considerations? Each participant was provided three stickers that could be used to highlight which constraints are the most important considerations. The results of this exercise are graphed below, with 231 stickers being recorded.

Which constraints are the most important considerations? 60 53 50

13 10

Figure 12: Which constraints are the most important considerations?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Mapping Exercise 28 areas were circled on the Glenorie Village Investigation Area map, with 25 of those identifying locations for inclusion in the next stages of the project and three areas identified for exclusion. Figure 13 contains a composite of all mapping feedback received, with inclusions in green and exclusions in red. Darker regions on the figure indicate multiple identifications. Some areas are circled outside of the bounds of the map which corresponds to circled areas that were outside of the basemap provided at the feedback session.

Figure 13: Composite of areas identified for inclusion and exclusion on mapping

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3

Survey

The Glenorie Community Survey was available on the “your say” project webpage throughout the engagement period of 1 November 2024 to 5 December 2024. The survey could be completed at any time during the exhibition period and for up to a week after the in-person feedback sessions. This allowed those who attended the sessions to provide further post session feedback. In total 76 completed surveys were received. Reponses to the questions have been grouped into themes are discussed in detail below.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3.1

About Glenorie

Survey Participants were asked “If you could pick one thing to improve Glenorie, what would it be? Table 24 details responses to the question. If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

25 different topics were suggested from 60 participants Answer

Times mentioned

No change

Housing diversity

Community facilities

Service station

Food options, Subdivision

Footpaths, More youth activities, Public transport, More Shops

Affordable housing, Bike lanes, Maintain village character, Protect biodiversity, Support agriculture

Glenorie Progress Association Glenorie Plan, less trucks, more people, nothing, parking, roads, seniors housing, street lights, traffic, trees

Table 24: If you could pick one thing to improve about Glenorie what would it be?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3.2

About Lot Sizes

Survey participants were asked three questions about lot sizes at Glenorie. These questions focused on rural character, services and housing choice. The questions were asked in the following format: The Hornsby Rural Lands Study recommends investigating lot sizes between 5,000m2 and 10,000m2. What sizes and lot frontages (width) are appropriate to: 

Retain rural character?



Accommodate onsite services (where required)?



Promote housing choice?

Responses are presented below including graphs detailing the how many people identified various lot size ranges and additional commentary related to each question.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Retain rural character

Commentary Glenorie is currently considered to be a thriving and productive agricultural village which supports tourism and rural living. Current lot sizes will retain the rural character.

The proposal involves providing an illusion. What about the smells and atmosphere associated with rural properties? What about the animals and insects that thrive in these areas? Small lot's will not preserve those... what of the dams?

4000m2-8000m2 is appropriate for larger semi-rural lots. 600m2-1250m2 will provide greater diversity, options and create more ownership/housing opportunities to support the future of Glenorie.

I think we need housing blocks and 1 acre (2,000m2) within the 400m zone.

This can only be achieved by retaining the lot sizes as they currently are - subdivision will drastically reduce rural character.

4000m2, frontages are not important.

Outside the main areas you could have larger sizes, however closer to the town centre 2000-4000m2 would be suitable.

I would go smaller to match what is already in the village.

Table 25: Retain rural character

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Commentary Rural properties are constrained to wastewater systems & absorption pits or pump out that require constant maintenance and checking by qualified people. Planning for sewage disposal is very important ensuring the water quality is not impacted.

(Sewerage) Bailout system could be considered for smaller lots like it used to be Glenorie Village.

Not needed if rural lands are protected from sub-division.

There are options that can be explored for blocks varying in size so I have not put a number on this.

I understand that it is going to be almost impossible to put in private sewage systems in some areas within the area under investigation.

4000m2-8000m2 lots will benefit from shared driveways and Onsite sewer treatment facilities.

Table 26: Accommodate onsite services (where required)?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Promote housing choice?

Commentary This is not feasible with lot sizes of 5,000 to 10,000 - they will still be over-priced and over-sized sprawling homes to maximise profit.

A hybrid approach: 4000m2-8000m2 for larger semi-rural lots, 600m21250m2 for greater diversity, options & create more ownership opportunities to support the future of Glenorie allowing new families & residents into the village.

If you want housing choice, move closer to the city. Simple. You can't accommodate for everyone.

The size would promote mansions not much housing choice. Most people moving out here seem to be looking for land to build large houses on.

Not everyone wants a house block and not everyone wants a big 5 acre (20,000m2) property.

Housing choice should include smaller and more affordable lots.

Table 27: Promote housing choice?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3.3

About Services, Open Space and Local Roads

Survey Participants were asked six questions focused on services and local roads. These questions sought feedback on which services may require augmentation to support the current or future community. Questions asked included: 

What services would be needed to support additional housing supply?



Where could you locate additional open space to support additional housing?



Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?



Where could you locate additional student numbers?



Would additional bus services be required?



How could upgrades to local services and utilities be paid for? By who?

Responses to the questioned are detailed in the tables below.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What services would be needed to support additional housing?

60 participants identified 21 topics. Topic

Times mentioned

Roads

Public transport

No change, Service Station, Sewer, Yes

Water

Electricity

Community facilities

Food, Footpaths, Mores shops, NBN

Ambulance, Bushfire evacuation, Entertainment, Fire, Health, Open space, Schools, Street lights

Table 28: What services would be needed to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Where could you locate additional open space to support additional housing?

10% Private land

22%

Cairnes Road

15%

Not required Outside Glenorie

15%

19%

Upgrade existing In Village

19%

51 responses were provided, with responses suggesting five areas for investigation or stating that no additional open space would be required. Commentary: Open Space is an important requirement and this area lacks suitable areas to accommodate the necessary open space that would be needed for higher density in Glenorie.

