Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 22 May 2018 AT 7:00 pm

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

NOTE: For Full Details, See Council’s Website –

www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

NOTE:

That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:

GB.4 Nominations for SYDNEY NORTH PLANNING PANEL (SNPP) Alternate REPRESENTATIVES

Attachment A1: .................................................................. Applicant 1

Attachment A2: .................................................................. Applicant 2

Attachment A3: .................................................................. Applicant 3

Attachment A4: .................................................................. Applicant 4

Attachment A5: .................................................................. Applicant 5

Attachment A6: .................................................................. Applicant 6

Attachment A7: .................................................................. Applicant 7

Attachment A8: ............................................................... Attachment 8

The above attachments are considered confidential because of personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors) in accordance with Section 10A(2)(a).

GB.9 Deed of Lease to Krypton Early Learning Pty Ltd over portion of road reserve in Eleham Road, Lindfield

Attachment A3: ...................................................... Heads of Agreement

Attachment A4: ................................................. Market Valuation Report

The above attachments are considered confidential because they would confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(ii).

Address the Council

NOTE:

Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be recorded on the official audio recording of this meeting.

Documents Circulated to Councillors

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 12

File: S02131

Meeting held 8 May 2018

Minutes numbered 100 to 99

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

PT.1 Petition to Keep Lindfield Library Open 46

File: S10468

“This petition requests the Council keeps the Lindfield Library open and does not sell the land. (Ninety three [93] signatures).”

GENERAL BUSINESS

i. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to have a site inspection.

ii. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to adopt in accordance with the officer’s recommendation allowing for minor changes without debate.

GB.1 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 3rd Quarter 2017 to 2018 47

File: S05273

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2018.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 31 March 2018 be received and noted.

GB.2 Investment Report as at 30 April 2018 54

File: S05273

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for April 2018.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for April 2018 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

GB.3 2017 - 2018 Budget Review - 3rd Quarter ended March 2018 61

File: S09112/7

To inform of the results of the third quarter budget review of 2017/18 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2018.

Recommendation:

That the March 2018 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

GB.4 Nominations for SYDNEY NORTH PLANNING PANEL (SNPP) Alternate REPRESENTATIVES 73

File: S11352

To consider the expressions of interest received and to provide Council with nominations for alternate representatives on the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP).

Recommendation:

That Council:

• Consider the shortlisted nominations received and appoints two alternate Council representatives to the SNPP for a term of up to 3 years.

• Determine the appropriate remuneration of the alternate Council representatives on the SNPP.

• Advise the Minister for Planning of Council’s decision

GB.5 Fitzsimons Lane Voluntary Planning Agreement - 900 Pacific Highway Gordon 78

File: S10147

To report back following the re-exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

Recommendation:

That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Evergordon Pty Ltd to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Fitzsimons Lane, Gordon.

GB.6 Consideration of submissions - planning proposal to amend Schedule 5 of KLEP (2015) 85

File: S11340

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of KLEP (2015) to remove the heritage listing on 4 properties.

Recommendation:

That Council proceeds with an amended Planning Proposal to remove the local heritage listing on three properties and retain the listing on one property, and resolve to make the Plan under s. 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

GB.7 St Lucy's School, Wahroonga - Request for Exemption from Development Contributions 95

File: PRE0121/17

To consider a request for exemption from s94A development contributions on the unique merits of the case and in accordance with the limited provisions for exemptions specified in the Contributions Plans.

Recommendation:

That the application by St Lucy’s for exemption from S94A contributions be supported on the basis of their unique extenuating circumstances with specific reference to the extended community benefit from their mission to provide education for children who are unable to attend mainstream schools and their charitable status.

GB.8 Planning Proposal to modify zoning, height and FSR to land at 95-97 Stanhope Road Killara - Lourdes Retirement Village 105

File: S11689

For Council to consider a Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara on land currently operating as Lourdes Retirement Village.

Recommendation:

That Council not support the request for the Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara (Lourdes Retirement Village) and that it not be submitted for a Gateway Determination.

GB.9 Deed of Lease to Krypton Early Learning Pty Ltd over portion of road reserve in Eleham Road, Lindfield 137

File: S04034

For Council to grant a further lease to Krypton Early Learning Pty Ltd over a portion of unformed road reserve in Eleham Road, Lindfield for a playground, landscaping and restricted parking.

Recommendation:

That Council approves a Deed of Lease over a portion of road reserve in Eleham Road, Lindfield for five (5) years for a playground, landscaping and restricted parking and provides owner’s consent as proposed in this report.

GB.10 Post Exhibition Report: Heritage listing of former "Lanosa" stables at 11 Kywong Avenue, Pymble 143

File: S10245

To report to Council details of submissions received as part of the public exhibition of the proposal to heritage list the former “Lanosa” stables and forecourt located at 11 Kywong Avenue, Pymble.

Recommendation:

That Council resolves to make the plan and requests that the Department of Planning & Environment proceed with the finalisation and gazettal of the heritage listing of the former “Lanosa” stables and forecourt located at 11 Kywong Avenue, Pymble.

GB.11 Submission on Draft Code of Practice Authorising Flying-fox Camp Management Actions 2018 149

File: CY00416/6

For Council to endorse the contained submission on the Draft Code of Practice Authorising Flying-fox Camp Management Actions 2018.

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the contained submission on the Draft Code of Practice Authorising Flying-fox Camp Management Actions 2018.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Monthly Capital and Operational Projects Report 155

File: FY00382/10

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 14 May 2018

Just as there is a monthly Investment Report tabled in council meetings, I would like to see a monthly Capital and Operational Projects Report that is tabled in council meetings.

The intent of this report is to provide both councillors and the public with a monthly update of what progress has been made regarding various projects.

Such a report could demonstrate to our residents that council is actively moving ahead with its Delivery Program and Operational Plan, and it may go some way towards resolving perceptions of lack of communication on projects.

An example of what I expect to see in such a report can be found in the table below. Please note that in this example, I have only used a subset of all known projects for demonstration purposes only.

It must also be noted that while some of this information is covered in other reports such as the recent 2017-2018 Budget Review, the frequency is not monthly and hence these other reports are not a reliable and recurring method for councillor and public update.

