Council has been directed through the Metro Strategy to provide 10,300 new dwellings by 2031. Which centres within Warringah are best able to accommodate additional dwelling opportunities?

Could we fit the 10300 dwellings in one iconic tower? Long Reef headland may be able to support a tower similar to the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

Can I get some of the facts straight:-

• 10,300 new dwellings or homes by 2031 mean 500 to 600 new homes every year. I understand the current redevelopment in Dee Why is for about this number. So we are considering a Dee Why (plus) size development every year for the next 21 years?

• 10,300 new dwellings or homes will mean 30,000 to 40,000 more people in area.

• There will be no additional (new) state or federally funded infrastructure to support this expansion.

• The state promised expansions to the Spit Bridge (for what little it is was worth) and the new hospital have been abandoned (with no planned upgrades for Mona Vale or Manly). All reserved transport corridors have been sold off.

So, the strategy is to just insert more people into the same space with no new nothing?

The rich powerful and the aged boomers are letting everyone else down. Anyone under 40 is experiencing worse living conditions than their parents.

Theyre squeezing us like rats in cage, ugly cheap quality units. Theres couples with 2 kids moving into totally inappropriate housing due to cost.

All you bastards in your nice safe houses in the richer suburbs...go ahead and make 'informed decisions' about our lives. YOU don't have to live in it yourselves, after all!

It's not clear that the 10,300 new dwellings arise from a statutory obligation. Will Warringah's population increase so as to require that many new dwellings? Well, not if they're not built, it won't. People won't be resident in Warringah, and thus part of its population, if there's nowhere here for them to live.

The same argument applies to Sydney as a whole, and Australia would have a decreasing population were it not for immigration, so the increasing pressures on housing arise not from an intrinsic growth, but out of policy decisions being made by the Federal government.

So my view is that there's no point in Warringah, increasing the supply of housing. It will just encourage people to come here, putting pressure on infrastructure.

Website www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov/au/ provides a different set of figures and should be consulted by all table bangers. It suggests Warringah will have to house an additional 42,000 people by 2036 so perhaps we should start again and this time include infrastructure as well as houses because transport will become a major restraint with such an increase.

I'm all for development in terms of enhancing our current environment but I don't see cramming over 10,000 dwellings on top of new retail and commercial premises in Dee Why as the answer. I suppose if you can get all the new residents to fill the 12,000+ new jobs people might be able to catch the lift to work? But what if you can't?

Re number of new dwellings needed: the population increase 2206 to 2036 will be 42,000. Of these, at least 9,000 will be over 60, many of whom will require retirement, hostel or nursing accommodation. Where do we put the large number of "homes" for these people? And that's without considering the "never-to-be-built" new hospital at Frenchs Forest!

Only areas along main roads/ transport corridors and commercial centres should have additional dwellings - this means Pittwater Rd and Warringah Rd - BUT there must be a direct committment to additional public transport as well. This could include more private buses/ mini buses, not just STA buses. Light rail or even heavy rail should be considered but will come at a huge cost.

Shop-top housing at smaller/ local shopping centres has been succussful and provides housing choices close to local services.

The area between Belrose Supa Centa and the residential part of Belrose is ideal for development. It has

• Over 100 buses that pass the area on any given weekday. These buses service Town Hall Station, Chatswood Station, Gordon Station, many schools and many other locations.

• It has great proximetry to public and private schools.

• It has great access to local shops

• It has existing public parks.

• Most of the region is connected to town water, electricity, telephone, ADSL and Foxtel.

• The urban section of Belrose has a minimum block size of 600m² (compared to the 50,000m^2 minimum block size for the non urban section of Belrose).

Developing areas with existing infrastructure makes good sense.

All areas of Warringah could have additional dwellings if quality modest sized homes are built on small blocks of land.

the obvious solution, if we need to accomandate this many new developments, is to develop Dee Why, Brookvale and Manly Vale heavily, as they are already high density. Couple this with increased density for areas around established transport/shopping nexuses such as Forestville Shops, Forestway Shops, Glenrose Shops and perhaps rezone some other areas to permit townhouse development. Council should attempt to limit overdevelopment of existing low density suburbs and certainly not release any remnant bushland for new subdivsions.

Has the state government identified the source of the water that all these extra people will use? Sydney's already outgrown its water supply, and even the newly opened desalinator isn't big enough to make up the shortfall.

The idea of squashing all of those houses/flats etc into the Northern Beaches is appalling - it is practically one road in, one road out - how do you expect everyone will be able to move!