I don’t believe additional open space would be required. We have a fantastic oval (Les Shore) nearby, plus lots of bushland on the fringes that would not be impacted by development.

Open space requirements will depend on how small the lots are in the future. Parts of extra large acreage may have to be looked at.

There are a number of places right in town, more on the Hills side but some within in Hornsby too.

Galston, its already developed and can go directly opposite shops.

Upgrade the Cairnes Road park, it could be so nice it’s a great spot.

The land on Cairnes Road next to the exiting Village dwellings could be considered for open space.

Near the village centre where people already live.

There is already sufficient open space within the current Glenorie village. We already have Glenorie Park and Les Shore Reserve.

Council would need to work with private land owners to incorporate an appropriate amount of open space for rezoning to be possible.

Table 29: Where could you locate additional open space to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

22%

Old Northern Road New Line Road

40%

Cairnes Road

7% Cattai Ridge Road Other

23% 73 responses were recorded from 60 participants who identified 15 local and regional roads. Road Name

Times Mentioned

Old Northern Road

New Line Road

Cairnes Road

Cattai Ridge Road

Tekapo Road

Galston Road

Boundary Road, Post Office Road, Galston Gorge, Glenhaven Road, Harrisons Lane, Hastings Road, Moores Road, Munros Lane, Shepards Drive

Table 30: Which local roads need upgrading to support additional housing?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Where could you locate additional student numbers?

6% 8%

At existing schools Affordable housing

41%

12%

General Comment At a new school

16%

In the City All local schools are full

17% 49 comments were received. The most common response was to identify existing schools such as Glenorie Public School, Dural Public School, Galston Public School, and Galston High School. Participants also identified that affordable housing options could assist in providing places for school-aged children to live. Those who provided a general comment spoke on a number of other topics related to Glenorie. Would additional bus services be required?

22% 78%

50 No

Yes

56 comments were received. Those who indicated additional bus services would be required cited bus connections to the Cherrybrook Metro Station or Castle Hill. Reliability and frequency were also mentioned as key considerations for additional bus services. Table 31: Students and bus services

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

How could upgrades to local services and utilities be paid for? By who?

2% 6%

The Developer

10%

State Government

43% 10%

Council Not Ratepayers Council rates No utilities needed

13%

Federal Government Utility Providers

14%

69 comments were received. Most commentors identified one source of funding. Cost sharing arrangements between the developer and council or different levels of government was identified in 16% of responses. Table 32: Upgrades to services

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3.4

About Agriculture

Survey Participants were asked two questions about Agriculture: 

Do you see a need for the adoption of measures to provide protection from agricultural activities?



Which types of agricultural uses require different measures to reduce amenity impacts?

Commentary received is discussed below. Do you see a need for the adoption of measures to provide protection from agricultural activities?

21% 30% No protections are required Protection is required Comments

49%

53 comments were received that provided a range of views on the topic. Responses who indicated that no additional protections were required often simply stated “no”, whilst those who identified that protection should be considered often cited the need to minimise land use conflict as well as the need to protect existing farming operations. Category

Responses Received

Yes

» I see a need to protect the current agricultural activities from inappropriate residential housing in the immediate vicinity. The two uses would cause disputes and risks to both zone users. » Limit any further development on properties where agricultural and farming activities are current. Use existing roads to create natural boundaries from additional sprawl. Avoid rezoning on properties that are adjoining to existing agricultural properties to prevent issues with noise, contamination, etc. » Protection for the agricultural activities is needed - we must protect this land as it is and not carve it up into smaller lots, so it may be used to future-proof our food security and be used to produce food in the future. » Given the importance of productive agriculture around Glenorie Village, including horticulture, orchards, and greenhouses, adopting measures to protect both residents and farming activities is essential for harmonious coexistence. Buffer zones between agricultural and residential areas can mitigate noise, dust, pesticide use, and odours.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

» No, however I would like council to ensure they maintain their igloos/glass houses etc as many are unkept and a mess and takes away from the aesthetics of the area. » No - Should the land owners want to continue with agriculture then this would not impact on the surrounding properties. We have lived in Glenorie for many years at a number of locations and never had an issue residing near properties which undertake productive agriculture. In saying this, the number of properties that still use the land for this purpose has drastically reduced and they are few and far between. » No, it’s still zoned rural, if you choose to live in a semi-rural area, that’s the price you pay. » No, there’s trees everywhere.

Comment

» Agriculture is dying trade in the area. As the population ages agricultural lands are turned to lawns. In 10 ten years there will be no agriculture. » Leave Glenorie as is. We aren't short of land in already developed areas. » Do not get rid of agricultural land to build more houses. » Farming should be supported and able to continue operating. » Move away from synthetic chemical and fertiliser use. » Encourage market gardening on existing high quality agricultural land.

Table 33: Agricultural activities

Which types of agricultural uses require different measures to reduce amenity impacts? Responses to this question were mixed, with many commentors stating that they were unsure how different types of agriculture might impact surrounding neighbours. Of the 42 responses received, 12 indicated that different types of agriculture did not require differing measures. The remaining commentors identified potential types of amenity impacts, as well as provided feedback on whether agricultural land should be subdivided. Commentary » Agricultural activities are generally incompatible with residential zoning because of impacts such as noise, lighting, rubbish, working hours, disgusting odours or other amenity impacts and the safety risks of having home owners near light industrial or industrial activities. Agricultural lot sizes must be large to make agricultural businesses viable and reducing lot sizes will put the agricultural land use at risk. » Yes, particularly agri-tourism where traffic issues can become an issue. » I think we need to prioritise agriculture over housing and the impacts on people. Food supply trumps everything in my opinion. » Increased population will have impacts on all forms of farming. Lots should not be carved up less than 5 acres (20,000m2), we have small lots already defined for a reason. » Leave Glenorie as is. We aren't short of land in already developed areas. Table 34: Agriculture amenity impacts

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.3.5

Opportunities and Constraints

The survey asked several questions relating to the draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper. These questions sought local knowledge and insight on the work undertaken to date with the questions being focused on ensuring that any knowledge gaps are identified at an early stage of the process. Questions asked about the draft OCWP were: 

Have we identified all relevant opportunities and constraints?