Project	Monthly Progress (May-18)	Year to Date Progress (FY18)
Lindfield Village Green	· The design for MOD0030/18 was updated to include a second elevator. · Ongoing discussions with TfNSW regarding the funding of commuter spaces. · Awaiting decision from SNPP, expected in July 2018.	· Nov-17 – Council resolution to include a third basement level of parking, which is a major change to the design. · Feb-18 – MOD0030/18 was submitted to SNPP reflecting the updated design. · May-18 – Council resolution to include a second elevator, which is a minor change to the design.
Lindfield Village Hub	· An unsolicited offer was received by Woolworths and Aldi for the development of this site. · Preparations are underway for the first meeting of the LVH Reference Committee, scheduled for June 2018.	· Dec-17 – Council staff briefed residents on progress on the project. · Apr-18 – The Lindfield Village Hub Reference Committee was established to improve communication and engagement on the project. · Apr-18 – Council resolution to establish Major Projects Governance, Resourcing and Financing that will be critical to delivery of this project. · May-18 – An unsolicited offer was received by Woolworths and Aldi for the development of this site.
Lindfield Village Living	· Council resolved to continue with the DA process. · Work on the detailed design is XX% of the way through. We expect a design that is ready for DA in <insert quarter> <insert year>.	· Aug-17 – Council resolution to put the site out to tend for architectural services (landowner’s consent for the lodgement of a DA was granted in the previous financial year). · Nov-17 – Council resolution to appoint a tenderer for architectural services.
Gordon Recreation Ground	· Upgrade of the district park is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park	· Upgrades to group picnic area, electric BBQ and shelter are expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Robert Pymble Park	· Master planning Process is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Roseville Park	· Discussions to commence with stakeholders in <insert month> <insert year> re: potential tennis pavilion. · Implementation of the landscaping masterplan is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Putarri Reserve	· Upgrade of the existing park to urban park standard is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Duff Street Park	· Construction of the newly acquired park is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
Irish Town Grove	· Landscape works associated with playground upgrade is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
St Ives Village Green	· Upgrade to the youth precinct is expected to commence in <insert quarter> <insert year>.
East Lindfield Community Hall	· Council resolved to start public consultation regarding whether to sympathetically restore and expand the hall, or to knockdown and rebuild. The project was added to council’s Long Term Financial Plan.	· May-18 – Council resolved to start public consultation regarding whether to sympathetically restore and expand the hall, or to knockdown and rebuild. The project was added to council’s Long Term Financial Plan.
St Ives Indoor Sports	· Council resolved to add this project to the Long Term Financial Plan. · Ongoing work with the Department of Education and Basketball NSW to create an appropriately costed design.	· Dec-17 – Council resolved to undertake further studies into feasibility, capital and operational costings of this project. · May-18 – Council resolved to add this project to the Long Term Financial Plan.
Marian Street Theatre	· Council resolved to add this project to the Long Term Financial Plan.	· May-18 – Council resolved to add this project to the Long Term Financial Plan.
Roseville Chase Bowling Club	· Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal for R3 Medium Density, which will then be submitted for Gateway Determination. If approved, this will be followed by a public exhibition and consultation process.	· May-18 – Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal for R3 Medium Density.
Gordon Bowling Club	· Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal for R3 Medium Density along with reclassification to operational land. This will then be submitted for Gateway Determination. If approved, this will be followed by a public exhibition and consultation process.	· May-18 – Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal for R3 Medium Density along with reclassification to operational land.
Footpaths	· This month constructed a new footpath at ______. · This month we fixed up X number of footpath defects.	· This year we have constructed new footpaths at ____, ____, and ____. · This year we have fixed up X number of footpath defects.
Roads	· This month we resurfaced the ___, ___, and ____ roads. · This month we fixed up X number of potholes.	· This year we have resurfaced X number of roads with the major ones being ___, ____ and ____. · This year we have fixed up X number of potholes.
Etc.

I move:

A. That a Capital and Operational Projects Report is to be tabled at an ordinary meeting of council each month. The reporting will commence in FY19 with a report for the period of July 2018.

B. That the report should include any progress made in the month as well as a progress summary for the financial year to date. Where there has been no progress in the month, it is acceptable to acknowledge that nothing has progressed. And where a project has yet to commence, it is acceptable to note the expected start date.

C. That council staff may use their discretion in deciding whether any additional columns of information should be presented.

D. That the reported projects should include, but are not limited to, those that are mentioned in Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. For brevity, council staff may choose to aggregate some projects or set a reasonable threshold for reporting purposes.

E. That the current and historical monthly reports should be easily found on the Ku-ring-gai Council website (i.e. not just through searching council agenda items). One possibility is to create a page for the monthly Capital and Operational Projects Reports under “Current works and upgrades”.

NM.2 NorthConnex Stacks 160

File: S10082

Notice of Motion from Councillor Kelly dated 14 May 2018

The NorthConnex tunnel has had a controversial life so far. One of the issues that residents are concerned about is whether concentrated toxic exhaust pollutants from thousands of trucks and cars will be dispersed on residences and some 14 school sites every day. Diesel emissions are proven to be carcinogenic, similar to asbestos. They have an alarming effect on children by inhibiting the development of children’s lungs. When it comes to breathing diesel emissions, there is NO safe level of exposure – especially for children.

There are two stacks, one at each end of the 9 km tunnel. The Wahroonga stack is located on Woonona Avenue, between Burns Rd and Bareena Avenue. Abbotsleigh Junior School is located within 500m.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the exhaust stacks are filtered or not. One story is that they are not, while yet another explanation is that the stacks contain technology that will blast the contents high into the atmosphere where they will disperse and not cause harm to the residents surrounding the stack. This might be possible, but it may be that the stack height is a factor in this option. I don’t have any information on the impact that stack height has on pollutant dispersion.

NM.3 Gordon Bowling Club Site 161

File: S11955

Notice of Motion from Councillor Kelly dated 14 May 2018

Like other bowling clubs in Sydney, the Gordon Bowling Club has closed and the site is being considered to be rezoned from community land to operational land in preparation for its next stage of usage.

Given the lack of parks in the west Gordon area and the unit development in that area, one option that would have merit is for the site to be repurposed into a mixed activity location containing things like:

a. Coffee shop.

b. Citrus orchard, perhaps to be cultivated by students of Ravenswood School.

c. Community garden, the produce of which might be used in the coffee shop.

d. Beehives.

e. Parkland.

Attached is an artist’s impression of what the site might look like.

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS

Questions Without Notice

Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson)

Councillor C Clarke (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward)

Councillors S Ngai (Roseville Ward)

Councillors D Citer & M Smith (St Ives Ward)

Councillors D Greenfield & C Spencer (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Acting Director Operations (Matthew Drago)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Manager Finance (Angela Apostol)

Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets (Deborah Silva)

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro)

Manager Strategic Projects (Ian Dreghorn)

Acting Manager Corporate Communications (William Adames)

Project Manager – Major Projects (Nicole Gerschel)

Management Consultant (Craig Calder)

Landscape Planner (Lino Querin)

Manager Records and Governance (Amber Moloney)

Minutes Secretary (Christine Dunand)

The Meeting commenced at 7:04 pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

Apologies

File: S02194

Councillor Jeff Pettett tendered an apology for non-attendance (leave) and requested leave of absence.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ngai)

That the apology from Councillor Pettett be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The General Manager averted to a staff apology, Director Operations is on leave and Mr Drago would be acting on his behalf.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Mayor adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.

In relation to NM.1 Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to Meet Community Needs - Councillor David Citer declared a less than significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest as he was the manager of Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) from 2007 – 2014 when he occupied an office at the Lindfield Library. He has not held this position, or an office in the building, for four (4) years. He has no conflict of interest on voting on this item and will remain in the chamber during debate.

In relation to NM.1 Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to Meet Community Needs - Councillor Sam Ngai declared a less than significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest as he is one of Council’s two (2) representative on the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) board, with KYDS being a tenant at 265 Pacific Highway Lindfield. The role was bestowed on him by Council and he will remain in the chamber during debate.

