1. What factors influence and shape
local communities’ acceptance of
higher density built form?
PLAN7122 Final Planning Project
Ziad Naim z3434482
MPLAN
Faculty of Built Environment
Research Supervisor:
Gethin Davison

2. 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
PART 1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Compact City and Sustainable Urbanism 3
1.2 Methodology and Limitations 4
PART 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Characteristics of the Compact City 6
2.2 Density and Mobility: Historical Perspective 7
2.3 Resistance to Higher Densities: Main Aspects 9
2.4 Environmental Sustainability of the Compact City 12
2.5 Proactive Participation Processes 13
2.6 Mobility and Density: What could be the best practice? 15
PART 3 CASE STUDY: THE RUAP NEAR KENSINGTON 16
3.1 Why Kensington 16
3.2 Kensington’s Local Context 16
3.3 The new CSELR, a catalyst for change? 18
3.4 The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct 20
3.5 UAP for Kensington and Kingsford 21
3.6 Investigating the RUAP 24
PART 4 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 26
4.1 Aims of Survey 25
4.2 Study Area and Methodology 25
4.3 Survey Results 27
4.4 Summary of Survey Results 34

3. 2
PART 5 INTERVIEW WITH JOANNA HOLE 37
5.1 Kensington’s Characteristics and Issues 36
5.2 Discussion of Survey’s Results 37
5.3 Light Rail and Potential Densities along the Corridor 37
5.4 Council Role in the RUAP Process 38
5.5 The RUAP Introduction and Community Reaction 38
5.6 Interview Questions 39
5.7 Feedback from KPC members 42
5.8 Summary of the Interview and Feedbacks from KPC Members 42
PART 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 44
6.1 Concerns by Community and their Validity 44
6.2 The View from Local Government Perspective 45
6.3 Community Planning Activist 46
6.4 Conclusion 47
PART 7 REFERENCES 49
PART 8 APPENDICES 53
APPENDIX 1: Project Information Statement - Research Survey 53
APPENDIX 2: Survey Form 54
APPENDIX 3: Project Information Statement - Research Interview 56
APPENDIX 4: Interview Questions 57
APPENDIX 5: Project Consent Form 58
APPENDIX 6: Commonly Used Abbreviations 59

4. 3
1. Introduction
1.1 Compact city and sustainable urbanism
The strong link between cities’ urban form and sustainability has contributed to the emergence of the
Compact City concept (Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, p.2). The promotion for
this concept has been more relating to the spatial dimension of the human settlement, more specifically,
dealing with the notions of location and mobility, and their impacts on the consumption of energy and
resources, suggesting an alternative for the traditional phenomenon of urban sprawl (Rerat 2012, p.
116). However, with its claimed benefits, the concept of the compact city still one of the most debated
concepts in the urban policy (Publishing, O. 2012).
In Australia, the growth is amongst the highest in the OECD countries, and larger capital cities,
including Sydney, achieved a population growth of 50% faster than the rest of the country between the
years 2011-2012 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013, p.3). While the Australian cities
are accommodating the largest stake of growth, their densities still amongst the lowest in the world
(Woodcock 2011, p.344), which is to be associated with urban sprawl growth pattern. Hence, the idea
of the compact city, also referred to as “high-density, mixed use city”, is based on adopting an efficient
public transport system as a response to the “car-oriented” urban sprawl, and with processes usually
referred to as intensification and consolidation (Burton 2000, p.1969). This can be one of the
explanations for the race towards densification in a country with urban sprawl, such as Australia (NG
2009, p.24). However, this strong relationship between intensification and public transport implies the
importance of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as a mean of creating compactness and mixed
use around public transport nodes. For example, since the late 1990’s, the TOD has been a focus by
Australian governments to achieve urban consolidation policies (Searle 2011). In metropolitan
strategies, this approach involved proposing increased housing and job densities around planned and
existing transport infrastructure.
Despite the many benefits claimed by compact city supporters, high density and intensification version
of the compact city has proved to have negative influence on environmental and social sustainability
(Lin & Yang 2006), this can be explained in relation to the perceived impacts of compact city living,
such as overcrowding, congestion, pollution and loss of green space. Such impacts may outweigh the
positive claims of the compact city, usually promoted through land use planning policy (Burton 2000,
p.1970). Hence, the issue of acceptability of those compaction policies can be considered as an indicator
of the compact city success in achieving its positive claims (Howley 2009, p.792). Therefore,
acceptability of the compact city concept promoted by land use planning policy states the importance
of communities’ engagement in planning and implementation Processes. Improved community

5. 4
engagement processes can create a sense of ownership over the outcome (Mahjabeen 2009, p.46).
Otherwise, dissatisfaction, with densification proposals may involve certain local community groups
adopting more aggressive political and legal measures to challenge objectives of sustainable urbanism,
usually promoted in metropolitan strategies (Ruming 2012). Also considering the value of informed
decision making to planning processes in a democratic society (Woodcock 2013, p.94)
Considering the discussion above, the issue of acceptability towards higher densities is the main subject
of this research. More specifically, the planning and delivery processes of urban consolidation
proposals, involving TOD approach, in terms of their capacity to balance between concerns and
aspirations of local communities, with objectives of metropolitan strategic planning. In order to
approach this subject, the research key questions is: What would be some of the main concerns, opinions
and aspirations of each of the following stakeholder groups, both affected and involved by a potential
higher density development ; local community; local government; and community activist.
1.2 Methodology and Limitations
The research methodology involved reviewing relevant literature, including conceptual frameworks of
the compact city, its feasibility, opposition to compactness, metropolitan planning delivery processes,
and good practises of community engagement in delivering urban compactness. The review specifically
considered the planning and delivery of urban consolidation through the mechanism of (TOD), being,
so far, considered as one of the most sustainable forms in achieving compact city objectives.
The Sydney suburb of Kensington was chosen as the case study for this research, due to a number of
reasons, including its central location, low to medium density character and being planned to embrace
a TOD model densification including the approved City-South East Light Rail project (CSELR) and
the proposed Randwick Urban Activation Precinct program (RUAP) by the Department of Planning.
The latter involved increasing the residential densities around the potential light rail stations on Anzac
Parade. However, the RUAP program has generated significant negative reactions by the local
community, and been put on hold since September 2013.
Whereas the subject of this research is attitude towards higher density, it was important to obtain
information about the local community’s attitude towards the RUAP in Kensington, and investigate the
relationship of this attitude with other variables that may generate knowledge about any causation
behind it. Association between independent and dependent variables was used to understand any
possible causation (McBurney1994, p.64). As those variables are characteristic to survey methodology
(De Vaus 2002, p.4), the latter was used as a mean of collecting information about the variables and
analysing them. Therefore a community survey was conducted in certain parts of Kensington, aiming
to study the attitude towards the RUAP and any possible factors behind it. Also, the survey method was
chosen as a mean of obtaining a larger amount of structured and statistical data, from a larger number
of people and in a relatively short time (Chapman 2004, p.28).

6. 5
Considering the merits of research interviews in exploring and developing various realities and
perceptions about a certain case, mainly through exchange of ideas (Bauer 2000, p.45), survey results
and other research questions were shared and discussed in a semi-structured interview with strategic
planning coordinator at Randwick City Council. The aim of the interview was to yield a rich insight
into the opinions, attitudes, experiences and aspirations of different stakeholders who participated in
the RUAP process. In that sense, the multidisciplinary background of the interviewee, being a strategic
planner with an architectural background, was significantly helpful to the outcomes of the research.
Moreover, findings from survey and interview were tested against feed backs obtained via email from
two Kensington precinct committee (KPC) members. This provided an insight of their general view as
local community activists, also their experiences from participating in the RUAP community
workshops. The latter were organised by the Department of planning, the workshops only involved
precinct committee members, rather than inviting a wider sample of community in Kensington and rest
of Randwick.
In this methodology, structured data gained through the survey were mainly used to identify concerns
of the local community towards higher density proposals, as well as some of the local community’s
aspirations and expectations for their suburb. The other part of the methodology, comprising interview
with local council planner and email feedbacks from KPC members, focused on the management,
delivery and community engagement processes of the RUAP program.
Targeting each stakeholder group with the appropriate data collection method considered to be helpful
in terms of investigating and understanding the different circumstances of the RUAP from the
perspective of those three stakeholders. Hence, enabling to answer the research question, and help to
provide information about any possible factors that may influence the acceptability of higher densities
by local communities.