Have we represented opportunities and constraints accurately?



Are there ways that any of these constraints could be overcome?



Based on the Draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper, where do you want to see additional housing in Glenorie delivered and why?



Based on the Draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper, are there any areas you consider unsuitable for supporting additional housing and if yes why?

Responses received to the above questions are discussed below.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Have we identified all relevant opportunities and constraints?

17% No Yes Comment

22%

58%

Unsure

While many commenters provided detailed feedback on areas needing additional work, those who agreed that the draft OCWP had identified all relevant constraints often simply responded with 'yes.' The comments received covered a wide range of topics concerning the future of Glenorie. Below is a selection of these comments. Commentary Yes

» I believe the detail provided is great » Yes. I feel the 1 acre+ (4,000m2) lots will help retain our rural setting but allow us to increase residents and utilise the infrastructure we already have. We also have an incredible koala population just 400m from town so want to ensure we keep and cultivate this for our area. So rare in Sydney. Why destroy for a few more houses? » Yes, but it would be good to see where (in Glenorie) we are going to get some improvements, not just housing. » Yes, but I think we could look at improving and expanding the park off Cairnes Road to create a green space.

» The Working Paper has identified many opportunities and constraints. However some more recent information has not been included. An example of this is recent evidence of a breeding population of Koalas on both Hills and Hornsby side of Glenorie. » This study has not considered the effect of increased population in Glenorie on the traffic outside of Glenorie. Where are these new residents going to go to shop, see a movie etc. How will their car travel to work effect the traffic going through Galston, Dural, Cherrybrook or Round Corner? People who live in or travel through these areas can already attest to the traffic congestion experienced on our roads during peak times.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

» Constraints that require further assessment are traffic, bushfire evacuation risks, water supply, water pressure, sewage disposal and impacts on biodiversity especially koalas and platypus and other threatened species which need proper surveys. » No. The opportunity of harnessing wastewater from any resulting development has not been addressed. We have large nurseries in the area who are applying mega litres of pure Sydney drinking water to plants, while we send wastewater to town to be processed. Wastewater could be processed locally and provided to local growers. » There are still additional things that need to be considered moving forward. The one size fits all approach to lot sizes (5000-10000m2) does not do enough in helping Glenorie keep its character while accommodating for an ageing population, and demand for NSW housing crisis (which is a premier priority). A better approach would be to go hybrid in lot sizes, allowing areas within the 400m scope to range from 600m2 upwards into 1,500m2. This would allow for greater diversity of housing stock while also being a natural extension of the existing residential housing. » No, I notice that the original land study considered only a 400m expansion around Glenorie village, yet the map shows a 3km diameter black circle around the village. No proposal outside the original 400m expansion should be considered. Comment

» If reducing lot sizes to between 5,000m2 and 10,000m2 is being considered within the investigation zone, I think that the first step should be standardising to a maximum of 5 acres (20,000m2) for all properties in the Glenorie ridge area. » Given that we are looking solely at the Hornsby side of the village, there are very distinct areas in which higher density housing could be built in order to create more choice of housing. At the moment, there is not a lot of residential blocks available and this also causes an issue with rentals. Some of us have been here for generations and would like to remain here. We really need more housing. » Need for public transport should be a high priority. Especially connecting to other services such as metros and trains for easy transport. Overall congestion is going to increase already packed roads in peak hour such as through Galston and Dural. Wider main roads or more alternative routes needed. » We need to concentrate on affordable housing - this will be unaffordable housing which will benefit a few private landholders. » An appropriate 'place planning' framework should be used. This proposal is missing any such framework.

Table 35: Have we identified all relevant opportunities and constraints?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Have we represented opportunities and constraints accurately?

19% No

48%

Yes Comment Unsure

31%

42 comments were provided. Commentary Yes

» Generally yes, The State Government Emergency Evacuation Requirements should be considered when published. » Yes, more will possibly arise as investigation into proposal continues » Yes. We are very restricted with sewerage and water but no point having a huge spend for a few houses.

» Some biodiversity constraints could be brought up to date. » No. A number of properties are listed as Intensive Agriculture, Orchard (Large) or Orchard (Small) which are actually not used for any of these purposes. » No, evacuation routes must be properly assessed. Risks of bushfire and flooding are increasing due to climate change. Some locations within the radius of the study should be completely removed from these plans because they are too steep for quick and safe evacuation and risk of bushfire is too high.

Comment

» I believe there are some areas marked with vegetation that are only shrubbery and can be worked around. » Not all considerations have been made. Rural land has a purpose and carving it up into smaller lots deviates from the original plan. There's a focus on maintaining the rural facade, how about leaving rural land as is? » Do not build anymore houses. » The natural constraints of the creek etc are represented accurately. But this is an opportunity for green thoroughfares through the village. Smaller lots with traversable green space are what the community have asked for. » This will be a huge opportunity for some local commercial businesses, but can have negative impacts for others.