In relation to NM.1 Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to Meet Community Needs - Councillor Callum Clarke declared a less than significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest as he is one of Council’s two (2) representative on the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) board, with KYDS being a tenant at 265 Pacific Highway Lindfield, and will remain in the chamber during debate.

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Council

File: S02131

Vide: BN.1

In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:

GB.14 RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library

Attachment A1: ............ Tender Assessment Report and Recommendations

Attachment A2: ............ Additional Financial Statement

Attachment A3: Independent Performance and Financial Assessment

These attachments are classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(iii) because it would reveal a trade secret

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Smith)

GB.14 RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library

Attachment A1: ............ Tender Assessment Report and Recommendations

Attachment A2: ............ Additional Financial Statement

Attachment A3: Independent Performance and Financial Assessment

These attachments are classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(iii) because it would reveal a trade secret.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Address the Council

The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the agenda:

Janet Harwood Good People

Sabina Grewal On behalf of Support Lindfield

Richard Vowell On behalf of Support Lindfield

Gerard Hosier Lindfield Walkway

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

The Mayor adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:

Councillors Information:

PT.1 Petition for Footpath Maintenance along Pentecost Avenue Pymble to Mona Vale

Confidential Memorandum from Team Leader Governance dated 26 April 2018 with a copy of the original petition.

Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre – Legal Proceedings Update Confidential Memo from Director Strategy & Environment dated 3 May 2018

Late Councillor Agenda Information:

GB.8 Consideration of submissions on planning proposal for several heritage conservation areas in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon

Memorandum from Manager Urban and Heritage Planning dated 8 May 2018 advising 2 errors in the report.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 10 April 2018

Minutes numbered 76 to 95

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

That Minutes numbered 76 to 95 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

minutes from the Mayor

Ku-ring-gai Council staff's major breakthrough on swimming pool safety

File: CY00133/10

Vide: MM.1

I wish to advise my Councillor colleagues and the Ku-ring-gai community of a successful investigation by our compliance staff concerning public safety and backyard swimming pools.

This has ultimately led to a voluntary recall by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) of over 90,000 swimming pool gate latches sold across Australia. The faulty gate latches are:

• SafeTech Top Pull Gate Latch (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe Top Pull Gate Latch (Key Lockable)

• SafeTech TriLatch (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe TriLatch (Key Lockable)

The latches are also available as part of the following kits:

• SafeTech Trade Packs (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe MegaPack (Key Lockable)

More information about the voluntary recall is available at www.accc.gov.au

The background to this investigation is lengthy and complex, but is testament to the tenacity and investigative skills of our compliance staff, who identified a major flaw in the latch system in these two types of backyard swimming pool gates. The latch fault exists on gates which have an optional key locking system and allows the gate to appear locked when it is actually open.

Once our staff had established without doubt that the two types of swimming pool gate posed a major risk to children’s safety, they alerted NSW Fair Trading. A detailed investigation was subsequently conducted and this has led to the voluntary recall.

Drowning in backyard swimming pools is a leading cause of preventable death in children under five years. Statistics by the NSW Child Death Review Team reveal that a significant number of drownings occur as a result of a young child accessing a pool via a faulty gate. The annual drowning report prepared by Royal Life Saving Society in 2017 reveals that an average of 15 young children die each year in backyard swimming pools.

Those who believe they may have any of these latches on their gate should contact the supplier to arrange for a refund on the latch they have purchased. They should also arrange to have the gate latch replaced as quickly as possible. Ku-ring-gai has 15,161 swimming pools on the NSW swimming pool register and there will be pool owners in our community who will need to replace these gate latches.

I wish to pay tribute to and congratulate the staff involved in this investigation, particularly our specialist compliance staff responsible for swimming pool safety, whose diligence and persistence has played a major role in averting an alarming public safety issue. This recall acts as a timely reminder for all pool owners to check their pool gates to ensure they self-close from any position. We recommend that gate checks be carried out regularly as part of ongoing pool maintenance. Residents can also arrange an inspection of their swimming pool by contacting the Council’s customer service team on 9424 0000.

Resolved:

That this Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

100

Petition for Footpath Maintenance along Pentecost Avenue Pymble to Mona Vale Road

File: 88/05929/01

Vide: PT.1

‘We, the undersigned petition the Council to inspect and repair the footpath from 39B Pentecost Avenue Pymble to Mona Vale Road to eliminate any risk of injury. (Twenty nine [29] signatures).’

I hereby request that all of the footpath be examined, paying particular attention to the stretch from 39B Pentecost Avenue Pymble, where the garden overgrowth is causing the footpath to be even narrower especially compared to further down e.g. in front of 55 Pentecost Avenue.

Other sections in this strip have been patched with bitumen and there are badly cracked driveways making it particularly difficult for residents in wheelchairs to access St Ives Village.

For the purposes of publication some text has been omitted from the wording of this petition, as it contains personal and health information as defined by the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Spencer)

That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Officer of Council for attention.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

101

Save the Marian Street Theatre

File: S10577/3

Vide: PT.2

Petition presented by Councillor David Citer.

“We ask that Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council:

1. Commit immediately to the preservation of the Marian Street Theatre

2. Authorise the voluntary “Save the Marian Street Theatre” committee to begin raising the funds to reopen the theatre as a sustainable cultural hub, guaranteeing that all funds raised go towards Marian Street Theatre.

(One thousand, six hundred and seventy one [1671] signatures)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Spencer)

That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Officer of Council for attention.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

102

Draft Community Strategic Plan 2038

File: S11275

Vide: GB.1

To place Council's draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku‑ring-gai 2038’ on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

A. That the report on the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be received and noted.

B. That pursuant to Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

C. That the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be forwarded to relevant NSW Government agencies as part of the public exhibition process.

D. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

103

Easy to do Business program

File: S11862

Vide: GB.4

To provide Councillors with background information about the Easy to do Business program, and to seek Councillor support to enter into an agreement with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business program.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

A. That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into a contract with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business initiative.

B. That Council delegate authority to the Mayor and General Manager to execute any necessary documents under the Common Seal of Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

104

Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy

File: S07306/2

Vide: GB.5

To provide Council with the draft Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy following review and update, and to seek Council approval to place the updated draft policy on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Greenfield)

A. That Council endorse the draft Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Facilities and approve the draft policy for public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993.

B. That a further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition process.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

105

Investment Report as at 31 March 2018

File: S05273

Vide: GB.6

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Greenfield)

A. That the summary of investments and performance for March 2018 be received and noted.

B. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

106

Keep Australia Beautiful NSW Annual Fundraising Dinner 2018

File: CY00043/10

Vide: GB.7

To advise Council of an invitation from Keep Australia Beautiful NSW to purchase tickets for their annual fundraising dinner, to be held at Strangers Dining Room, Parliament House on Wednesday 23 May 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

That Council purchase tickets to the Keep Australia Beautiful NSW annual fundraising dinner and interested Councillors contact the General Manager to arrange.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

107

Rezoning 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase (former East Roseville Bowling Club)

File: S09742

Vide: GB.9

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to rezone the former East Roseville Bowling Club at 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to permit R3 Medium Density Residential development.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared in accordance the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential and apply floor space ratio development standard of 0.8:1, height of buildings of 11.5m and minimum lot size of 1200sqm.