7. 6
2. Literature Review
2.1 Characteristics of the compact city
Being based on the notion of the location and mobility elements of the spatial settlement, the compact
city concept has had a number of different explanations and definitions. Beside the higher density, terms
such as urban intensification or consolidation are also used in that sense. Neuman (2005) listed another
13 characteristics of urban compactness (Table 1). Amongst those characteristics or features, are
mixture of land use, fine grain subdivision, increased social and economic interactions, multimodal
transit and high degree of accessibility (p.14). In terms of governance, Neuman also list urban
infrastructure and coordinated land planning control. Moreover Burton (2002) has mentioned some of
those characteristics as advantages claimed by the compact city including conservation of country side,
less need to travel by car, support for public transport, more walking and cycling (p.1969). While
assessing urban sprawl, Galster (2001) presented for a number of compactness features such as; density,
continuity, clustering, mixed uses and proximity. However, the peruse for the compact city concept by
policy makers is based on the rationale that this concept addresses the goals of urban sustainability
goals, including benefits in terms of reducing petrol consumption, facilitating local energy-generating
technologies and conservation of land resources on the urban fringe for recreation, agriculture and water
provision (Publishing, O. (2012))
TABLE 1. COMPACT CITY CHARACTERSTICS. SOURCE: NEUMAN

8. 7
2.2 Density and Mobility: Historical Perspective
The combination of the urban density, mixed use and public transit can be significantly related to the
original notion of efficient correlation between location of human settlements and mobility. Hence the
role of efficient public transport is evident as mean of implementing the concept of the compact city
and addressing some of its main objectives or features, such as accessibility and curbing the trend of
auto-mobile dependency (Jungchan Lee, Kiyo Kurisu, Kyoungjin An and Keisuke Hanaki 2014, p.3).
In most recent years the concept of the transit oriented development (TOD), which mean the association
of higher densities and public transport nodes, has been established as one of the best means to achieve
desired forms of compactness (Mees 2012, p.373). TOD is also at the core of metropolitan planning in
Australian cities such as Sydney, where the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney has also set
objectives of TOD by planning for growth around existing or planned transport and road infrastructure
(NSW DoPI 2013, p.9). However the implementation of the TOD was a later version of earlier concerns
of intensification in NSW, which can be dated back to Sydney’s first metropolitan strategy in 1948
(Searle 2011, p.1421), being reflected in the early 1960’s, when town planning controls in Sydney
allowed the development of medium density three stories apartment buildings in existing low density
context. This can to a great extent be related to the legislation of the strata title which enabled the
individual ownership of units in apartment buildings (Randolph 2006, p.474). Searle (2011) explains
that the earlier wave of medium density intensification came as a response for a number of factors
amongst which, the post war long boom, oil crisis in 1970’s, pressure on government infrastructure
costs, demographic changes and housing affordability.
Searle (2011) also emphasises that the TOD model of densification has largely replaced earlier medium
density implementation in Sydney, roughly around late 1990’s. It allowed a more intense spatial
concentration of densities around existing and accessible transport infrastructure nodes, introducing to
the current form of high density apartment buildings (p.1424). The significant continuous increase in
apartment buildings, from the beginning of 1990’s and upward (Figure 1), was mainly achieved by that
shift from “blanket” medium density development to spatially focused higher density TOD. Other
drivers for that surge in apartment buildings number included discretionary development system in
Sydney and FSR bonus for residential developers, who also realised the financial gains from extensive
densification that had fewer infrastructure levies (p.1423).

9. 8
Since the intensification started in Sydney, with its “blanket” pattern, local communities resistance to
that form of density was the other side of this early attempts of this process, partially towards the
medium density walk up apartment, blaming them to be “incompatible” with their surrounding low
density fabric and lacking landscaping green space (Searle 2011, p.1421).
Searle also argues that the emergence of the TOD was a major factor in reducing local communities’
negative attitude towards urban intensification and high density apartment buildings; he also uses the
graph in (figure1) to support this claim (p.1424). Despite the increase in higher densities and change of
attitude towards TOD based urban consolidation, the localised resistance to urban consolidation by local
communities is still considered an obstacle to implement the compact city policies in Sydney and other
Australian cities. Sites of potential densification become, to a great extent, sites for “community
resistance” (Ruming 2012, p.421).
Resistance to higher density, patterns and factors behind it are amongst core subjects to be investigated
in this research. Factors shaping acceptability or rejection of compact city are important in the sense
that they address the informed decision making process in democratic societies (Woodcock 2010, p.94).
Communities are main stakeholders in those decision making processes. Their role in tackling or
facilitating strategic planning sustainability objectives, such as compact city, is quite evident. For
example, in Melbourne, the political fear of residents’ adverse reactions towards higher density
development, was considered as one of the major factors that led to failure delivering the objectives of
Melbourne 2030 policy (Woodcock 2010, p.95). In Sydney, despite the surge in higher density
FIGURE 1. MULTIPLE-UNIT DWELLING STARTS, SYDNEY AND TORONTO, 1967–2006.
SOURCE: SEARLE (2011)

10. 9
development for the last 25 years, urban consolidation efforts by state government are still interrupted
by opposition of NIMBY groups and local government authorities (Searle 2011, p.1429).
In the next section, aspects such as the patterns of NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups, their concerns,
social and environmental feasibility of compact city and delivery of urban consolidation will be
investigated through review of relevant literature and examples. The final section in this chapter will
highlight successful examples and promising approaches of implementing the compact city concept,
both in Australia and overseas. It will also introduce questions on how to achieve best practise of
compact city promotion and delivery, in terms of sustainability and acceptability by local communities
affected by consolidation.
2.3 Resistance to Higher Densities: Main Aspects
Cultural context is one of main shapers of general public aspirations towards the ideal form and settings
for the compact city. The concept city has been considered as alien to Australian culture and city
dwellers (Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, p.86). This claim could bet true,
especially when considering the low density form as a product of the “egalitarian” society in Australia,
associating the low density detached house with the notion of home ownership, which is considered as
one of the positive life aspects in Australia (Forsyth 1997, p.47). However, here are some of the other
aspects characterising the NIMBY debate, both in Australia and overseas.
2.3.1 Localised Characteristics of the Place
Despite a number of similarities and common grounds in aspirations and concerns expressed by NIMBY
groups resisting higher density developments, the localised and divergent cultural dimension of
NYMBY’ism is quite evident in shaping the concerns and aspirations of different local communities.
For example, the use of the elastic term of “character” by opposition groups as a main factor in their
opposition to densification proposals, and how would this term would be defined due to highly localised
and different environmental and cultural contexts (Davison 2011; Dovey 2009). As the localised
cultural context is one aspect of the NIMBY phenomenon, other aspects worth investigation are
relationship to government bodies, strategic planning framework, and potential environmental and
social impacts foreseen by local communities affected.
2.3.2 Strategic Planning Framework for promoting higher densities
The Metropolitan Development Program in Sydney is one of the means to control the balance of
development between low density urban growth and urban consolidation in established centres (Searle
2011, p.1425). The metropolitan strategies for Sydney usually designate growth locations, due to
accessibility to existing or planned infrastructure, and also set numerical housing targets addressing

11. 10
factors such as population growth and spatial distribution. The role of those targets in implementing
urban consolidation is observed by the percentage of targets dedicated to urban consolidation or infill
development in existing urban areas. In the latest draft metropolitan plan of Sydney, only 50% of the
total target figure (545 000 new houses by 2031) was dedicated to the existing urban area (NSW DoPI
2013). This is compared to about 70% in the former two metropolitan strategies (NSW DoPI 2010;
NSW DoPI 2005). Through subregional strategies, which follow the implementation of Metropolitan
strategies, infill development and urban consolidation housing targets will be mobilised and distributed
to different established suburbs and centres in Sydney, due to factors such as capacity, accessibility and
availability of infrastructure. However, targets seems to be the main objective of urban consolidation
consumed by NIMBY and higher density opposition groups while mobilising against urban
consolidation and intensification proposals, usually promoted by higher tiers of government. This is
evident when observing the opposing local community groups, constantly challenging the validity of
new densification proposals, mainly by comparing proposed density figures with set-forward numerical
targets in the metropolitan and subregional plans (SMH 2009).
Understanding the role of dwelling targets can also help in shaping attitude against higher density and
urban consolidation. Findings from (Ruming 2014) emphasise that groups mildly opposing higher
density development, identified as “ambivalent opponents” can turn into “staunch opponents” once
realising that targets are meant to promote development rather than limiting it. In the meantime, the
other group identify by Ruming (2014) as “staunch opponents” were more aware of the purpose of
targets as a mean to increase density and not the opposite (p.259). Another important observation by
Ruming (2014) is the big gap between survey respondents’ ideal development targets and those set in
the metropolitan plans, about 29% of the respondents reported a dwelling target for existing urban areas
of less than 10% (p.258).
The opposition to higher density is reactionary and localised. It increases once the higher density
development is proposed in one’s suburb (Ruming 2014, p.260). Staunch opponents are more likely to
join local community groups to challenge development, which may explain their higher awareness of
local government policy (p.258). On the other hand, supporters for higher density are more aware of
metropolitan wide planning. Despite those significant differences in terms of policy awareness, Ruming
(2014) states the fact that his survey result does confirms a generally low level of awareness on
Metropolitan strategy level, about 60% unaware of metropolitan strategy plans (p.259). Furthermore,
this emphasises the need for better community engagement procedures, especially when promoting
higher density developments (p.264).