Table 36: Have we represented opportunities and constraints accurately? Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Are there ways that any of these constraints could be overcome? 74% of survey participants provided feedback on overcoming identified constraints. Key themes included infrastructure improvements (32%), environmental considerations (26%), and detailed planning and design (21%). Other responses highlighted community consultation and protection of agricultural and rural lands. Comments received under key themes are discussed below. Infrastructure Improvements

» Possibly improved at least by widening New Line Road to two lanes all the way and Old Northern Road through. Round Corner also needs rethinking as traffic is extremely heavy there as well. » By building a metro to Dural (to cover Castle Hill North, all the Dural schools and Glenorie). » There should be a levy on all additional blocks based on the size towards upgrading of sewer to meet additional demand. » A large increase of fast buses direct to Castle Hill , Dural, Cherrybrook is needed to decrease traffic and make taking public transport a viable option. Currently no one uses it because it is simply too infrequent. » On-site absorption trenches is one solution to overcome the sewer constraint. Perhaps, a septic pump-out system could also serve as a viable alternative. » Council and state government need to build infrastructure first, such as road widening.

Environmental Considerations

» Constraints relating to "Biodiversity and Habitat" & "Flooding and Riparian Corridors," have not prevented subdivision across other LGA’s where rules have been adopted to mitigate these constraints. To ensure consistency across different LGAs, similar rules could be adopted. Therefore, properties within the designated area in the study, where a watercourse may pass through or which may fall within a flood zone, should still be eligible for subdivision provided they comply with these rules. » Buildings should also be sustainably built to minimize future energy and running costs for residents. Biodiversity strategy to ensure development is nature positive and wildlife corridors and connectivity is retained - there are already too many wildlife deaths on our roads from vehicles especially heavy trucks. Invest in wildlife fencing (called virtual fencing) and better wildlife crossing warning areas (painted on roads like school zones), slower speeds on known roads with high rates of wildlife crossing. We have endangered and threatened species (koala, STIF, platypus) - these should be protected and valued more highly. » Promote agriculture and farming. It's not just about the facade, it's about the air quality, the smells /atmosphere of agriculture and farming. You can't maintain that with smaller lots. » Any increase in housing is going to have a negative impact on koalas (and other threatened species) regardless of how it is managed. There are ways to mitigate the impacts such as legislating that koala feed and refuge trees remain in place, speed limits are enforced, and koala friendly fences (or no fences) are used. » Properties with bushfire buffer zones should not be excluded, if the lots otherwise have both high merit and feasibility in their location and characteristics. Bushfire protection mechanisms can be applied to ensure risk is appropriately mitigated accordingly. » Building away from the creek lines close to shops and amenities. Small, tasteful townhouses and villas but not too many. However, sewerage constraints may not allow this.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Are there ways that any of these constraints could be overcome? Planning and Design

» Yes. Smaller lots e.g. 700sqm with a "master plan" across all candidate lots that provides the community with green traversable spaces such as along the creek would add a massive benefit to the village in terms of public space and affordable housing. Sending wastewater to local nurseries and farms would address the wastewater processing requirements. » Constraints can be assessed on a site-by-site basis to see if there are any mitigation strategies available to allow potential development. Lot sizes should be dictated from the suitability of the block and proximity to the village. Within walkability to the village should be smaller lot sizes, leading to slightly larger the further they are away. » Better studies on the impacts it will cause, like traffic, natural disasters & infrastructure. » Good planning and design! Please don't turn our village into the next Pitt Town or Kellyville! Turning rural zoning into E4 seems to me to be the next step to future subdivision as there is inevitable disturbance of our natural environment, especially in the moderate vegetation zone to the north east of Glenorie village. We must have the best urban designers master planning the future of our village with no compromises! Establish walkable leisure zones with access to waterways which are connected to each other and double as wildlife corridors. » Urban planning should be from the city out and Glenorie is too remote for such subdivision to be considered. Infrastructure won’t support this increase in density.

Table 37: Are there ways that any of these constraints could be overcome?

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Based on the opportunities and Constraints Working Paper where do you want to see additional housing in Glenorie delivered and why?

12%

14%

No additional housing Directly adjoining village

12%

Within 400m walking distance In village Extensive change

34%

Infrastructure first

25%

Out of 62 responses, 66% identified locations for additional housing, while 34% stated that no housing should be provided in Glenorie Land adjoining Tekapo Road or on Cairnes Road was mentioned in several responses, with 16% of responses directly identifying this area as suitable for additional housing. Respondents often cited that Tekapo Road was a logical extension given it terminates abruptly. In conjunction with land on Cairnes Road, respondents said that this would create a logical extension of the village. Comments also mentioned that underutilised rural zoned land and previously cleared areas would be more preferable for change, when compared to productive agricultural land or natural areas. Conversely, commentors also called for extensive change including across the entire study area and beyond.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Based on the Draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper, are there any areas you consider unsuitable for supporting additional housing and if yes why? 14 12 10 8

12 10 8 7

2 1

In providing reasons why the above identified areas are unsuitable, responses identified the following reasons: » Natural areas: To protect habitat, rural character and landscapes. » Glenorie: To preserve rural character, infrastructure limitations, and prevent overdevelopment. » No: Everywhere should be considered suitable for housing. » Comment: Those who provided a comment reinforced their views on other aspects of the study, such as lot sizes. » Bushfire: To lesson threat to residents, avoid clearing of bushland and ensure safe evacuation routes. » Unserviced areas: To avoid capacity issues and prevent further population in areas with poor / no services. » Agricultural land: To preserve agricultural production and ensure food security. Lesser identified reasons involved avoid strip development on Old Northern Road, avoiding land use conflict between residential and agriculture, not developing areas far removed from the existing Village and avoiding particularly constrained land north of Glenorie.