B. That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Gateway Determination.

D. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition process.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

108

Reclassification and Rezoning - 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon - former Gordon Bowling Club

File: S11955

Vide: GB.10

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to reclassify and rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon, the site of the former Gordon Bowling Club.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Szatow)

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared in accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 for part of 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon being Lot Y DP387680 to:

1. rezone Lot Y DP387680 from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential;

2. apply floor space ratio development standard of 0.8:1, height of buildings of 11.5m and minimum lot size of 1200sqm;

3. reclassify Lot Y DP387680 from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ and formally seek to extinguish all necessary interests that apply to the land.

D. Public access being maintained through to Bushlands Avenue..

E. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition process.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

109

NSW Department of Education - Joint Use Project Proposal - St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre

File: S03899

Vide: GB.12

To update Council on discussions and “in-principle” support with the NSW Department of Education (DoE) on the Joint Use Project Proposal for community use of the school facilities at St Ives High School. Included in this report are the findings of the St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre Feasibility Study which supports the demand and financial sustainability of the project. An Advocacy Strategy has also been provided to assist in the financial delivery of the project.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Spencer)

That Council:

A. Continues its “in principle’ support for the Joint Use Project proposal for the indoor sports centre at St Ives High School subject to funding becoming available and further design development.

B. Notes that funding will be required in the 2020 and 2021 financial years.

C. Investigates all funding sources available to contribute towards the project.

D. Endorses the advocacy strategy which will endeavour to drive funding for the project through stakeholders and key sources.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

110

Bushfire Preparation - Rubbish Collection (Green Waste)

File: S02294

Vide: GB.13

To consider providing an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Kelly)

A. That Council not provide an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties during the remaining period of the domestic waste collection Contract.

B. That Council include in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender an option for weekly green waste collection across the entire LGA.

C. That Council issue residents in fire prone areas with vouchers to self-dispose of domestic loads of vegetation at the Kimbriki Waste Management Centre.

D. Issue of vouchers to be reviewed if the option for additional green waste service is included in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

111

RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library

File: RFT10-2018

Vide: GB.14

To consider the tender received for the upgrading of the existing HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) System in Gordon Library, and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Kelly)

A. That Council accept the tender submission from the Tenderer for the upgrade of existing HVAC System at Gordon Library.

B. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documentation on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.

C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to the contract documents.

D. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

112

Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage

File: S09449

Vide: GB.15

To provide Council with an update of the feasibility and cost of moving the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Greenfield)

A. That Council continue to investigate the feasibility and costs associated with relocating the cottage.

B. That Council continue efforts in making contact with the new owner of the property.

C. That Council provide a further report outlining any discussions with the new property owner and all associated costs involved in procuring and relocating the timber dwelling at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items
where there are speakers first, after a
motion was moved by Councillors Szatow and Clarke
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Ngai withdrew during discussion

Councillor Smith withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

Councillor Ngai returned

Councillor Smith returned

113

Consideration of the submissions on the planning proposal for several heritage conservation areas in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon

File: S11437

Vide: GB.8

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 (KLEP LC 2012).

The following members of the public addressed Council on this item:

Yan Qian

Feng Zhang

Adam Futeran

Justin Caswell

Paul Cooper

Giles Tabuteau

Janet Harwood

Sharon McClelland

Rebecca Robertson

Denis Zhou

Thomas Ban

Janine Kitson

Stephen Sefton

Peter Collins

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Szatow)

That given the short timeframe provided to make decisions that impact over 800 properties, and the significant impact that these decisions could have on the character of Ku-ring-gai, that Council should defer the matter and spread the decision making across the next three (3) council meetings.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

114

Lindfield Village Green

File: S10840

Vide: GB.11

To update Council on negotiations with TfNSW regarding funding for commuter parking spaces, advise on potential funding options available to Council for a 3 Level basement design, update on the Development Application for a third underground level of parking at the Lindfield Village Green (LVG) and approve the preparation and submission of a Capital and Expenditure Review to the NSW Office of Local Government.

The following member of the public addressed Council on this item:

Merryn Sheriff

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Clarke)

A. That Council acknowledges the potential funding sources as identified in this report in order to finance additional short term parking spaces within the LVG basement and that the S94 component as per Clause 3.11 of the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan be increased to $12 million.

B. That a further report be brought back to Council outlining the agreed arrangements proposed in a Heads of Agreement with TfNSW.

C. That $150,000 be transferred from the 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield Proceeds Reserve to cover the costs of documenting the S96 modification.

D. That a Capital Expenditure Review be prepared and submitted to the NSW Division of Local Government.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Ngai withdrew during discussion

Councillor Greenfield withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

Councillor Ngai returned

Councillor Greenfield returned

Councillor Citer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Citer returned

Councillor Clarke withdrew during discussion

Councillor Clarke returned

Councillor Smith withdrew during discussion

Councillor Smith returned

Councillor Ngai withdrew during discussion

Councillor Ngai returned

Councillor Citer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Citer returned

115

Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to meet community needs

File: S10468

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer, Szatow, Ngai, Pettett, Kelly and Spencer dated 16 April 2018

Background

The current Lindfield branch library located at 259-271 Pacific Highway is about 60 years old and in need of a significant overhaul. Studies and community consultation have identified that the library is unable to deliver modern services to meet the future needs of the community, with some gaps identified including:

· Inadequate space for all activities and collections

· Shortage of shelving

· Lack of study and reading spaces

· Inadequate children's area and lack of separation of this area

· Inadequate space for events

· Lack of contemporary technology inclusions; and

· Lack of adequate parking as well as issues relating to access.

The Lindfield Library site also includes meeting rooms, resource rooms, and space for KYDS Youth Development Services (teenage counselling service) and the Lindfield Seniors.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s vision is to build a new Lindfield Village Hub located on the western side of Lindfield local centre on the Council car park off Woodford Lane behind the Pacific Highway shops. This project will include a new library that is purpose built to reflect the needs of future library users, new spaces to meet the needs of community groups such as KYDS and the Lindfield Seniors, and green spaces for residents to enjoy.

Council voted to reclassify the Lindfield Library Site as operational land on 11 November 2014 and it is the hope of Lindfield residents that the money raised by selling the old library site will go towards the construction of the new library site located at the Lindfield Village Hub.

Other Projects of Community Benefit

In the immediate short term, the Council does have more pressing needs with no funding allocated.

The St Ives Indoor Sports Complex is an initiative by the NSW Department of Education to jointly fund the construction of a sports facility at St Ives High School. While many surrounding councils have provided their residents with access to both indoor and outdoor basketball courts, Ku-ring-gai is lagging in its support of this rapidly growing sport. This offer to jointly fund the construction of a sports facility is time limited, and Council’s share is entirely unfunded.

The renewal of the Marian Street Theatre will bring back to Ku-ring-gai a place for the performing arts and is core to revitalising Killara, however this too is entirely unfunded.