12. 11
2.3.3 New strategies used by the opposition groups
By studying the case study of residents’ backlash against higher density in the established low density
Sydney suburb of Ku-Ring-Gai, Ruming (2012) uncover new strategies adopted by opposition groups
to legitimise their claims against higher density developments. Those strategies included engaging
wider population, sometimes on metropolitan level, involving the media and getting organised in more
affluent and powerful LGA wide community structures. The latter community organisations may
involve capable people with professional backgrounds or political connections, capable of intensifying
the mobilisation against higher density proposals. Sometimes, those organisations tend to engage wider
Sydney population in local planning issues, using some local elements of environment and heritage as
issues of Sydney wide significance. Ku-Ring-Gai is an example of conflict between state government
interest and local government parochialism, considering factors such as political gain and satisfying
LGA wide voters. Moreover, in some cases, community frustration over higher density development
resulted in “anti –development” candidates to take control in a number of Sydney councils, in areas that
are mostly characterised by high socio-economics (Searle 2011, p.1422). Evolution in high density
opposition groups by using new strategies and tactics, such as political lobbying, highlights the
challenges to be encountered by the NSW urban consolidation polices.
2.3.4 Environmental and Social Impacts
Environmental impacts comprise another aspect in implementing the policies of the compact city.
Common impact foreseen by local residents as a result of potential intensification include demand on
local infrastructure, traffic congestion and car parking issues, change of demographics (influx of poorer
households/ renters), loss of streetscape, impacts on local environment, change of the reputation of the
area and loss of privacy (Ruming 2014, p.255; Searle 2011, p.1422). Most interestingly, there is
evidence of the significance of social factors, mostly related to the criticism of apartment unit living
within strata title. For example, research by Howley (2009) identified social features of the
neighbourhood, such interaction with neighbours, as significant drivers for current higher density
residents’ decision whether to stay or move to a low density suburb in a near future (p.796).
Furthermore, (Randolph 2006, p.475; East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, p.22) have also focused on social
cohesion factors, that may increase acceptability of strata title living, which is considered the most
common tenure form to embrace high density development. Significance of social interaction issues in
existing higher density development can be related to some of the characteristics of strata title. For
example, living in a great proximity to each other and sharing common facilities. Therefore design
quality of apartments and shared spaces could be critical in changing attitude towards compact living
(East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, p.60). Randolph (2006) also refer to further challenges facing the
development higher density apartment buildings, such as better inclusion of certain groups such as
families with children (p.485).

13. 12
2.4 Environmental Sustainability of the Compact City
The environmental feasibility of the current version of the compact city, or its environmental
sustainability, is also challenged by experts and researchers. The challenge of the environmental
sustainability gains, claimed by the compact city concept is usually linked to its mobility patterns
outcomes, and its TOD mechanism. Neuman (2005) refer to evidence that compactness and
sustainability can be negatively correlated. Besides challenging social sustainability claims of compact
living, Newman also refer to evidence that while short trips to local activities increase, urban density
may not influence the long distance trips to specialised activities and employment (p.12). Rerat (2012)
also challenges the compatibility of the compact city with the requirements of sustainable development,
also criticising its unsustainable mobility patterns (p.118).
In his critique of its sustainability claims, Newman (2005) expands on the critique on the current model
of the compact city towards a more holistic level. Neuman used “intellectual traditions of sustainability”
such as capacity, fitness, diversity and balance to assess the sustainability of the recent compact city.
He also assessed the sustainability of the compact city, using sustainability common themes or features
including “place-specific conditions” and “process” (p.20). He arguesit was those two themes of
sustainability by which the traditional compact city gained its sustainable form. Neuman compares the
current version, which is usually promoted by professional elite (planners, architects, engineers and
developers), against the pre 20th
century compact city that was built by local builders, using local
materials and local technology. Fitness to the surrounding context was the main result of such localised
practise (p.21). Moreover, pre 20th
century town building was more participation based, through
provision of information and ideas. Newman also refers to the evolutionary process under which the
compact city gained its form, being built gradually “accumulating uses, meaning, size ……” over time
(p.22). Comparison between the original compact cities as “an evolving process of human
development” with the Developer’s marketing-based current version, states the importance of values
such as local-knowledge based participation and fitness to the surroundings as factors facilitating the
feasibility and acceptability of the traditional compactness.
The discussion above states the importance of prioritising sustainability when planning or promoting
for compact city concept. Sustainability here can be considered as a concept that directly reflects on the
everyday life quality of communities, whereas optimal densities can be considered as result of
prioritising the investment in future and “quality of life” (Raof 2009, p.38).
Considering the discussion above, the quality of life stands out as an important factor in promoting the
compact city. Participation and engagement of local communities are important in that sense, as means
of achieving a compact city with a better life quality, mainly by addressing and improving
environmental and social sustainability aspects of a place.

14. 13
2.5 Proactive Participation Processes
The trade-off between commuity aspiration and objectives of metrpolitan strategy was covered by
woodcock(2012), while suggesting improvements to local communities enhagment in City of
Melbourne plans for intensification around established urban centres and near transit corridor. Urban
design approach was adopted by Woodcock, aiming to enable residents participating in community
workshops to choose out from multiple streetscape options. The three dimensional streetscape
alternatives were resulted from differing regulatory and development scenarios (Figure 2), later on;
those visions are compared with the relative desirability of local residents (p.95).
Moreover, the example from the suburb of Collingwood in Vancouver, Canada, does follow a
multidisciplinary approach (Davison 2013), similar to that applied by Woodcock in Melbourne. An
intensification project around the public transit station in Collinwood involved interactive community
workshops bringing together different stakeholders including city planners, the developer, community
leaders and members. The local community’s acceptability of the intensification in the area was a result
of its positive involvement in the planning process. For example, understanding the relationship
FIGURE 2. URBAN DESIGN 3D VISUALISATION AS PROPOSED BY WOODCOCK (2012)

15. 14
between heights, take up rate and feasibility of the development. More significantly, the intensification
of the area was considered as an opportunity to maintain and enhance the character of the
neighbourhood. In the case of Collingwood the character was nothing about the physical shape of the
buildings or streetscape, rather its social fabric. The latter has been adequately addressed, together with
current neighbourhood problems when redeveloping an abandoned residential site in the middle of
Collingwood low density fabric (Figure 3). This development has also addressed objectives of social
sustainability, through provision of community, recreational and employment facilities which helped
build community’s “cohesion and pride” (Davison 2012 p.119).
FIGURE 3. COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE. SOURCE: DAVISON (2012)
2.6 Mobility and Density: What could be the best practice?
With its density and Transit components, the model of TOD, so far, stands out as one of the main
mechanisms to achieve urban consolidation in overseas and Australia. What are some of the possible

16. 15
drivers of its success or failure, especially in Sydney? What could be the best practise in delivering
TODs to assure a more feasible, sustainable and consequently acceptable version of the compact city?
Especially when considering the concerns and aspirations of local communities affected by the
proposed densification. Another dimension need to be addressed is the acceptability of the transit
component of the development in addition to the density one. Part of the fear from the TOD is the fear
of changing the character of the area, lack of trust that the claimed TOD’s advantages would not be
delivered and, also corruption concern in the sense of government – developers lobbying on the cost of
the community (Rice 2001, p.179).

17. 16
3. Case Study: The RUAP near
Kensington
3.1 Why Kensington
The suburb of Kensington was chosen as a case study for the research due to existence of established
low density pockets close to Anzac Parade, proximity to the CBD and being on the alignment of the
potential CSELR project. Also, Kensington was one of 8 suburbs targeted by the urban activation
program, proposed by the Department of planning and infrastructure (DoPI).
3.2 Kensington’s Local Context
According to information in Randwick DCP document, the suburb is quite characterised by its
proximity to the University of New South Wales, with people aging 20-29 comprising the largest single
groups (Figure 4). More than 60% pf dwellings in Kensington are apartment, flats or units, mostly in 3
stories apartment buildings, mostly occupied by younger people. Hence, about one third of Kensington
residents live within one block of the commercial strip (Randwick City Council 2013), though there is
the Raleigh Park apartment complex a bit further away from the Anzac Parade. The current zoning of
the commercial strip on both sides of the Anzac Parade is B2 (Town Centre), which generally
encourages residential/commercial mixed use development. The fine grain and the heritage architectural
character of the town centre area is maintained by an urban design focused DCP, providing block by
block heights and set back controls (Figure 5). The maximum height is 6 stories in majority of the
blocks.
FIGURE 4. AGE STRUCTURE IN KENSINGTON. SOURCE:
PROFILE ID

18. 17
FIGURE 5. BLOCK BY BLOCK DESIGN CONTROLS IN KENSINGTON CENTRE DCP: KENSINGTON TOWN
CENTRE DCP (2013)
In terms of its Geography the suburb comprises a significant amount of open green space area, including
parks, golf course and the race course. This can be one of the reasons for the relatively low residential
catchment of Kensington, compared to other suburbs in Randwick, also located on the Anzac Parade
corridor, such as Kingsford and Maroubra. The lack of the natural catchment is considered one of the
main reasons for Kensington commercial strip not being evolved as much as other neighbouring centres
in the area.1
The town centre strip, is followed by another one block wide strip medium density zone
(R3), mainly dominated by three-story apartment walk up buildings with some pockets of federation
houses. This strip is attached to the race course from the east, and to a low density zone on the western
side of the Anzac corridor, followed by the apartment development at Raleigh Park and the low density
conservation area in Western Kensington (Figure 6).
The dominant density character in Kensington is a mix of low to medium densities. However, the arrival
of the new light Rail will introduce for new considerations regarding the viability of this urban form in
relation to the potential changes that might be triggered by such public transport infrastructure.
1
See interview with Joanna Hole, strategic planning coordinator at Randwick council, in Part 5.6

19. 18
3.3 The new CSELR, a catalyst for change?
The 12 km long light Rail line with 20 stops starts from Circular Quay in the CBD, extending south to
central station before heading South East to join the Anzac Parade corridor. Near Kensington the line
branches off into two, one reaches to the health precinct in Randwick, the other one continues on the
Anzac Parade and finishes at Kingsford.
The project was declared as a Critical Significant State Infrastructure (TNSW 2013b), which means,
amongst other things, that it is not subject to appeal rights. The planning approval was obtained in 4th
of June 2014 (TNSW 2014). Work still in progress to commission tenderers to provide more detailed
documentation for construction works of the project.2
Kensington will have three potential stops, two near its town centre, and the third one near the UNSW
gate (Figure 7).
Main objectives of the project, in relation to the Sydney City Centre Access strategy (2013), include
the reduction of bus transport entering the city, urban renewal through revitalisation of public space and
improvement to reliability of travel time between trip generators and attractions along the alignment
(TNSW 2013 b, p.52).
Within the context of Kensington as one of the suburbs on the CSELR alignment, being only 6-7km
from the city, the potential for change is quite present. Due to potential reliability and increased
patronage capacity, compared with traditional bus network (TNSW 2013d, p.7), the new CSELR could
be a catalyst for change in Kensington. Examples from other cities in the world, with light rail projects,
have shown significant land use change patterns, both in land use type and intensity.
2
As explained by the CSELR project director during a project EIS consultation held at Randwick TAFE in July
2014, attended by the author
FIGURE 6. CURRENT LAND USE ZONING IN KENSINGTON. SOURCE: RANDWICK LEP (2013)