Table 38: Suitable and Unsuitable Areas

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Anything Else? As a final question, survey participants were asked if there was anything else they wanted to provide feedback on. 51 respondents provided feedback on a wide range of topics including the village, agriculture, rural and village character, services and infrastructure and the natural environment. Environmental protection was mentioned in 20% of responses, with traffic issues (12%) and protection for agricultural land (12%) also being mentioned frequently. Comments stated that bushland and environmental areas should be retained or restored and concerns were raised that smaller allotment sizes would impact rural character and result in loss of tree canopy. Regarding traffic, Old Northern Road and New Line Road were identified as busy areas, with more houses at Glenorie potentially adding to the existing problem. Those who mentioned agricultural lands identified that agriculture should be supported and rural land preserved. Alongside identifying issues, submissions also identified what they liked about Glenorie, including natural areas, peace and quiet, rural setting and the different architectural style of Glenorie when compared to newer areas. A number of suggestions for improvements to the village were also provided, including: » Establishment of a farmer’s market for local agricultural businesses; » Utilising previously cleared and unproductive land close to the village; » Establishing shuttle buses to Cherrybrook Metro Station; » Establishing smaller allotments to help people age in place; and » Fixing the road network to support additional homes and solve existing traffic problems. Table 39: Opportunities and constraints

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

6.4

Written Submissions

A total of 15 submissions from 14 authors were received in response to the exhibition. Of these submissions, all were in the form of individual submission. The majority of submissions were received by individuals, with three submissions received from community organisations, being Protecting Your Suburban Environment, Galston Area Residents Association and Hornsby Hills Rural Koala Project. Submissions primarily provided feedback on the opportunities and constraints, as well as providing local knowledge for the Glenorie area and suggestions for the future. Commonly raised topics include planning and co-ordination, infrastructure and services, heritage and environmental considerations, housing and development, agriculture and suggested changes to the draft OCWP. Matters raised in submissions are summarised in Table 40. Topic

Matters raised

Planning and Coordination

» Hornsby and Hills Shire need to work together to deliver a co-ordinated and cohesive Glenorie Village. » Economic feasibility of C4 zoning should be detailed to identify a market demand for this zoning. » Downstream traffic issues on Old Northern Road and New Line Road should be fixed prior to any changes at Glenorie. » Landowners working in collaboration should be prioritised for change. » Land adjoining the existing village should be targeted for change. » Developers should pay for service upgrades. » Any proposed changes are inconsistent with the North District Plan.

Infrastructure and Services

» Sewer system needs to be upgraded. » Water pressure issues exist in more remote areas of Glenorie. » Active infrastructure should be improved, such as a shared path to Dural. » Road networks need to be improved, including widening of Old Northern Road, New Line Road and intersections within Glenorie Village. » NBN should be upgraded to support work from home. » Shuttle buses should be provided to the metro. » Changes to the memorial hall park should be progressed. » Electricity and medical services are lacking.

Environment and Heritage

» Flooding, steep land and bushfire risks should be considered. » A local koala population exists in the Glenorie area, consideration should be given to preserving bushland, feed trees and connectivity. » The landscape should be considered to have heritage value. Changes to the landscape will impact character and heritage qualities. » Ground truthing should be undertaken on private property to confirm environmental conditions and natural waterways. » Vegetation mapping should be updated. » Local character should look at building design, envelopes, landscaping etc.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Topic

Matters Raised

Housing and Development

» Existing allotment sizes should be retained and median frontages be adopted for lot widths. » Areas north of Cairnes Road and outside 400m should not be included. » Study boundary should include properties that are within the Northern Ridgeline Investigation Area (Moores Road). » Larger sized allotments are less feasible, smaller allotments will allow for retention of rural character, support for local businesses and allow younger people to remain in the local area. » 5,000 to 10,000m2 does not provide housing diversity. » Consider R2 with a minimum lot size to 500-600sqm in the Cairnes Road vicinity in order to support additional residential land supply. » Changes should be concentrated in the village in up to six story buildings. » Only housing choice people should be given in Glenorie is single houses.

Agriculture

» Report doesn’t discuss the potential for future agriculture in the area, only identifies existing agriculture. » Agriculture must be encouraged, protected and financially assisted to remain and grow in the area. » Tourism impact of agriculture should be discussed in the report. Solutions like a weekly market should be explored. » Agricultural land should be protected from change. Existing agricultural businesses should be protected from the encroachment of urban uses.

Changes to the draft OCWP

» Contamination is discussed inconsistently in the draft OCWP. » Further discussion on downstream traffic impacts is required. » Local Koala population and habitat requirements should be discussed. » Some properties have been mischaracterised with incorrect land use or constraints and need to be updated. » Land identified as flood prone land has never flooded and this should be updated » Draft OCWP does not contain a housing demand analysis. » Draft OCWP should include an estimate of dwelling yield. » Draft open space calculations should not group together private and public recreation facilities. » Draft OCWP does not address a “do nothing” scenario and what this may look like for the village.

Table 40: Submission feedback

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Key Insights

Section 6 of this report outlines the feedback received from each different form of community engagement, providing detailed data on responses to each survey question, interactive activity and what was outlined in written submissions. This section looks at the data set as a whole, identifying common themes discussed across all feedback pathways, as well as information on who we engaged with. Data sources have been combined and information below covers the key areas of engagement of: 

Who we spoke to



What you shared about Glenorie Village



What you said about the Opportunities and Constraints; and



Your ideas for the future of Glenorie

7.1.1

Who we spoke to

As shown below, 83% of participants who shared their location lived in Glenorie. Additionally, 85% of participants owned property in the suburb and just under 70% were Hornsby Shire residents.

Figure 14: Participant demographics

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

We engaged with local residents, landowners, and community/stakeholder groups at Glenorie, who contributed about 11% of all responses through surveys, written submissions, and mapping exercises.

11%

Community Stakeholder Groups

89%

Figure 15: Participants by affiliation

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

7.1.2

What you shared about Glenorie

We received a lot of feedback on Glenorie, including on what you would improve, your thoughts on agricultural activity around the village and the current state of housing in the area. These themes are discussed below.