The design of the Lindfield Village Green was recently changed to incorporate a third basement level of parking. While this goes a long way to address community concerns about the adequacy of parking in the area, the third basement level was largely unfunded and the project cannot progress until all funding is confirmed.

The East Lindfield Community Centre has been in a state of disrepair for many years. This community centre is located at the heart of the East Lindfield community and despite its poor layout and ineffective lighting, is used by various groups throughout the week. Council currently has no official plan, schedule, or funding to repair or rebuild this community centre.

Asset Recycling While Meeting Intermediate Community Needs

While any funds raised from the sale of the old library site should eventually go back towards the creation of the new Lindfield Village Hub, construction work was never going to take place for both projects simultaneously. In other words, construction work for the Village Hub is at least two years away and the sooner the Village Green is completed, the sooner the Village Hub can commence.

If the sale of the old library is brought forward, the funds could provide the opportunity for Council to meet the immediate needs of the community including the renewal of the East Lindfield Community Centre, commencement of the Lindfield Village Green, jointly funded construction of the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex, and the restoration costs of the Marian Street Theatre. Any funds leftover from the sale should be classified as a new restricted fund for the future construction of the Lindfield Village Hub. Subsequent asset sales (yet to be announced) should then be used to increase the value of this new restricted fund for Lindfield Village Hub, bringing it up to the sale value of the Lindfield library site plus interest.

We also recognise that the sale of the old library site will result in the disruption of activities for local community groups including patrons of the Lindfield library, KYDS Youth Development Service, and the Lindfield Seniors. Although these groups will eventually find their home in the Lindfield Village Hub, interim arrangements should also be provided so that they can continue their activities before its completion.

Councillors are aware that there are multiple vacant spaces in the Lindfield local centre that could serve as a temporary home for the Lindfield branch library, KYDS, and Lindfield Seniors until the completion of the Lindfield Village Hub.

Councillors are also aware that the Council owned property of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon, which has been set aside for the future Gordon Civic Hub, is currently underutilised. The empty spaces in this building could also potentially meet the needs of community groups until the opening of the Lindfield Village Hub.

We move:

A. That Council agrees that all funds raised from the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway (the old Lindfield Library and Community Site) should eventually facilitate the creation of the new Lindfield Village Hub (the new Lindfield Library and Community Site) including a pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway.

B. That Council staff immediately seek to identify whether there is an appropriate alternate home for the Lindfield branch library, and a report come back to Council with urgency outlining transitional arrangement options.

C. That Council staff immediately seek to identify transitional arrangements for KYDS, as well as any other tenants of the current library site for which there are obligations to negotiate or discuss alternate accommodation requirements. This report should also come back to Council with urgency, and the vacant space in 828 Pacific Highway Gordon should be considered as part of this report.

D. That this new Council reaffirms the selection of Marian Street (not Gordon Civic Hub) as the preferred option for theatre in Ku-ring-gai, and that the renewal of the Marian Street Theatre should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan.

E. That the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan.

F. That Council provides its in principle support for the knockdown and rebuild of the East Lindfield Community Centre at 9 Wellington Road East Lindfield, being Lot X of DP 414251, and that this should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan. (If for whatever reason a knockdown and rebuild is not possible, then Council should instead restore the Lindfield Community Centre to a safe condition that complies with modern day BCA standards while also considering what additions and alterations are possible to maximise community benefit).

G. That Council staff should immediately commence the process of community consultation and design of a modern, brighter, and more optimally laid out East Lindfield Community Centre at Lot X of DP 414251. When reporting back to the Council, staff are welcome to refer to the recently completed structural assessment report, explaining the merits of knockdown and rebuild vs. a costly repair of the building in compliance with modern BCA standards. When reporting back to the Council, staff are also invited to suggest ways of reducing the net cost of the rebuild.

H. That subject to the certainty of relocating services mentioned in B and C above, Council approves the divestment of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield, being Lot 8 in DP660564 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP212617.

I. That the divestment of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield be carried out by an open competitive process in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

J. That the General Manager and/or his delegate to obtain two (2) independent valuation reports to establish the market value in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

K. That Councillors are to be provided with copies of the valuation reports on which market value is determined in accordance with J. above.

L. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to set the reserve price established by an independent valuation report prior to divestment.

M. That In the event the property does not reach the reserve price that Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate within a variance of 10% of the reserve.

N. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate any special conditions and contract terms required to protect the Council’s interests.

O. That Council authorises the General Manager to execute all documentation and affix the Council Seal if required, to all documents associated with the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield, being Lot 8 in DP660564 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP212617.

P. That net proceeds from the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway are fully made available to the knockdown and rebuild of the East Lindfield Community Centre (to a design that is agreed upon by Councillors) (and where knockdown rebuild is not possible, then the restoration of the Community Centre as per (F) and (G) above), to meet funding shortfalls of the Lindfield Village Green, to entirely rebuild the Marian Street Theatre (to a design and business plan that is agreed upon by Councillors), and also to build an indoor sports complex at St Ives High School in collaboration with the Department of Education (to a design and business plan that is agreed upon by Councillors). This Council resolution is consistent with the draft Property Development and Investment Policy which states that Councillors are to determine what allocation of sale proceeds should go towards the Property and Development Reserve (irrespective of whether alternate capital projects have yet been added to the long term financial plan or not).

Q. That the difference of the sale price (O) and cost of other projects (P) be classified as new restricted funds dedicated to facilitating the development of the Lindfield Village Hub, including a pedestrian bridge across Pacific Highway. This restricted fund will be known as the Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund.

R. That all future asset sales should first and foremost go towards topping up the value of this new Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund (Q), at least up to the value of the sale price (O) plus an annualised rate of interest of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate (currently 1.50%) + 4.00%. The intent of this part is to ensure that the full value of the old Lindfield library site goes towards facilitating the development of the new Lindfield library site (A), including a pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway.

S. That after the Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund is topped up to the level stated in R, Council should resume contributing the Sale Proceeds of Strategic Surplus Properties towards the Property Development Reserve.

T. That the rolling amounts available in each of Council’s unrestricted funds and restricted funds (including the Property Development Reserve, Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund (Q), as well as the shortfall to reaching the value of library site sale price plus interest (O, R)) are to be reported in the Council’s monthly investment report.

The following members of the public addressed Council on this item:

Michelle Chiu

Lindsay Donovan

Jane Salmon

Cheryl Sutherland

Elise Keays

Ester Etkin

Carolyn Darby

Indu Balachandran

Kamahl Am

James Southwell

Harry Loughnan

Olivia Blayney

Chris Blayney

Janine Kitson

Allan Kreuiter

Dianah Warner

Andrew Pik

Ursula Bonzol

David Hume

115

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Szatow)

A. That Council recognises the unanimous decisions of all ten councillors of the former council (GB8, 27/06/2017) and nine councillors of the current council (GB6, 28/11/2017), and that Council should continue with a pre-approved DA.

B. That Council reaffirms the current council position that the new Lindfield Library along with facilities for KYDS and the Lindfield Seniors will be provided for within the Lindfield Village Hub.