20. 19
Transformation in urban shape and activities, is more likely to occur within the station’s catchment
area, usually defined as a radius of 300m-900m around LRT stops, corresponding to walking distances
of 5, 10 and 15 minutes (Calvo 2013, p.85). When light rail is a part of a TOD effort, or integrated with
local pro-development policies, significant changes to urban form and activities are very likely to incur,
including some increase in multi-unit residential and decrease in industrial uses, with different
magnitudes during planning, construction and operational phases (Hurst 2014).
FIGURE 7 LIGHT RAIL MA. SOURCE: TNSW (2013)

21. 20
In terms of population density growth, the example of two LRT alignments in Madrid shows a
significant population growth on the first alignment, in which TOD and integrated planning principles
were applied with in the stations’ catchment area (Calvo 2013). Most interestingly, Calvo’s (2013)
findings also refer to increases in population, though significantly less, in the second alignment, where
the low density urban character kept unchanged (p.90).
In the case of the suburb of Kensington, those aspects of change discussed above are likely to be
intensified, due to the location characteristics. Proximity to the city, the university and some recreational
activities, are amongst those factors. Furthermore, population density in Kensington are still at 48, 67
persons per hectare (Profile id 2014), compared to a potential population density of up to 240 people
per hectare that can be supported by an LRT (Towers 2005, p.58).
With evidence of change brought by the provision of light rail transit, especially in relation to population
and dwelling densities, it is very important to understand how would that change response to the existing
character and sensitivities in a suburb like Kensington. How capacities of existing urban fabric,
community and economy, as described in the subsection of local context, would be addressed when a
TOD or an integrated planning approach is applied in the area. The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct
program, which involved a proposal to increase densities around the potential LR stops, will be
discussed by its objectives, management, delivery processes, including community and local
government engagement processes.
3.4 The Randwick Urban Activation Precinct
With the main objective to coordinate the strategic planning of housing and jobs with existing and
planned infrastructure, the AUP program has targeted areas with potential to provide a range of housing
and jobs options with greater access to public transport infrastructure (NSW DoPI 2012, p.5). In the
meantime, the metropolitan plan of Sydney has also described the UAP as a program targeting the
highly accessible suburbs to provide housing choice and prosperity (DoPI 2013, p.8). The Randwick
Urban Activation Precinct (RUAP) was also identified in the context of the “Anzac Parade Corridor”
City shaper, generally aiming to increase the “population density” and stimulating business, retail and
public transport (NSW DoPI 2013, p.24). Randwick has been also targeted by another UAP, which is
the Anzac Parade South, starting from South Kingsford and extending south to La Perouse. So far, there
are no plans for LRT for this segment of the Anzac Parade corridor.
The selection of UAP precincts is subject to nomination, which may come from different sources, such
as the DoPI, local councils and private sector. Thereafter the nomination should be endorsed by the
government based on advice from an “interagency precinct nomination committee” chaired by the
Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (NSW DoPI 2012, p.6).

22. 21
The delivery process of the UAP should involve engagement with different key stakeholders, including
local community groups and local council staff. This is through the establishment of different working
groups with council, communities and agencies (DoPI 2012, p11), followed by a number of stages till
the precinct plan is finalised and approved (Figure 8).
3.5 UAP for Kensington and Kingsford
The Boundary for the RUAP proposal encompassed large parts of Kensington and smaller parts of
North Kingsford. The determination of this boundary was based on a 400 m catchment around the
potential light rail stations, which is equivalent to a 5 minutes walking distance to the station (Figure
9).
FIGURE 8. THE UAP PLANNING PROCESS. SOURCE:
NSW DOPI 2012

23. 22
Most changes included mixed-use densification near LRT future stations near the Anzac Parade,
especially the commercial strip in Kensington, Southern parts of the race course and also Kingsford
town centre. From the urban design strategy produced through the planning process (Figure 10), there
are also proposal for a number of village centres near to main stops in Kensington commercial strip,
Kingsford town centre and another one near the stop at High Street.
The magnitude of changes in Kensington can be more realised by looking at the three dimensional
image for the proposal (Figures 10 and 11), taken from the councillor’s workshop document, where
heights of some proposed buildings reaching 65 m.
FIGURE 9. RUAP’S CATCHMENT AREA. SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING;
COUNCILLOR’S' WORKSHOP (2013). THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE
INTERNET, AND IT WAS OBTAINED FROM RANDWICK COUNCIL.

24. 23
FIGURE 10. 3D VISUALISATION FOR RANDWICK UAP. SOURCE: DOPI COUNCILLORS’ WORKSHOP
(2013)
FIGURE 11. 3D VISUALISATION FOR DENSIFICATION IN KENSINGTON CENTRE. SOURCE DOPI:
COUNCILLORS’ WORKSHOP (2013)

25. 24
The councillors’ workshops involved briefing a panel of three councillors by the DoPI staff about the
progress in working groups with council’s occupational staff and workshops with the community
precinct committee members.3
The whole planning process of the RUAP was meant to take about 6-7 months. Started in early 2013
and involved two community workshops or workgroups on 18th
July and 1st
August, thereafter, in
September 2013 the program was put on hold. Around the same period, in a community meeting called
by the local MP member, and attended by the DoPI staff, the local community demonstrated their
concerns and opposition towards the RUAP proposal (Daily Telegraph 2013). Amongst the most
significant concerns, were the 65m (20 stories) high buildings proposed on Anzac Parade, near
Kensington and Maroubra. Also concerns regarding the capacity of social and physical infrastructure.
There was an evident opposition towards this proposal.
However, as the aim of this research is to investigate the underlays of opposition against consolidation
or intensification, mostly delivered by a TOD mechanism, the investigation of the RUAP’s backlash
could yield some findings or future lessons in terms of how to approach, inform and engage local
communities when introducing TOD densification proposals. Hence the investigation will be limited to
Kensington’s share of the RUAP, considering its significant locational, economic and built form
characteristics discussed earlier in this section.
3.6 Investigating the RUAP
The investigation on the RUAP will be initiated by a community survey to measure the general attitude
of residents towards what has been proposed so far. Also the community’s aspirations about their area
will be included in the survey questions. Interview with the council strategic planner will be intended
to gain more insight about practices followed by the DoPI while delivering and planning the proposal.
Finally, email feed backs from two Kensington Precinct Committee members were aimed to provide
more understanding about processes followed in the RUAP’s community workshops organised by the
DoPI.
3
As explained by the interviewee in Part 5

26. 25
4. Survey Methodology and Results
4.1Aims of the Survey
With the aim of providing a better understanding of local communities’ reactions towards
implementation of higher densities developments, Research methodology involves conduction of a
community survey in Kensington. Engaging with community was aimed to look into the
implementation of compact city concept from a community perspective, trying to explore concerns,
aspirations and visions of local residents, and their validity.
The proposed RUAP program was a main subject of the community survey conducted in last September.
The reaction to the UAP proposal and higher densities in Randwick were assessed against a number of
variables, which covered aspects of higher density such as environmental impacts foreseen by residents,
concerns, needs and local community’s vision for Kensington. The results from this survey are to be
discussed with practitioners from the local council.
4.2 Study Area and Methodology
The field work involved surveying local residents in chosen low residential density blocks on both sides
of Anzac Parade in Kensington (Figure 12). The medium density blocks near Anzac parade and other
main arterial roads were excluded. Also, some low density blocks near the university were also excluded
as they accommodate a significant number of international students, which did not belong to the target
group of the study. Kensington Park is the limit for the study area from the South. Blocks after this Park
belong to the suburb of Kingsford. These blocks may have a number of different characteristics from
those of Kensington such as proximity to the university’s cafes and facilities, proximity to an evolved
town centre with an established retail and business mix and more dense urban form. Generally, residents
targeted are those who live in Kensington low density blocks, on both sides of Anzac Parade.
The survey design involved open question addressing aspirations and concerns of residents, followed
by close ended questions to determine groups as per their attitude towards RUAP and LR. Thereafter
open ended questions addressing impacts and attitude towards any possibility of living in a higher
density development.