What you would improve about Glenorie Village Areas frequently identified for improvement Active and public transport

Traffic and roads

Service station

Housing

More shops

No change

Subdivision

Community facilities

10 0

Area of Improvement

Ideas

Active and Public Transport

» More frequent buses / shuttle buses to the Cherrybrook Metro » More footpaths and bike lanes » Shared path connecting Glenorie to Dural

Traffic and Roads

» Upgrades to Old Northern Road and intersections at Dural » Less trucks » Better traffic management in the village » More Parking

Service Station

» Service station in Glenorie Village

Housing

» More affordable housing » More diverse housing » More residential homes

More Shops

» More restaurants and cafes » Butchers and Delis » Commercial area on the Hornsby side

No change

» There is no need to change Glenorie » Leave the village as it is to protect character and setting

Subdivision

» Let land be subdivided into smaller blocks » More flexible application of minimum lot sizes

Community Facilities

» Community spaces away from the main road » Facilities for children and teens » Access tracks to bushland and waterways

Table 41: Areas frequently identified for improvement Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Agriculture at Glenorie Are protections needed for Agriculture or residential land around Glenorie?

5% 20%

No protections are required Protection is required

46%

Agriculture unsustainable Comments

29%

Comments on Agriculture Responses identified that agriculture contributes to rural character, provides local employment and supports food and horticultural sectors. Agricultural land use around Glenorie was identified to involve intensive practices such as spraying, noise from machinery, air pollution, and odours, which may contribute to land use conflicts. The nature of agriculture is changing, with comments noting the shift away from orcharding in the local area, as well as global trends to towards larger farms. Those who viewed agriculture as unsustainable cited changing markets, an aging population and smaller land sizes as barriers to continued agricultural use. Opportunities for agriculture were also highlighted, with suggestions including farmers markets in Glenorie, agritourism opportunities, and better buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. Table 42: Agriculture at Glenorie

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

7.1.3

What you said about the Opportunities and Constraints

The draft OCWP served as the foundation for community consultation, reviewing opportunities and constraints in and around Glenorie Village. Community feedback highlighted key constraints for future consideration and areas needing further investigation, as summarised below. Opportunities and Constraints Commentary Summary Bushfire

» Houses shouldn’t be provided in bushfire prone areas. » Glenorie has a history of bushfires impacting properties in the study area. » Evacuation routes must be considered. » Local fire brigades should be supported. » New areas should have hydrants installed. » Bushfire prone land should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Ecology

» Bushland areas should be protected. » Asset Protection Zones for bushfire hazard reduction shouldn’t be permitted in natural areas. » Large rural properties provide habitat and natural areas for wildlife. » A koala population lives close to Glenorie. Feed trees and koala movement throughout the study area should be considered. » Ground truthing should be undertaken on private properties to confirm environmental conditions and natural waterways. » Water courses should be preserved. » Ecological considerations should be balanced against the need to provide housing diversity. Appropriate planning rules can allow for both.

Land use

» Agricultural land should be protected. » Residential and agricultural uses have compatibility issues when near each other. » Some agriculture no longer viable in Glenorie due to changing markets and small lots sizes. This should be considered when deciding on the future of agriculture near the village. » Land uses identified in the draft OCWP need to be verified. » No changes should be made to protect and preserve existing land uses. » Changes should be made to allow for housing diversity on smaller blocks. » Townhouses should be considered inside the village. » Lot sizes should depend on how close they are to the village.

Flooding

» Creek lines and flood paths should be preserved. » Areas identified as flood prone in the draft OCWP have never flooded. » Flood evacuation routes should be considered.

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Opportunities and Constraints Commentary Summary Study area

» Study area should be confined to 400m. » Study area should be expanded beyond 1.5km. » Study area should consider including properties along Old Northern Road.

Heritage

» Heritage should be considered in a landscape context, with the rural area having inherent landscape heritage values.

Built Form and Character

» Rural and village character should be maintained.

Public Transport

» More frequent buses / shuttle buses to the Cherrybrook Metro.

» Built from should be consistent with the existing Village

» More footpaths and bike lanes. » Shared path connecting Glenorie to Dural.

Topography

» Houses should not be placed on steeply sloping land » Houses near steeply sloping bushland face increased bushfire threat.

The Village

» Services such as sewer, water, electricity and NBN should be carefully considered. » The village doesn’t have enough housing options. » Glenorie should be left as is. Changes for housing diversity and smaller lot sized should be considered in other locations closer to existing infrastructure. » Streetscapes could be improved with footpaths, streetlighting and additional road crossings. » Creek lines and natural areas present opportunities for public open space. » More shops are needed.

Table 43: Opportunities and constraints commentary summary

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Suggested Changes to the draft Opportunities and Constraints Working Paper Changes to the draft OCWP

» Further discussion on downstream traffic impacts is required, especially for Old Northern Road, New Line Road, Cattai Ridge Road and areas around Dural and Cherrybrook. » Further environmental reviews should be considered ground truth vegetation communities and capture fauna such as local koala populations. » Some properties have been mischaracterised with incorrect land uses. » Contamination is discussed inconsistently in the draft OCWP. » Constraints such as bushfire and flooding should be further reviewed » Draft OCWP should include a housing demand analysis and estimate of dwelling yield. »

Draft OCWP does not address a “do nothing” scenario and what this may look like for the village.

Table 44: Suggested changes to the draft OCWP

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

7.1.4

Ideas for the future of Glenorie

Where should change be considered Figure 16 is a composite map of all of the areas circled for inclusion, exclusion and agriculture as part of the mapping exercises undertaken at the Stakeholder and Community Feedback sessions.