C. That Council supports the statement on the Council website for 259-271 Pacific Highway (see: Attachment A5 of NM3) that “Council is committed to ensuring the transition to the new Lindfield Library is as seamless as possible. The Lindfield Library will continue to operate in its current site or at an alternate Lindfield location until the new Lindfield Library at the Lindfield Community Hub is ready.”

D. That Council recognises that depending on the timing of the potential sale of the old Lindfield Library and the opening of the new Lindfield Library, there could be a gap in service provision. In light of this information and the fact that it may take 1.5 to 2 years to prepare for a library move (including DA process), Council calls for council staff to begin the process of identifying an alternate location for the Library and the seniors within the Lindfield Town Centre. Similarly, council staff are to look for an alternate location for KYDS that is sensitive to the needs of its visitors. If required, these alternate locations will serve as the interim homes for the respective community groups until the Lindfield Village Hub is completed.

E. That until there is certainty that the needs of each group can be provided for as per D above, there shall be no sale of the current Lindfield Library site. Preparations for a DA should continue.

F. That a pedestrian bridge is highly desirable for the Lindfield Village Hub and all best endeavours should be taken to deliver it.

G. That council staff should start a community consultation process with the residents of East Lindfield to determine whether they would prefer to sympathetically restore and expand the East Lindfield Community Centre or whether they would prefer a knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces. It is acknowledged that $392,400 has already been allocated to remedial works for this asset under the Draft Delivery Program and this work will include a drainage upgrade, however it will more than likely not extend to repairing the roof or paint, neither will it bring the building up to today’s Building Code of Australia compliance, or cater for other architectural recommendations mentioned by the recently completed structural assessment report. This renewal of the East Lindfield Community Centre is to be added to the Long Term Financial Plan. The funding sources are to be determined at a later stage, but may potentially include proceeds from the sale of the Roseville Chase Bowling Club.

H. That Council reaffirms the selection of Marian Street (not Gordon Civic Hub) as the location for theatre in Ku-ring-gai, and that the renewal of the Marian Street Theatre is to be added to the Long Term Financial Plan. Construction work must begin in FY2020/21. The funding sources are to be determined at a later stage, but may potentially include proceeds from the sale of the Gordon Bowling Club.

I. That the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex is to be added to the Long Term Financial Plan. The funding sources are to be determined at a later stage, but may potentially include proceeds from the sale of recreational Bowling Clubs.

For the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Spencer, Citer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Greenfield and Smith

The above was subject to a Procedural Motion

moved by Councillor Spencer and Seconded by

Councillor Szatow that the Motion be put

as there had been 2 speakers For and 2 Against.

For the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Spencer, Citer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Greenfield and Smith

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items

NM.3, GB.2, GB.3 followed NM.2, after a motion

moved by Councillors Clarke and Spencer was CARRIED.

For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Spencer, Greenfield, Citer, Smith and Kelly

Against the Motion: Councillor Szatow

Councillor Szatow withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

Councillor Szatow returned

116

Improving public communication on Lindfield Village Green, and withdrawal of MOD0030/18

File: S10840

Vide: NM.3

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 30 April 2018

Ku-ring-gai Council is about to embark on its most expensive construction project to date. The Lindfield Village Green, located at 8-10 Tryon Road and 3-5 Kochia Lane Lindfield, will potentially cost more than $30m. When completed, it will serve as a wonderful green space for the residents of Lindfield and its surrounding suburbs, however the project has historically been riddled with controversy largely due to a perceived lack of regular and earnest community consultation during the design phase.

Many residents still have concerns over the latest design (MOD0030/18) which was lodged on 28th February 2018 and is to be determined by the Sydney North Planning Panel. It is important that as a Council, we publicly acknowledge our residents’ concerns either by providing a coherent explanation as to why we are satisfied with the current design, or by admitting to making a mistake. And if we have made mistakes, we should follow up by either fixing the design or providing a range of measures to minimise the impact of each mistake.

It is important that we address any flaws in the design as soon as possible, as flaws are significantly cheaper to correct during the design phase than later during construction or after completion. If any flaws are built into the final product, chances are that the Council will not have the financial capacity to fix them in the next decade, and instead, residents will be impacted by the flawed design for the next 50 years.

A list of some of the residents’ concerns is provided below. Note that this list is not exhaustive.

Trolley Management

Council needs to manage public expectations as to whether it supports the movement of shopping trolleys into and out of the future Lindfield Village Green carpark. If not, why not, and what range of measures will it take to manage trolleys in the local area?

Single Elevator Access (Single Point of Failure)

Residents have expressed concern as to whether a single elevator is sufficient to service the needs of four levels and 241 car parking spaces (136 short stay, 105 commuter). What kind of waiting intervals will visitors have to face? Will congestion be exacerbated by people using shopping trolleys and prams? What will people with mobility issues (such as wheelchairs, prams, and possibly shopping trolleys) do when the single elevator is out of service? If the single elevator is out of service and spare parts are required for fixing it, how many days or weeks will people with mobility issues be impacted by this outage?

Note that the design does not include any access ramps or alternate methods for people with mobility issues to safely get in and out of the basement levels. Residents are concerned about this critical single point of failure.

It should also be noted that the single elevator is much larger than a standard elevator. At 2100mm x 2000mm, it has a load capacity of 29 people which may comfortably fit a dozen people (excluding bulky items such as wheelchairs, prams, and trolleys). But despite the impressive size of the single elevator, the issue of a critical single point of failure and an outage of unknown duration does not appear to be adequately addressed.

Future Parking Demand

There are concerns that the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessments reported by Cardno on 19 December 2016, 07 June 2017 and 21 February 2018 do not accurately reflect the observations of local residents.

On Monday 07 March 2016, just before 9am, my wife and I drove into the Tryon Road carpark and we noted that the carpark was full. I had to drop off my wife before parking the car ~500m away on Nelson Road.

Similarly, residents have provided many photos which, although they do not cover every parking space in the area, show that the carpark can get quite full (Attachment A1).

Cardno on the other hand undertook a study with a sample size of one day (Tuesday 15 November 2016) while also ignoring the fact that construction activity already had the impact of discouraging local visitors to the area. On this single day, it noted that “the peak car parking demand occurred at 11:00am when there were 112 cars parked in the car park, corresponding to 23 spaces being vacant” (Attachment A2). However, it is obvious to any local resident that the Cardno study was wrong, and it appears that the flawed methodology was overlooked by the Sydney North Planning Panel when it made its earlier decision on the project (Panel Reference 2017SNH008, DA Number DA0651/16). The study also does not appear to consider weekend parking demand.

I currently believe that the 136 short stay spaces offered by the future Lindfield Village Green (with a paid parking management system), along with the 41 retail spaces offered by Lindfield Markets, the 62 retail spaces offered by Aqualand, and various parking options that Council can provide on the surrounding streets might be adequate to meet local demand on weekdays 7am to 7pm. However not all residents are convinced.

It must also be noted that the previous Sydney North Planning Panel decision required that “The use of the approved car park does not include the restriction of parking to different classes of users. Any allocation of long-term or commuter parking shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Such long-term parking spaces shall be available for use by others outside these times.”