27. 26
Survey questions included two types of variables. First, dependent variables, with close ended question
aimed to obtain a specific attitude of residents towards higher densities proposal in Kensington. This
was represented by question six and seven in the questionnaire, which aimed to measure the attitude of
the community towards higher density and light-rail infrastructure. A scale of 1-5 was used to capture
those who strongly support, support, neither support or oppose, oppose and strongly oppose the
proposal. The other types of variables are explanatory variables, which were included as open-ended
questions, mainly aimed to provide explanation and help identify any possible factors behind the
specific attitudes.
FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA IN KENSINGTON
FIGURE 12. STUDY AREA LIMITATION

28. 27
4.3 Survey Results
The survey was conducted through approximately 250 door knockings in a low-density residential
blocks in Kensington over two weekends, two Saturdays and Two Sundays, between the 13th
and 21st
of September 2014. The total number of respondents was 30 people. Utilising the 3D images of the
RUAP proposal, responses to Question 7 (see Appendix 2) were divided into four groups according to
the attitude expressed by the respondents towards the implementation of high density developments in
Kensington.4
The majority of respondents had heard about the RUAP, but were not aware of the 3D
images. The size of each group is shown in figure 13 below. From Question 7, which was set to be the
dependent variable, 11/30 were categorised as “opponents”, 12/30 were “strong opponents”, and only
4/30 respondents and 3/30 were “supporters” and “strongly supporters” respectively. The majority of
respondents positioned themselves as “strong opponents” (Figure 13).
Considering the significant majority were amongst the “oppose” and “strongly oppose” groups,
responses to the open ended questions in the survey were aimed to provide explanations behind the
negative attitudes identified.
4
See figures 10 and 11 in Part 4, page 23
FIGURE 13. ATTITUDE TOWARDS POTENTIAL HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN KENSINGTON

29. 28
The survey starts with questions revealing Kensington community’ views regarding what they like
about their area, also what are aspects that need to be improved? Those questions were aimed to find
out the community’s preferred future scenarios based on popular aspects, and also problematic aspects
that need to be addressed and improved in the future.
By answering Question 2 “What do you like about Kensington”, a significant majority of respondents
from all groups referred to the convenience of the central location and proximity to city, beaches and
other important facilities as one of the most popular aspects Kensington has (Figure 14).
Moving into Question 3 “What needs to be improved in Kensington” (Figure 15), shows the evident
need for better commercial strip in Kensington. Respondents from different groups have clearly
expressed their need to a local business centre with a descent retail mix of supermarkets, fruit and
vegies, bakers, butchers and other essential services that the area lacks. Respondents addressing this
issue referred to the inconvenience of them having to drive to nearest retail centres, such as East
Gardens, in order to meet their regular shopping needs. Descent retail and business mix with in a
walkable distance is the most significant aspect of improvement amongst respondents in the sample.
FIGURE 14. ASPECTS RESPONDENTS DO LIKE ABOUT KENSINGTON

30. 29
4.3.1 Social Issues Foreseen by Respondents
Starting with Question 8; “What are some of the social impacts you foresee with this proposal (RUAP)”.
Answers included in most cases more than one impact or factor reported per individual respondent,
resulting with a total of 56 factors or impact predicted by respondents (Figure 16).
According to respondents, Kensington is a preferred location for parking for both UNSW students and
people attending sport and other cultural events along Anzac Parade near Kensington. In some cases
they park in Kensington’s side street and walk for about 15-20 minutes to their Destinations.
One of the most significant issues reported by participants was concerns over the currently critical on-
street parking situation in Kensington, and fears to be worsening if residential densities to be increased
in the future. This parking issue was a major concern to the oppose/strongly oppose groups, attracting
13 responses. People explained their concerns as this situation will be worsened by any potential
increase of densities, causing more problems in terms of everyday parking conflicts and competition.
FIGURE 15. ASPECTS NEED TO BE IMPROVED IN KENSINGTON

31. 30
Other social factors that could have shaped the response of mild and stark opposition groups are the
traffic disruptions issues. Concerns regarding this factor were explained by respondents as higher
densities will add to the existing traffic jams in the area. Also increased “rat run” traffic in the area as a
result of higher density development. Social aspects of such concerns may relate to loss of the peaceful
and quite character of Kensington. This issue was limited to oppose /strongly oppose groups.
Third significant social factor is “more people/congestion”. This was explained in terms of possible
social problems and conflicts resulted from overcrowding. Another issue reported by respondents was
“loss of sense of community”, which was mainly reported by older people, falling within 60+ age
categories. Capacity of social infrastructure was also an issue significantly relevant to strong opponents
group.
FIGURE 16. SOCIAL IMPACTS FORESEEN BY RESPONDENTS AS A RESULT FOR HIGHER DENSITY

32. 31
4.3.2 Economic Issues Reported
Economic impacts of any potential higher density development were mainly interpreted by respondents
in terms of advantages and disadvantages to shops and businesses in Kensington’s commercial strip,
and some other less significant impacts (Figure 17). A majority of oppose/strongly oppose groups and
also respondents from supporter/ strongly supporter groups (considering their small numbers), were
agreed on the fact that higher density could be good for establishing an attractive retail and business
mix for Kensington.
FIGURE 17. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FORESEEN BY RESIDENTS AS A RESULT FOR ANY POTENTIAL HIGHER
DENSITY IN KENSINGTON

33. 32
4.3.3 Attitude towards Light Rail
Despite the fact that majority respondents in the sample have opposing opinions towards the proposal
higher density development and RUAP, a majority of oppose / strongly oppose groups from the sample
still share a positive view towards the potential light rail project (Figure 18).
FIGURE 18. ATTITUDES TOWARDS LIGHT RAIL

34. 33
4.3.4 Why Choose to Live in a High Density Development
When asked about any reasons or factors that may shape a future decision of living in a high density
development, a reasonable share of participants expressed downsizing due to ageing and family
structure changes as main factors behind such a decision. Affordability was another possible factor in
that sense (Figure 19). Most interestingly a reasonable groups of opponents/strong opponents, entirely
rejected the idea of living in a high density development.
FIGURE 19. REASONS FOR WHY RESPONDENTS MAY CHOOSE TO LIVE IN A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT

35. 34
4.3.5 Age and Income profile of respondents
Figures 20 and 21 illustrate age and income categories of respondents from different groups.
4.4 Summary of Survey Results
Despite the small sample represented in the survey (30 respondents), there were a number of results and
observations that could be associated with patterns and findings from the literature and examples
reviewed. A majority of the sample (23 people) expressed their opposition to the RUAP proposal, being
divided into 12 strong opponents and 11 opponents. Most significantly, social impacts, as identified by
respondents could be behind this negative attitude. Increased parking conflicts and competition where
the most significant social impacts frequently reported by opponents, strong opponents and few
supporters as well (need to consider the small share of supporters/ strong supporters in all results). This
issue was followed by other impacts foreseen as a result of potential densification including traffic
FIGURE 20. AGE CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS
FIGURE 21. INCOME CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS
FIGURE 20 AGE STRUCTURE FOR RESPONDENTS

36. 35
issues and influx of new people and overcrowding. Those impacts, which can be identified as factors
are similar to some generic concerns identified in former research and literature (Ruming (2013); Searle
(2011).5
Furthermore, the convenience of the location, in terms of accessibility and proximity to main
attractions such as the city and beaches was the major popular feature of Kensington.
In terms of community visions and aspirations obtained through answers to open ended questions, the
need for an evolved town centre in Kensington with a descent retail mix including supermarkets,
groceries, services and cafés, was a major aspect of desired future improvements reported by a majority
of the sample’s opponent groups. Further aspects of improvement identified, included on-street Parking
and streetscape in the area.
Aging and family structure changes were identified as the main reason that could shape respondents’
future choice of living in a higher density development. This factor involved as well a representation
from both supporters and opponents groups in the sample. However a reasonable group comprised of
only opponents/ strong opponents entirely rejected the idea, not considering any future possibility of
moving into a high density development. Some people in this group initiated a longer side talks because
of this question, explaining about their own experiences and thoughts in regard to apartment and strata
title living. A mother of three children mentioned about the family’s bad experiences when they
temporarily lived in an apartment complex, while their house was undergoing renovation. According to
her, it was a time full of conflicts with neighbours who were annoyed by her children playing in shared
areas of the complex, having no much choice of safe play environment. Research by Randolph (2006)
and Easthope (1997) reviewed in chapter 2 does associate with such feedbacks, touching on the issue
of social interaction and social inclusion in strata title and apartment living. 6
Other people in this group,
especially elderly people, expressed their concerns regarding the lack of social interaction and cohesion,
such values are very important for people in this age group. This could be associated with the decreased
number of older people in apartment buildings (Urbis 2011, p.8). Other variables identified were
accessibility and availability of services, also affordability.
5
See Part 2, page 11
6
See Part 2, page 12

37. 36
5. Interview with Joanna Hole, Strategic
Planning Coordinator at Randwick City
Council on 19-09-2014
The interview starts with a brief introduction on the research background information and reasons for
choosing the suburb of Kensington as a case study for this research:
● The introduction of the new light rail infrastructure along Anzac Parade
● The current low and medium residential density character in Kensington
● The mismatch between the current population density in Kensington and the potential increased
population density that could be supported by the future light rail transit7
● Community reaction and concerns regarding the proposal of Randwick Urban Activation
Precinct (RUAP) which comprised two UAPs, North Randwick, near Kensington local centre,
and South Randwick, starting in South Kingsford and extending to include suburbs to the South
of Anzac Parade corridor
5.1 Kensington’s Characteristics
Joanna responses to the brief on the objectives of the research and the case study by mentioning a
number of facts and characteristics about population, demographics and built form relevant to
Kensington. She starts with describing Kensington as a predominantly low density residential area with
more heritage characteristics compared to neighbouring Kingsford, which in addition, comprise more
high density developments. In terms of the activity mix, Kensington’s business centre has not evolved
as much as Kingsford’s business centre. Joanna relates this difference to the fact that Kingsford is close
both to university and a bigger catchment of population and employment. This is apparent by the
extensive and wide range of restaurants, cafes and other services offered by Kingsford commercial strip
compared to the less evolved local centre of Kensington, which is, according to Joanna, is further away
from the university, and in the meantime, does not have a “natural catchment” on its own right.
Furthermore, Kensington is still surrounded by a number of bigger town centres such as East Garden,
Maroubra Junction and Green Square. This location characteristic makes residents of the area drive to
those centres for shopping, leisure and other activities, rather than relying on Kensington local centre
to meet their needs. While this situation has improved in the last 10 years, with more retail mix evolving
in Kensington, Joanna still think that “Kensington has not operated as a traditional local centre”, and
7
See Part 3 page 20