Include Exclude Agriculture

Figure 16: Where should changes be considered

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Table 45 discusses the areas circled in Figure 16, as well as summarising commentary received from all sources on areas to be included and excluded from consideration. Where should changes be considered Inclusion

» 63% of all circled areas on maps identified land within 400m of Glenorie Village as being suitable for further consideration. » 16% of circled areas on mapping identified land near Moores Road as suitable. This was the second largest grouping after land within 400m of the village. » Individual properties were nominated for inclusion, both within and outside of the study area. » Rural zoned properties that adjoin the existing village such as along Cairnes Road and Tekapo Road. » Rural zoned properties that are not being used for productive agriculture. » Previously cleared areas containing less trees and vegetation. » The entire study area, excluding properties along Old Northern Road to the north of Glenorie Village was nominated at least once. » Landowners working in collaboration should be prioritised for change.

Exclusion

» Areas identified for exclusion in mapping exercises closely align with natural bushland, creek lines and / or bushfire prone areas. » Bushfire prone land, natural areas, steeply sloping land, flood prone land and productive agricultural land. » Land with evacuation risks. » Areas that are distant from the existing village area. » Other areas should be considered for housing, Glenorie should not be changed and no housing should be provided in the study area.

Outside the Shire

» Land within 400m of Glenorie in The Hills LGA. » Land along Schwebel Lane. » Land adjoining the southern side of Glenorie in The Hills LGA should be considered for agriculture. » Housing should be delivered elsewhere in growth centres.

Table 45: Where should changes be considered

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Lot sizes We asked what lot sizes would be needed to retain the unique rural character or Glenorie, accommodate on-site services and promote housing choice. In response we received lot size suggestions and commentary on how character, services and housing diversity could be accommodated. Table 46 collates all suggested lot sizes, and the responses received to these questions. Table 47 to Table 49 explore the combined responses to the three separate questions asked for lot sizes. Combined Responses to Lot Sizes

When combining all lot suggested lot sizes, three clear groupings emerge from the responses: » 0 - 2,500m2 – 34% of responses. » 3,500 - 5,000m2 – 31% of responses. » 19,500 - 20,500m2 – 16% of responses. Alongside these groupings, two other stand out lot sizes are should on the graph. 8000-8500m2 – 6% (most identified by those who answered “2 acres”) and 9,500-10,000m2 – 7%. Despite recording close to 400 responses to the lot size questions, no lot sizes between 11,000m2 and 19,000m2 were recorded. Table 46: Combined responses - Lot sizes

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Combined Responses - Retain Rural Character

The distribution of answers for retaining rural character are similar to the overall answer lot answer distribution: » 0-2,500m2 – 32% of responses. » 3,500-5,000m2 – 34% of responses. » 19,500-20,500m2 – 19% of responses. » Peaks at 8,000-8,500m2 and 9,500-10,000m2. Comments received in response to the question: » Advocate for maintaining current lot sizes to preserve the rural character and agricultural land. » Suggest a hybrid approach, with smaller lots near the village centre and larger lots further away. » Highlight the importance of considering environmental aspects, which may not be preserved with smaller lots. » Emphasise careful planning and consideration is required to retain the rural character. Table 47: Combined responses - Retain rural character

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Combined Responses - Accommodate Onsite Services

In considering onsite services, 65% of responses identified a lot size of 0-5,000m2. Significant groupings were: » 0-2,500m2 – 29% » 3,500-5,000m2 – 32% » 19,500-20,500m2 – 16% » Peaks at 8,000-8,500m2 and 9,500-10,000m2. Comments received in response to the question: » Outlined sewage management is crucial, suggesting connections to town sewer systems or installation of pump-out and/or onsite systems. » Emphasised the importance of planning for onsite services to protect water quality and the natural environment from sewerage, asset protection zones and other services. » Outlined that provision of onsite services should ensure safety and lifestyle factors are not compromised. Table 48: Combined responses - Accommodate onsite services

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Combined Reponses - Promote Housing Choice 30

20 18

15 13 13 11

10 7 5

3 1 0 0 0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[0, 500] (500, 1000] (1000, 1500] (1500, 2000] (2000, 2500] (2500, 3000] (3000, 3500] (3500, 4000] (4000, 4500] (4500, 5000] (5000, 5500] (5500, 6000] (6000, 6500] (6500, 7000] (7000, 7500] (7500, 8000] (8000, 8500] (8500, 9000] (9000, 9500] (9500, 10000] (10000, 10500] (10500, 11000] (11000, 11500] (11500, 12000] (12000, 12500] (12500, 13000] (13000, 13500] (13500, 14000] (14000, 14500] (14500, 15000] (15000, 15500] (15500, 16000] (16000, 16500] (16500, 17000] (17000, 17500] (17500, 18000] (18000, 18500] (18500, 19000] (19000, 19500] (19500, 20000] (20000, 20500]

1 0

Reponses to lot sizes that promote housing diversity heavily favoured smaller allotments than the current 2 hectare minimum lot size for agricultural zoned land. 77% of responses identified allotment sizes between 0-5,000m2. Significant groupings were: » 0-2,500m2 – 50% » 3,500-5,000m2 – 27% » 19,500-20,500m2 – 12% Comments received in response to the question: » Outlined the need for a mix of lot sizes and housing types to promote diversity. » Highlighted the importance of smaller, more affordable lots to support housing choice. » Suggested terrace housing options closer to the village, with larger lots further away. » Mentioned the need for single-level, low-maintenance homes for the aging population. » Stressed that housing choice should include both small blocks and larger properties to accommodate different preferences. » Suggested housing choice is provided elsewhere and is not needed at Glenorie.

Table 49: Combined responses - Promote housing choice

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What Services and Infrastructure would be required? Responses included ideas for additional infrastructure and outlined current services at capacity. Table 50 graphs topics mentioned in 10 or more responses and summarises the commentary for each. Services and Infrastructure Public Transport

Roads

Sewer

Service Station

Water

Electricty

NBN

Footpaths

No Change

Yes

10 0

Public Transport

» Buses would need to be more frequent. » Buses direct to the metro and trains.