What this effectively meant was that on weekends and on weeknight, residents would have free access to 181 parking spaces. Now under the current S96 modification, weekend and weeknight parking has been reduced by 25% to 136 parking spaces. With regard to this, the Cardno Report did not appear to consider current or future weekend parking demand hence residents are concerned.

Traffic Flow Estimates, Projections, and Changes

There are also concerns as to whether the traffic flow estimates and projections reported by Cardno as recently as 21 February 2018 can be relied upon. Apparently it is based on “SIDRA 7” and the projected future demand is for “2027 Background with LVG & Aqualand”.

To the common person, it is not clear what this means. Does “LVG & Aqualand” mean that the traffic study used the flawed demand measurements (above) as LVG baseline, along with Aqualand traffic study information that cannot even be found on the Council’s DA website? Does “LVG & Aqualand” also mean that all other buildings in the area, both those that have recently been completed (such as Lindfield Markets) as well as those that are currently under construction or undergoing the DA process, have not been factored into the traffic flow estimates for the report dated 21 February 2018? Does the LVG baseline include any demand generated by the green space itself?

To the common person, this is all mumbo jumbo that is tainted by the flawed parking study conducted by Cardno. To date, Council appears to have done little to assure the public that future traffic flows in the area will be adequate.

And any local resident knows that accessing Pacific Highway via Lindfield Avenue and the Balfour Street Railway Tunnel is a nightmare during peak periods and weekends. Is Council going to do anything about it?

Will there be any further changes to traffic signalling, traffic directions, and traffic flows in the local area? When will such improvements be made? How will they be funded?

Other Concerns

Residents also have other concerns such as:

Acoustics of supermarket delivery trucks moving along inclined laneways next to residential areas.
The decision to cut off Chapman Lane and Kochia Lane (West) from vehicular access (a way for trucks to access the supermarkets while minimising acoustic impacts on residents).
Whether Havilah Lane will definitely be widened to two lanes.
Why there is no plan for a children’s playground when there is no other children’s playground in the local area (closest ones are at considerable distance, Two Turners Reserve, Roseville Park, East Lindfield Shops, Greengate Park).
Why Council has opted for an additional café instead of additional green space or a playground.
Provision of Emergency Parking and Loading Zones.
Whether there will be a Parking Guidance System and Dynamic Availability Signage.

While Council staff have many sensible answers to the questions above, the general public does not know these answers. And the information is either not available on the Council website, or is not easily accessible.

I move:

A. That Council immediately withdraws its application of MOD0030/18 (Lindfield Village Green).

B. That Council updates the design for Lindfield Village Green to include a second passenger elevator. To compensate for the loss of parking spaces resulting from the second passenger elevator, the panhandle on levels B2 and B3 should be extended from the current design of 4 parking spaces on each level to 8 parking spaces on each level. The funding for the extra elevator and larger panhandle may come from other asset sales discussed tonight.

C. That Council immediately updates its main Lindfield Village Green webpage (Attachment A3) to include a detailed project timeline in place of the current “Project Update” section. To assist in a speedy implementation, Council could potentially copy and paste the information included in the recent email titled “Activate Lindfield – Project Update April 2017” [sic] dated 26 April 2018 (Attachment A4), then make other additions as required.

D. That similar to the Frequently Asked Questions webpage for 259 – 271 Pacific Highway (Attachment A5), a Frequently Asked Questions webpage should be created for the Lindfield Village Green before the end of May 2018. This webpage should include answers to the outstanding concerns raised by residents as part of DA0651/16 and MOD0030/18, as well as the concerns listed above.

E. That Council staff confidentially provide the Councillors with a copy of all responses to MOD0030/18, along with a report on whether there are any other design changes that they believe need to be made, or further studies that they believe need to be undertaken. Councillors should be allowed at least a few days to read this report and to provide their feedback before the submission of the next Lindfield Village Green s96 modification.

The following members of the public addressed Council on this item:

Judy Butlin

Ron Taylor

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Citer)

A. That Council updates the design for Lindfield Village Green to include a second passenger elevator.

B. That Council immediately updates its main Lindfield Village Green webpage (Attachment A3) to include a detailed project timeline in place of the current “Project Update” section. To assist in a speedy implementation, council could potentially copy and paste the information included in the recent email titled “Activate Lindfield – Project Update April 2017” [sic] dated 26 April 2018 (Attachment A4), then make other additions as required.

C. That similar to the Frequently Asked Questions webpage for 259 – 271 Pacific Highway (Attachment A5), a Frequently Asked Questions webpage should be created for the Lindfield Village Green before the end of May 2018. This webpage should include answers to the outstanding concerns raised by residents as part of DA0651/16 and MOD0030/18, as well as the concerns listed above.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Spencer, Citer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: Councillors Clarke, Greenfield and Smith

At 11:45 pm, a Motion moved by Councillors Clarke and Szatow
to extend the meeting to complete all items within the Business Paper,
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

117

Draft Resourcing Strategy 2018-2028

File: S11276

Vide: GB.2

To place Council's Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

That the report on Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy be received and noted.
That relevant matters in the Council Resolution for NM.1 on this Agenda (Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to meet community needs) be added to the draft Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy, and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.
That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, the Asset Management Strategy and the Workforce Strategy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

118

Draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Draft Operational Plan 2018-2019

File: FY00382/10

Vide: GB.3

To place Council's draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Clarke)

A. That the report on Council’s draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, be received and noted.

B. That the relevant matters in the Council Resolution for NM.1 on this Agenda (Lindfield Library, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to meet community needs) be added to the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019 and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

C. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

119

Discontinuance of legal actions in relation to Bunnings Development at 950 Pacific Hwy, Pymble

File: DA0307/17-6

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillor Spencer dated 26 April 2018

Background

The protracted legal battle between Ku-ring-gai Council and Bunnings in relation to Bunnings Development at 950 Pacific Hwy, Pymble, has cost ratepayers a staggering $520,000.00 in legal expenses, along with costs which have been awarded to Bunnings by the Court.

It is understood that Bunnings' legal expenses exceed $500,000.00 and that does not include various experts such as planners, engineers, arborists, urban designers, and heritage consultants. Details are as follows.

Material facts

1. 2006-2011 – 5 heritage reviews, 3M building not identified as item of heritage significance.

2. 17/07/2012 – Council resolved not to support listing 3M building.

3. 12/2012 – Bunnings Purchased Site.

4. 15/05/2013 – Bunnings submitted a rezoning application.

5. 27/08/2013 – Council to consider a planning proposal to amend Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) to permit hardware and building supplies as a use permissible with consent under the B7 - Business Park zone...... Council resolve that the matter be deferred until an independent heritage report comes back to Council with a study of the 3M Building and the site.

Question from Councillor Citer on legal expenses

Councillor David Citer asked a Question Without Notice in the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 7 March 2018 and it is reprinted below:

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

59 Bunnings Site - Legal Expenses

File: S10721

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor David Citer

Could Councillors please obtain an idea of how much has been spent on legal action against Bunnings establishing a warehouse on the old 3M building site? Is there a further Notice of Intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal?

Answered by Director Development and Regulation

The Director Development and Regulation advised he would take the question regarding legal expenses on notice.