38. 37
she concludes that getting the right retail and business mix is always going to be a challenge for
Kensington from “an economic point of view”.
The council contribution in responding to those challenges is through conducting major planning studies
on Kensington, covering different aspects such as the context, urban design, population, demographics,
and economic profile of the businesses in the town centre, land values and future trends and drivers.
Such studies takes about two years and once finished they are considered as a long 10-20 years plan.
Those studies recommend changes in zoning, controls and measures for economic revitalisation. With
some key aspects identified, such as a supermarket for the area, Joanna still referred to the difficulties
of redevelopment in Kensington. The difficulties relate to the small land holdings and existing strata
title on the commercial strip in Kensington.
5.2 Discussion of Survey’s Results
After going through characteristics, issues and future challenges of Kensington, the results of the survey
were quickly reviewed with Joanna. Amongst the major aspects and issues expressed in the survey and
highlighted in the interview:
● Residents’ pride and attachment to their area in terms of central location and proximity to city,
beaches, parks and other facilities
● A majority of opposition and strong opposition to the RUAP proposal which involved adding
higher densities to the area
● Need for a good retail mix comprising decent supermarket, grocery shops and cafe’s
● Concerns over potential social impacts resulted from increased magnitude of already existing
parking problem, especially when increasing residential densities in the area. Joanna confirmed
that this is already a “sensitive” issue. She also indicated to the fact that Kensington is a park
and ride suburb, many people drive from farther parts of Randwick and park in Kensington in
order to catch the bus to the city from Kensington
5.3 Light Rail and Potential Densities along the Corridor
In terms of light rail contribution to the increase of the residential densities along the Anzac Parade
corridor, our interviewee clearly refers to the light rail business case study, regarding patronage levels
required for operations of the potential light rail. The latter states that the demand for light rail ridership
already exists and does not necessarily rely on increasing population densities along the corridor.
Furthermore she argues that the main objective of the LR is to reduce the number of buses operating in
the city.

39. 38
5.4 Council Role in the RUAP Process
The council role or involvement in the RUAP was brought up. Joanna describes the council as being
involved as a “stakeholder” in the process of the Urban Activation Precinct. In the meantime the council
did provide the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with some background information, data,
survey results and earlier planning studies about the study area. This is to provide the DoPI with
evidence based data that would assist them in undertaking well informed and reasonable decisions. The
involvement included setting up “Steering and working Groups” for the purpose of informing senior
level staff (counsellors) and other council staff about the progress of the UAP process. Also, the process
included conducting community workshops with members of precinct committees in Randwick.
According to Joanna, each workshop involved about 40 people from Randwick precincts. Outcomes
from those workshops, and also other matters were periodically briefed to and discussed with
councillors and council staff through the steering and working groups. Again, Joanna affirms that the
role of council in those periodic meetings only involved discussion of issues, providing advice and
background information and data, with no role in decision making. The DoPI also had provided
information and updates to the public via their website and letter drops in the study area, informing the
residents about the progress of the project.
5.5 The RUAP Introduction and Community Reaction
The interviewee states that he RUAP never came out to the public as a formal proposal, and it has been
on hold since September last year. A public meeting was organised by a state Labour MP at Juniors
club in Kingsford, the Department of Planning was invited to that meeting for briefing the community
on the RUAP proposal. The proposal raised a lot of concerns amongst community members. Those
concerns were mainly directed towards to South Randwick UAP which starts from south Kingsford and
extends all the way down to La Perouse. Joanna believes that dissatisfaction among the community
members was due to the “massive” study area of the proposal, which could not be digested by the
community attending the meeting. Also the fact that the two UAPs; the one around the light rail and the
south Randwick UAP was introduced together, causing more confusion in the meeting. Joanna says that
the UAP proposal for South Randwick took people by surprise. This was for a number of reasons,
amongst which, it was lacking any relation to a bigger strategic framework, such as the metropolitan
strategy, also lack of planning studies and plans for supporting infrastructure investment. Furthermore,
the community was also concerned about the proposal for the UAP around Kensington and North
Kingsford. As explained by Joanna, putting those two proposals together was not really a good idea as
the combined study area of both proposals encompassed about 40% of Randwick LGA.
Compared to the traditional process of making and amending planning policies by Randwick city
Council, Joanna points to the fact that the UAP program was meant to be done in a period of 6 months,

40. 39
resulting in a major change zoning of a massive study area. This relatively short time frame was also a
concern for community.
Regarding the position of the council, and according to Joanna Hole, the council did resolve not to
support the urban activation precinct program to the extent that it is different from the current local
plans and controls. Amongst other reasons are local community concerns and the way the process of
the program was managed.
The interviewees also refer to the fact that the department of planning uses a standard procedure that
might not function in some proposed UAP locations around Sydney. This is due to a number of factors,
such as the demographic, land holding in the area weather private or public, maturity and level of
involvement of local communities and lot sizes.
5.6 Interview Questions
Why was the community concerned about the RUAP?
Community concerns were summarised as follows:
● Lack of relation to broader strategic framework; state and subregional strategies, especially
for the South Randwick UAP
● Inadequate project management procedures by DoPI, in terms of their objectives and how are
they going to achieve those objectives
● Lack of reasoning and rationale regarding the South RUAP; why the area was chosen? and
how to manage services and infrastructure
● The significantly massive study area, for both RUAP and South Randwick UAP
● The short time of the process in comparison to the time usually required to draft and
implement local plans and controls by Randwick council
● All those reasons resulted in the community considering the proposal as an “Ambit claim”
● Using a standard or generic procedure that might not work in certain areas with unique
characteristics
Who opposes the higher density or RUAP Program?
The interviewee finds it hard to answer this question as the RUAP never been subject to a public
consultation process, rather just workshops involving Precinct Committee members. She thinks activists
in the community are usually vocal regarding the development of higher densities in Kensington. Also,
most people that participate are people who are both interested and have time. Whilst, there may be a
number of people who are interested but do not have time to participate. This and other factors make it
very difficult to draw a whole picture of community’s opinion, especially when there is no public
consultation involved.

41. 40
Whether the consultation process was proper and what really went
wrong. Would the opposition to the program change if it was
introduced in a different way?
Joanna thinks the early stages of information gathering involved some good procedures in terms of
involving the community and other stakeholders (including the council). Procedures included
community newsletter, working groups with council and community workshops. Joanna points again
to the optimistic attitude of DoPI in having the RUAP finalised in a relatively short timeframe; the
program was announced in early 2013 and was meant to be finalised and put on exhibition by June or
July 2013, which again, not a reasonable timeframe for such a proposal with a significant impact on
land use zoning in the area. Joanna still believe that the community workshops were “well intentioned”,
but they really needed to consult more widely after that, which did not happen because of the restrictions
of project tight timeframe. Also she indicates to some factors that could have changed the community
attitude towards the development such as; clear relationship to the broader strategic framework,
reasonable size of study area and clarity of objectives and rationale.
If the concerns of community are valid, how could we achieve
density sensitively? For instance where? And how to respond to
other concerns?
“A lot of people are resistant to change”, explains Joanna. She also believes that there must be a need
and drivers for higher density which should be explained, and that did not really happen in RUAP. An
issue highlighted here by Joanna is housing and employment targets set by Draft Sydney Metropolitan
Strategy, which is not yet adopted. Once adopted, it will be followed by subregional strategies with a
breakdown of housing and employment targets for each area or suburb. Randwick council has already
adopted housing and employment targets from the 2007 subregional plan in their planning controls. The
RUAP program should follow the implementation of 2013 metropolitan and subregional strategies.
Specifying the intensity and location of new densities rely to a great extent on housing targets specific
to certain areas and suburbs in subregional plans.
How to deal with current and future car parking issues and how to
make Kensington more attractive for businesses needed by the
community?
Joanna states the need for a combination of viable alternatives, which include incentives and
disincentives. Disincentives can include on-street parking demand management, whilst incentives
includes reliable and efficient public transport and investing in active transport modes; such improving
possibilities of cycling to the city, improving connections of cycle ways to light rail stations and

42. 41
providing stations with adequate cycle parking. There is also a general belief that the “park and ride”
problem in Kensington will shift to Kingsford once the light rail start its operation.
In the case of Kensington, Joanna focuses on understanding of future role and future vision of
Kensington, based on economic factors. As the council realises the need for a supermarket in
Kensington, the challenge is in its location characteristics. As earlier indicated, Kensington is close to
facilities in Green Square and East gardens, to which residents used to drive and get their needs. As a
strategic planner who knows the area well, Joanna still consider the factors of location and lack of
natural catchment as limitations to establish a major business centre for Kensington. However, she
consider the light rail as an opportunity for bringing smaller footprint (metro style) shopping activities
to the area in order to meet casual everyday needs for the residents. Joanna continues arguing that major
local centres can also bring externalities to the area as traffic congestion, more parking issues and access
to trucks for delivery.
How can urban design help in delivering higher densities and
services needed by the community?
Urban design is critical and fundamental in terms of the “quality of density” that we are trying to
achieve.
How to deal with speculation by developers?
The interviewee believes that developers’ speculation issues in Kensington are not present as it does
not have large development sites as, for example, in Green Square. Compactness and small individual
sites in Kensington have limited possibilities of speculation.
In that sense Joanna indicates the importance of the development process. She compares between the
built form and design outcome of Green Square by Meriton; and Victoria Park by Landcom. The
interviewee refers to the development outcomes of the latter as more favourable. This is because the
development sites were individually released on staged basis and different developers and architects
were engaged, resulting in a more diverse built form within the same master plan. Staging is good in
the sense of responding to changes in market demands and trends. This relates to a great extent to the
culture and code of ethics of different developers.
What lessons does the experience with opposition to proposal for
density in Randwick provide for future efforts at making our cities
more compact and higher densities?
When introducing proposals to the community, the most important factor to consider is timing as well
as understanding the community’s capacity to fully comprehend the information. The size of the study
area should be manageable, even if we have a large precinct, we can divide them into smaller precincts
and look at them as staged process in order to allow people to understand and digest the information.