Having lived somewhere overcrowed (London) for 15 years - people living on top of each other makes for a miserable existance!

If you have to put flats anywhere - keep them on the main road above businesses where they don't dominate the leafy suburban areas! Pittwater road could do with a makeover!

Blocks currently housing single dwellings should be able to turn one dwelling into two. This could be achieved by subdividing or creating semi-detached/terrace type housing. Once interested parties register and demonstrate reasonable development, approval could be allocated randomly...this would stop land prices increasing in areas earmarked to take on development, keep housing heights down and scatter the load through out the area so that all share the burden. An simple and basic idea which some brains may be able to improve on.

If there were an amnesty on granny flats would those count as new dwellings?

One minority issue that must be addressed is when people separate but have children and the court says they are not allowed to leave the local area because of shared rights how does the parent with no finances stay in this area when there are no places available? Surely they can't be forced into giving up all rights because of affordability!

Recently we were knocked back for a Sub Division as we were 18% under the min allotted area after access drive ways were taken into account. After access driveways are accounted for the current area is supposed to be 600 sqr mtrs min - we only had around 500 mtrs per block after access was accounted for. Council tolerates a 7% less than 600 sq mtrs but no more. The reality is the block could easily fit 2 large homes and have plenty of land area left over and these blocks would still be larger than just about all other blocks of land in Sydney. The neighbours did a subdivision in 2002 with less land than what we have - and it is not crowded at all. So why oh why don’t Warringah allow subdivisions of these large blocks, REDUCE the minimum block size so that families who grow out of them can create more blocks for more families and support the shortfall of dwellings.

I reckon we could easily find 5,150 owners who would be willing to subdivide their land/houses if there was a financial incentive. I know people who live on a large block of land and are asset rich and money poor.The huge expense of subdividing and then the affect the income would have on their pensions is prohibitive.

I know people who live in a huge houses which if not for the cost would be happy to turn them into two separate dwelling areas by 2030. It would also be a huge headache getting council approval, I would imagine. If the state government offered some sort of incentive to have multi dwelling in the one house/block, I'm sure you'd see a fairly evenly spread of extra dwellings being offered, without too much disruption to the appearance of the area. The infrastructure to cope with these people is however, a different question.

I don't see why we just don't go back to the State Government and tell them we are already over-occupied, and have no more room. I see no need for us to be pushed into high density living. The State Government can then pass the message on to Rudd. We don't need to roll over on this - the government works for us, not the other way around.

the goal of establishing 10k+ housing to accomodate about 20-30 thousand additional people in 20 yrs is an indicator of how stressed the planet earth has become. Extrapolate these figures and by 2100 what then ? It would be of more benefit to the global village to reduce birth rates and for GovOz to reduce immigration to a sustainable level that uses our current resources to a eco-friendly level. Australia and the world generally appears to be full !

Just went to the Talk of the Town Summit and apart from a couple "leading" questions the event was very well run and certainly provided the opportunity over a number of forums to express views. Of course everybody had a vested interest in not exposing their individual homes to detrimental development.

There seemed to be consensus at our table at least that the principal factor in providing increased density if it had to happen was transport and that any state government, labour or liberal would not provide increased infrastructure on the Northern Beaches. We therefore came to the conclusion that a more…

The site of the Brookvale Bus Depot is a huge site that could be developed to house many people. It has the benefits of: close to shops, jobs, transport, recreation facilities and schools. If the land is owned by the state government, they could lease the land at a subsidised cost, thus facilitating the ability for Warringah to provide affordable housing to those who wish to work in Warringah.

The housing could be set aside for people to rent who are working on the buses, at the mall, at hospitals, schools or any other state government services requiring staff in Warringah. This would provide those who wish to work in Warringah with an affordable option as well as reducing the need for people to travel long distances for work, school, shopping and recreation.

It is close to parks, beaches, sporting fields, cinemas, tennis, golf and bowling so it should be a nice place to live if planned and built properley. I believe we should consolidate, keep as much green and nature as possible by identifying and using existing government sites in a more efficient and effective way.

I spent my early years in Mosman.Look what happened to the most beautiful suburb in Australia. "They" demolished magnificent homes and replaced them with high rise boxes called units,and the new people who came did not seem to assimilate with the existing residents as their stay would be temporary.The community feel was washed away with a tide of strangers. If you value your neighbourhood community,"Less Means More".Go check out Mosman,try and park your car without being booked.Units are temples of greed and a statement of failure of officialdom to address the future community and it's environment.