Roads

» More lanes on Old Northern Road and New Line Road. » Upgrade and fix local roads.

Sewer

» Sydney water sewer system. » On site systems.

Service Station

» No local service station is inconvenient.

Water

» Sydney Water supply can have low pressure in some parts of Glenorie.

Electricity

» Glenorie power grid can be unreliable during bad weather.

NBN

» NBN slow in some parts of Glenorie, doesn’t support work form home.

Footpaths

» Footpaths around Glenorie village as well as to Dural. » Connections across Old Northern Road.

No change

» Nothing additional is needed. » Limit development to suit existing infrastructure.

Yes

» All services will need to be improved.

Table 50: Services and infrastructure

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

What’s next?

The high response rate and active participation in the consultation on the draft Opportunities and Constraints working paper demonstrate the community's strong interest in planning the future of Glenorie Village. The feedback received and key insights will assist the preparation of a Glenorie Village investigations report and place plan. We will now:

Review, amend and finalise the Opportunities and Constraints working paper focussing on areas suggestion during consultation

Continue discussions with State agencies and the Hills Council

Explore frequently identified feedback about the future of Glenorie to prepare a report and an accompanying place plan

Draft Glenorie Village Investigation Report and Place Plan prepared and placed on Shire wide public exhibition

Feedback Summary Report – Glenorie Village Investigations

Hornsby Shire Council ABN 20 706 996 972

Visit us Hornsby Shire Council Administration Centre at Hornsby Library, 28-44 George St, Hornsby NSW 2077

Office hours Please check the website for the latest opening hours for the Customer Service Centre and how to book an appointment with a planner.

NEED HELP This document contains important information. If you do not understand it, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service on 131 450. Ask them to phone 9847 6666 on your behalf to contact Hornsby Shire Council. Council’s business hours are Monday to Friday, 8.30am-5pm.

Chinese Simplified 需要帮助吗？

Korean

도움이 필요하십니까?

Chinese Traditional

본 문서에는 중요한 정보가 포함되어 있습니다. 이해가 되지 않는 내용이 있으시면, 통역번역서비스(Translating and Interpreting Service)로 전화하셔서(131 450번) 귀하를 대신하여 혼즈비 셔 카운슬에 전화(9847 6666번)를 걸어 달라고 요청하십시오. 카운슬의 업무시간은 월요일~ 금요일 오전 8시 30분~오후 5시입니다.

需要幫助嗎？

Tagalog

本文件包含了重要的信息。如果您有不理解之處，請致電 131 450 聯繫翻譯與傳譯服務中心。請他們代您致電 9847 6666 聯繫 Hornsby 郡議會。郡議會工作時間爲周一至周五，早上 8：30 - 下午 5 點。

Kailangan ng tulong?

本文件包含了重要的信息。如果您有不理解之处，请致电 131 450 联系翻译与传译服务中心。请他们代您致电 9847 6666 联系 Hornsby 郡议会。郡议会工作时间为周一至周五，早上 8：30 - 下午 5 点。

Nepali यस काागजाातमाा महत्त्वपूूर्णण जाानकाारीी छ।

यदि� तपााईंलेे यसलााई बुुझ्नुुभएकोो छैै न भनेे, कृृपयाा अनुुवााद र दोोभााषेे सेेवाालााई 131 450 माा फोोन गर्नुु�होोस््। तपााईंकोो तर्फफबााट हर्ननस्बीी शाायर कााउन्सि��ललााई 9847 6666 नम्बरमाा फोोन गरि�दि�न आग्रह गर्नुु�होोस््। कााउन्सि��लकोो काामकााजीी समय सोोमबाारदेे खि� शुुक्रबाार बि�हाान 8:30 बजेे देे खि� बेेलुुकाा 5 बजेेसम्म होो।

Hindi क्याा आपकोो सहाायताा कीी आवश्यकताा हैै?

इस दस्ताावेेज़ मेंं महत्वपूूर्णण जाानकाारीी दीी गई हैै। यदि� आप इसेे समझ न पााएँँ, तोो कृृपयाा 131 450 पर अनुुवााद और दुभााषि�याा सेेवाा कोो कॉॉल करेंं। उनसेे हॉॉर्न्स�सबीी शाायर कााउंं सि�ल सेे संंपर्कक करनेे केे लि�ए आपकीी ओर सेे 9847 6666 पर फोोन करनेे काा नि�वेेदन करेंं। कााउंं सि�ल केे काार्ययकााल काा समय सोोमवाार सेे शुुक्रवाार, सुुबह 8.30 बजेे-शााम 5 बजेे तक हैै।

Itong dokumento ay naglalaman ng mahalagang impormasyon. Kung hindi ninyo naiintindihan, pakitawagan ang Serbisyo sa Pagsasalinwika at Pag-iinterprete (Translating and Interpreting Service) sa 131 450. Hilingin sa kanilang tawagan ang 9847 6666 para sa inyo upang kontakin ang Hornsby Shire Council. Ang oras ng opisina ng Council ay Lunes hanggang Biyernes, 8.30n.u.-5n.h.

Farsi ‫نیاز به کمک دارید؟‬ ،‫ چنانچه آن را درک نمی کنید‬.‫این سند حاوی اطالعات مهم می باشد‬ ‫ تماس‬131 450 ‫لطفًا ً با خدمات ترجمه کتبی و شفاهی به شماره‬ ‫ با‬9847 6666 ‫ از آنها بخواهید از جانب شما با شماره‬.‫بگیرید‬ ‫ ساعات کاری شورای شهر‬.‫شورای شهر هورنزبی شایر تماس بگیرند‬ .‫ بعدازظهر است‬5 ‫ صبح تا‬8:30 ‫ از‬،‫دوشنبه تا جمعه‬