43. 42
Joanna indicates again the importance of the relation to a strong strategic framework. Finally, we need
to know what our drivers are for higher density and how relevant they are to the area or precinct.
5.7 Feedbacks from Kensington Precinct Committee members
Two feedbacks from KPC members were obtained via e-mail, responding to general enquiries about
their experiences from RUAP community workshops held by the DoPI last year.
The two feedbacks were consistent in expressing that the problem of the proposal was that it was not
being supported by targets from any recent subregional plan. The KPC members also re-addressed the
issue of timing, as indicated by our interviewee, describing it as inappropriate.
Both members were also frustrated and disappointed from the non-transparent procedures followed by
the workshop convenor and the DoPI staff. This could one of the reasons why both members focused
on the term of “corruption” in their email feedbacks.
5.8 Summary of the interview and feedbacks from KPC members
Both discussion of survey findings and outcomes of interview questions reveal a number of factors that
had influence on community’s reaction to the promotion of urban consolidation and higher density in
established low and medium density residential suburbs. Outcomes of the interview indicate to the fact
that laying out a mass transit infrastructure is not an adequate reason to dump higher densities on the
mobility corridor, especially when considering a number of valid significant impacts on the low density
residential fabric next to the corridor, such as in the case of Kensington. Variables to be considered are
the history of the suburb, its location characteristics, built form , density characters, community’s
capacity for change, size of land holdings and urban structure and the area’s possible future or future
vision based on economic and social factors. This implies the need to fit compact city model in respect
to those variables.
Despite setting up working groups with council practitioners and community workshops with precinct
committees, the UAP program for Randwick failed to achieve its goals and was suspended for a number
of reasons:
The time frame from conducting the studies to placing the proposal for public consultation was
relatively short (about 6-7 months). Particularly when comparing this time frame to the 2 years spent
by Randwick council conducting detailed planning studies to implement plans and controls to address
growth and socio-economic changes in the area.
The relation to the broader strategic framework was very weak and unclear. This was due to the lack of
numerical targets for housing, in a subregional plan that had not been introduced yet. The council has
already included the housing targets from the latest 2007 subregional strategy in their current local plans

44. 43
and controls. Those numerical targets can be important and helpful to explain the rationale behind
increasing densities to the local community.
The immensity of the proposal’s study area caused confusion among the community. The issue of
massiveness requires the need for staging proposals. Staging could improve the community’s attitude
towards such proposals, as it helps produce articulated and diverse built form.
The Department of Planning used a standard procedure in introducing and managing its higher density
proposal. It was evident that the standard template has failed as it ignored some of the characteristics
specific to Randwick and Kensington.

45. 44
6. Discussion and Conclusion
6.1 Concerns by community and their validity
In addressing the first stakeholder group in the research question, even when considering the small
sample of survey respondents, the results have shown a number of generic concerns that could have
helped in shaping the negative attitude towards the RUAP program (23 opponents out of 30
participants). Those concerns were largely consistent with findings from (Ruming 2013; Searle 2011)8
.
Similarities are in some social and environmental impacts foreseen by residents as a result of any
potential densification effort in their suburb. In the case of Kensington, on-street parking issues were of
great significance, due to a number of reasons mentioned by residents, and confirmed by the council
planner. They were also identified within the potential social impacts of the development, suggesting
that the new higher densities will increase the magnitude of this impact. Moreover, another dimension
of concerns expressed by residents was in the form of reservations towards the apartment living.9
With
more qualitative input from some respondents answering this question, those concerns of social nature
can be considered in relation to Randolph (2006), suggesting that the strata title apartment market have
still not yet considered the inclusion of certain groups such as families with children. The apartment
market is also not attractive for elderly residents.10
In terms of aspirations of local residents, having an evolved commercial strip or a town centre in
Kensington was a significant aspiration expressed by many people in the sample, stating the need for
supermarkets and other services within a walking distance, rather than driving to other major centres in
Randwick. While commercial facilities demanded by residents such as superstores and groceries, rely
to a great extent on higher dwelling density (Burton 2001, p.1980), this can considered to be an
opportunity of a possible trade-off between local aspirations and strategic planning objectives.
While discussing the validity of survey results in an interview with the strategic planner at Randwick
City Council, the interviewee demonstrated some caution regarding the potential development capacity
of the commercial strip in Kensington11
, stating a number of limitations that should be considered in
that sense, including the existing fine grain subdivision, lack of natural catchment and competition with
surrounding centres. The interviewee also considered other alternatives, such as smaller footprint stores
that could fit more suitably with the existing context.
8
See chapter 2, page 10
9
See chapter 4, page 33
10
See chapter 4, page 35
11
See chapter 5 , page 36

46. 45
Regarding the on-street parking issues, the interviewee referred to possible future improvements such
as improving the cycle-ways connections to and from potential LR stations on Anzac Parade. Whereas,
such provisions are originally meant to support the potential LR in Randwick, they may, in the same
time help to mitigate the existing parking issues, by encouraging active transportation trips from other
suburbs in Randwick to Kensington. Responses to planned LR infrastructure like this one, if successful,
may improve the acceptability of the TOD proposals by community when realising improved quality
of their daily life. Some of the claimed benefits, which could make TOD more popular, include the
reduction of car dependency and revitalization of struggling shopping strips, especially those competing
with nearby car based shopping centres (Rice 2001, p.173). Therefore, addressing the issues of parking
and the struggling commercial strip could be critical in changing the attitude towards a potential higher
density proposal and make it more acceptable. Hence, utilising the transport part of the TOD In
improving the community’s life quality can be a factor in increasing acceptability of the subsequent
densification part. In the case of Kensington where the potential light rail was considered to be a
justification for the RUAP proposal, staging the delivery of transport/ densification stages of the
development can provide an opportunity for the community to realise any possible benefits that may
help them to better absorb any potential densities to follow. This is arguable in the case of Kensington
where the demand for the LR patronage is already existing (TNSW 2013, p.8), which could justify a
delay in the RUAP tills some negative factors, possibly shaping the rejection towards higher densities,
such as on-street parking, are waived.
6.2 The view from local government perspective
In addition to the discussion of community survey results, the interview part of the methodology has
mainly addressed the viewpoints from the perspective of the second stakeholder group in the research
key question, which is the local government. In this interview there were a number of interesting
findings regarding the RUAP delivery procedure including relationship to strategic framework, timing
and timeframe of the RUAP proposal.
In terms of the relationship to broader strategic framework, the RUAP involved the increase of densities
around potential LR stations without any targets for housing and jobs. This has led to a significant
backlash in the promoting of the RUAP, especially for local community groups, usually participating
in consultation processes of local plans, and using those targets in their debate for or against additional
densities.12
The issue of targets also shed the light on the aspect of timing. Within this strategic context
that considers targets as a mean of promoting higher densities in established centres, there should be
adopted subregional plans with breakdown of housing and jobs numbers for each suburb or area. In that
sense, it is more logical that the DoPI would propose urban consolidation upon availability of targets
on the local level.
12
See chapter 2, page 10

47. 46
Timing was again a factor in generating debate against the RUAP. The precinct committee members
for Kensington were invited again to participate in the RUAP community workshops, just five months
after the latest LEP and DCP for Randwick council were gazetted. This was a source of frustration for
the KPC members, as they have just finished a lengthy consultation processes with Randwick Council
to integrate targets from latest 2007 subregional strategies in the new plans.
Regarding the timeframe of the delivery process, the department of planning aimed to deliver the
complete RUAP within a period of 6-7 months. According to the interviewee, this process has backfired,
especially when considering the magnitude of change that was suggested in the proposal. The
interviewee also compared this tight timeframe with two years spent by the local council to implement
their latest LEP and DCP, which involved changes of a significantly smaller magnitude.
Other issues indicated by our interviewee were the size of the proposal. This issue is relating to the
capacity of community in absorbing information attached to the proposal. In that sense, the interviewee
believe that breaking down the proposal’s study area into smaller one and staging the development
could help increase the acceptability of the proposal by the community. Staging in this context can be
associated with Neuman’s (2005) approach of the recalling the evolutional process of the old compact
city rather than its form, and in that sense he is referring to evolutionary building processes of the pre
20th
century’s compact city. 13
6.3 Community planning activist
Regarding the last stakeholder group in the research question, the information was collected from two
Kensington Precinct Committee members about their experiences from RUAP community workshops
held by the DoPI last year. There was a critique towards the consultation processes in those workshops.
Most significantly, both two members of the KPC focused on the issues such as missing targets and the
controversial timing of the proposal. Other issues included infrastructure provision and lack of
transparency. The latter was due to the DoPI staff’s intention not to show the proposal plans and images
outside the consultation room.
According to one of the KPC members, they were not given any choices or alternatives to choose out
from, rather only one option which did not address in detail a number of concerns expressed by
participants. Also, participation was only restricted to precinct committee members, rather than trying
to reach out to a bigger sample from Kensington and other suburbs with in the study area.
Finally, an important observation is some significant differences in feedback and priorities between
opponents and strong opponents who participated in the survey, and activist on the local suburb level
(KPC members). This implies the challenge of attracting people from the first group in future processes,
helping to obtain a more representative feedback addressing issues specific to a certain place.
13
See page 12

48. 47
6.4 Conclusion
In order to address the research key question, three different methods were used to collect information
from different stakeholders and identify factors influencing the community’s attitudes towards the
RUAP proposal near Kensington. The three methods included selecting a case study, conducting a
community survey, and interviewing practitioners as well as community members involved in local
planning matters. A number of factors were identified to possibly have influenced the community’s
acceptability of higher density development.
Consistent with findings and observations from literature reviewed in this research, quality of daily life
was a major concern for survey participants, who also reported a number of concerns, mostly related to
social impacts foreseen as a result of the potential increase in residential density. Moreover, the design
of the community survey intended to also embrace the aspirations and visions of local residents, helping
to identify visions and concerns specific to Kensington which can be carefully addressed in a well
evolved and transparent participation process.
Regarding density proposals within a TOD mechanism, such as the RUAP, it is arguable that some of
the impacts identified by community, such as car dependency and on-street parking, could be mitigated
by allowing a time gap between the operation of the light rail and the subsequent densification, if
economically viable. Improving quality, through benefits obtained by the transport component of the
TOD may help to influence acceptability and give justification for the intensification phase of the TOD.
While trying to understand some of the circumstances around the delivery of the RUAP in Randwick
and Kensington, issues including relationship to broader strategic framework, timing and timeframe of
the RUAP proposal were identified as factors that possibly shaped the strong opposition against the
proposal. Community members engaged in local planning issues were more concerned with the timing
and timeframe issues of the RUAP. Members of the KPC have confirmed the significance of these
issues while describing their experiences as participants in the RUAP community workshops.
Understanding the influence of those issues states the importance of considering them by the DoPI in
any similar future densification proposals.
The size and staging of the development were also described as possible factors. Based on personal
experiences with the RUAP and other similar intensification programs, the interviewee suggested that
breaking down the large study areas of developments into smaller ones and staging the development
could help the people to absorb the information and size of the development. These opinions by the
interviewee can be associated with suggestions by Neuman (2005) to recall the evolutionary processes
of the old compact city, rather than just its form.

49. 48
Finally, the future challenge for programs such as the RUAP would be the engagement of a wider
sample of the community, rather than only members in the local community association or precinct
committee. Better representation for the community would yield a more extensive feedback addressing
the local and place specific concerns, needs and aspirations in future densification proposals.

50. 49
7. References
Bauer, M. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook. London:
SAGE.
Burton, Elizabeth. (2000). The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban
Studies, (11), 1969.
Burton, Elizabeth; Jenks, Mike; Williams, Katie 2003, The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban
Form? e-book, accessed on 18 October 2014,
<http://unsw.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=181079>
Calvo, F. (2013). Light Rail Transit Experience in Madrid, Spain Effects on Population Settlement
and Land Use. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, (2353), 82-91.
Davison. (2011). An unlikely Urban symbiosis: Urban intensification and neighbourhood character in
Collingwood, Vancouver. Urban Policy and Research, (2), 105-124.
Chapman, S. (2004). ‘Social Surveys’, in Research Methods (3rd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.
Daily Telegraph (2013). Randwick UAP forum: Hand planning powers back to council, accessed on
28.10.204,
<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/randwick-uap-forum-hand-planning-powers-
back-to-council/story-fngr8h22-1226754439801?nk=fb5ba131187decc1651c7fcb9fb77702>
Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013, The State of Australian Cities
De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Dovey. (2009). Understanding neighbourhood character: The case of Camberwell. Australian
Planner, (3), 32-39.
East hope H. & Judd S. 2010, Living well in greater density, June 2010
Forsyth, A. (1997). Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development. Journal of
the American Planning Association,(1), 45-60. Accessed 27.10.2014
<https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/cf/research/cityfuturesprojects/shelter/Livi
ng_Well_in_Greater_Density.pdf>
Golub, A. (2012). Spatial and Temporal Capitalization Effects of Light Rail in Phoenix. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, (4), 415-429.

51. 50
Howley. (2009). Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater understanding of
residential behaviour. Land Use Policy, (3), 792-798
Hurst, Needham B. (2014). Public transit and urban redevelopment: The effect of light rail transit on
land use in Minneapolis, Minnesota.Regional Science & Urban Economics, 57.
Jungchan Lee, Kiyo Kurisu, Kyoungjin An and Keisuke Hanaki 2014. Development of the compact
city index and its application to Japanese cities Urban Stud published online 20 June 2014
Knaap J. Gerrit (2001). Do Plans Matter? : The Light Rail Plans on Land Values in Station Areas.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21:32
Lin. (2006). Does the compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in
Taiwan. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, (3), 365-380
Mees, P.(2012) “ Transport Planning”, in Thompson, S. (2012). Planning Australia : An ;overview of
urban and regional planning (2nd ed.). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mahjabeen, Zeenat. (2009). Rethinking Community Participation in Urban Planning: The Role of
Disadvantaged Groups in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies,
The, (1), 45-63
McBurney, D. (1994). Research methods (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub.
Neuman, M. (2005). The Fallacy of Compact City (Vol. 25, pp. 11-26). SAGE PUBLICATIONS.
NSW DoPI (2012). NSW Urban Activation Precinct Guideline, accessed on 27.10.2014,
<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/HousingDelivery/UrbanActivation/UAPGuideline.pdf>
NSW DoPI (2005) City of Cities: A plan for Sydney’s Future
NSW DoPI (2010) Metropolitan plan for Sydney 2036
NSW DoPI (2013). Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031
Profile id (2014), accessed on 29.10.204,
<http://profile.id.com.au/randwick/about/?WebID=130>
Publishing, O. (2012). Compact City Policies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Randolph, B. (2006). Delivering the Compact City in Australia: Current Trends and Future
Implications. Urban Policy and Research, (4), 473-490.

52. 51
Randwick City Council (2013), Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, Part
D,Kensington Town Centre, accessed on 29.10.2014,
<http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/13741/Kensington-Centre.pdf>
Raouf (2009), ‘The Sustainability of High Density’, in Ng, E. Designing High-Density Cities For
Social and Environmental Sustainability. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis
Rérat, P. (2012). Housing, the Compact City and Sustainable Development: Some Insights From
Recent Urban Trends in Switzerland. International Journal of Housing Policy, (2), 115-136
Rice, J. (2001). “There goes the neighbourhood? Orsaving the world? Community views about Transit
Oriented Development”, In Curtis, C. Transit oriented development: Making it happen (p. 291). United
Kingdom: Ashgate
Ruming, K. (2012). Multiple Suburban Publics: Rethinking Community Opposition to Consolidation
in Sydney. Geographical Research, (4), 421-435.
Ruming, K. (2014). Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposition in Sydney,
Australia: Unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions. Land Use Policy.
Searle, G. (2011). Planning Context and Urban Intensification Outcomes: Sydney versus
Toronto. URBAN STUDIES, (7), 1419-1438.
SMH 2009, Ku-Ring-Gai plan will swamp housing targets, say residents, accessed 26.10.2014
<http://www.smh.com.au/national/kuringgai-plan-will-swamp-housing-target-say-residents-
20090806-ebjf.html>
TNSW (2013) a, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume
1: Executive Summary
TNSW (2013) b, CBD and South East Light Rail: business case summary, accessed on 28.10.2014,
<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/media/131114-CSELR-Business-Case-
Summary-November-2013-FINAL-A4.pdf>
TNSW (2013) c, Sydney City Center Access Strategy, accessed on 28.10.2014,
<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/publications/sydney-city-centre-access-
strategy-final-web.pdf>
TNSW (2013) d, Sydney Light Rail Future, accessed on 28.10.2014,
<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/projects/Sydneys_Light_Rail_Future_Decem
ber_2012.pdf>

53. 52
TNSW (2014) Sydney light rail, accessed on 29.10.2014,
<http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/cbd-and-south-east-light-rail>
Towers, G. (2005). At home in the city: An introduction to urban housing design. Oxford:
Architectural Press.
Urbis (2013), Australia’s Embrace of Medium and High Density Housing, accessed on 29.10.2014
<http://www.urbis.com.au/think-tank/general/australias-embrace-of-medium-and-high-density-
housing>
Woodcock, I. (2010). Modelling the compact city: Capacities and visions for Melbourne. Australian
Planner, (2), 94-104.
Woodcock, I. (2011). Speculation and Resistance: Constraints on Compact City Policy
Implementation in Melbourne. URBAN POLICY AND RESEARCH, (4), 343-362.

54. 53
8. Appendices
Appendix 1: Project information statement-research survey

55. 54
Appendix 2: Survey form

56. 55

57. 56
Appendix 3: project information statement - interview

58. 57
Appendix 4: Interview questions

59. 58
Appendix 5: Project consent form

60. 59
Appendix 6: Commonly used abbreviations
CSEL City and south east Light Rail
DoPI Department of Planning and Infrastructure
KPC Kensington Precinct Committee
LRT Light Rail Transit
RUAP Randwick Urban Activation Precinct
TOD Transit Oriented Development
UAP Urban Activation Precinct