In relation to the legal action against Bunnings, the Director advised Bunnings lodged the appeal not Council.

In relation to whether or not the Notice of Intention to appeal has been lodged, that is correct, it is merely a holding measure to enable Council to have that option should, based on consideration of the decision, which is only recently been released in written form determine Council’s prospects warrants such. And, as I indicated earlier, Jamie Taylor in an email last week stated there would be a briefing for Councillors, basically explaining the circumstances and answering any questions in relation to this matter.

Response from Bunnings

A response from Bunnings to the above Question Without Notice was sent to Councillors on 23 March 2018 (Annexure “BNM1”). Upon further enquiry, a further response was received on 13 April 2018 (Annexure “BNM2”). The content of the same is reprinted below:

Decision 1 (File 2016/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 20/7/16 interim judgement Amended Plans invited (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1658). Decision made, no further action.

Decision 2 (File 16/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 25/10/16 Leave granted to reopen proceeding to address new heritage item caselaw (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council; (No 2) [2016] NSWLEC 1659) Decision made, no further action.

Decision 3 (File 17/43289)

Ku-ring-gai Council (appellant) vs Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (respondent)

Decision: 3/3/17 Appeal dismissed with costs (Ku-ring-gai Council v Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 16) Decision made. Costs awarded to Bunnings, yet to be resolved.

Decision 4 (File 2016/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 16/5/17 Appeal upheld with conditions (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No.4) [2017] NSWLEC 1238) Decision made, no further action.

Decision 5 (File 2017/206960)

Ku-ring-gai Council (appellant) vs Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (respondent)

Decision: 28/2/17 Appeal dismissed with costs (Ku-ring-gai Council v Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 19) Decision made. Costs awarded to Bunnings yet to be finalised. Bunnings offer dated 3 April 2018. No response from Council yet.

On 29 May 2017 Ku-ring-gai Council commenced proceedings in the Court of Appeal against Bunnings (Case 2017/96526). This matter has not yet been heard. No hearing yet, prospective discontinuance by Council given later proceedings. Bunnings offer to settle costs arising from possible discontinuance dated 22 March 2018. No discontinuance nor response from Council.

On 13 March 2018 Ku-ring-gai Council filed a Notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Case 2018/81252). No formal appeal has yet been filed. No update – Council still reviewing its options?

On 5 October 2017 Bunnings filed an appeal against the quantum of section 94 contributions. (Case 17/1266642). A hearing date has been set for 25 & 27 July 2018. Council has offered a compromise figure which Bunnings’ supports in principle. Prospective consent orders to be heard by Court on 20 April. If this proceeds in this manner and is accepted by Court, this matter will be resolved.

On 20 March 2018 Bunnings filed an appeal against the deemed refusal of DA 307/17 (Case 2018/89311) – DA identical to May 2017 Court approval. This is yet to have its first directions hearing. Appeal lodged by Bunnings to preserve our appeal rights. No hearing and very early in Court process. This DA was listed on the Planning Panel agenda until removed by Council officers. Bunnings would prefer DA to proceed to the Panel for determination instead of proceeding through another lengthy Court process.

Conclusion

A prolonged battle with Bunnings is not in the best interest of Ku-ring-gai ratepayers especially when monies could be better spent elsewhere. The litigation has been ongoing since 2015 with no end in sight. We must stop throwing away “good money after bad.” The parties have already spent over $1 million in legal expenses. It is time for Council to reconsider the cost/benefit of the litigation and whether to spend another $1 million in legal expenses.

Feedback I received from speaking with members of the community suggests that the litigation between Council and Bunnings is unnecessary. Bunnings is a ratepayer too. The objections to having a Bunnings in the Business Park do not reflect the current views of many Ku-ring-gai residents. For instance, Ku-ring-gai has many D.I.Y. residents and the larger Bunnings are only found in Pennant Hills and Chatswood.

Bunnings has proposed a much better development since then and it is suggested that the new development will revitalise the area by creating some 200 ongoing positions within the store, and by attracting renewed commercial interest in the Business Park with 1000s of customers expected to patronise the proposed Bunnings each week.

The ripple effect in the local economy will be positive.

Recommendation

I therefore move that:

A. Council's solicitors be instructed to not pursue all current and proposed proceedings in the Court of Appeal against Bunnings.

B. The General Manager be granted delegated authority to expeditiously and reasonably settle all outstanding costs matters with Bunnings.

C. Council's solicitors be instructed to prepare a report in relation to DA 307/17 for which leave has been granted to amend Bunnings’ proposal.

D. The General Manager to prepare a report for Council's future consideration, proposing the amendment of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to remove the 3M building from Schedule 5 (Heritage Items).

The following member of the public addressed Council on this item:

Giles Tabuteau

During debate on this item Council resolved itself into Closed Meeting
with the Press and Public excluded after a Motion
moved by Councillors Clarke and Szatow
and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors Greenfield and Smith
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kelly)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

For the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Spencer, Citer and Kelly

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Greenfield, Smith and Szatow

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE - SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS

A Motion moved by Councillor Smith
to have the matter dealt with at the meeting
was CARRIED

For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Greenfield, Citer, Smith, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Motion: Councillor Spencer

The Mayor ruled Urgency
and the matter was dealt with

120

Proposed Interim Heritage Order - 149 Livingstone Avenue Pymble

File: S10066

Vide: BN.2

Councillor Martin Smith drew Council’s attention to a property for which Council is in receipt of a Development Application for demolition that is considered by Council Staff, local residents and Council’s Heritage Reference Committee to be likely worthy of a local heritage listing.

The property is located at 149 Livingstone Avenue Pymble and urgency is established because it is under the threat of imminent demolition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Szatow)

That Council resolve to place an Interim Heritage Order under Section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, for 149 Livingstone Avenue Pymble (Lot 3 DP607951), to enable full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Greenfield, Citer, Smith, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

121

Unsolicited Proposal from Woolworths

File: S09780

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Peter Kelly

Resolved:

Will the General Manager organise a briefing/presentation for Council to consider?

Answered by General Manager

The General Manager advised he would be happy to do that.

122

Teetop Pty Ltd - Arbitration

File: S07447

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cedric Spencer

Would the General Manager provide Council with a detailed report on legal expenses in relation to the matter?

Answered by General Manager

The General Manager advised that the Corporate Lawyer would provide a written response to all Councillors.

123

Panel of Lawyers, Barristers and Legal Advisers

File: S08102

Vide: QN.3

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cedric Spencer

Would the General Manager provide a detailed expenses report on Council’s panel of lawyers, barristers and legal advisers (including expert witnesses and consultants) for the past two, and present, Council terms?

Answered by General Manager

The General Manager advised that the Director Corporate and the Corporate Lawyer will collate that information and provide that to Councillors.

The Meeting closed at 12:58 am

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 8 May 2018 (Pages 1 - 4) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 22 May 2018.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Land & Environment Court Costs 2014/2015 - 2017/2018
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2014/2015* (31 appeals lodged)	$1,153,612	$186,803	$407,603	$194,103	$365,103
2015/2016 (38 appeals lodged)	$1,256,887	$264,263	$290,099	$303,122	$399,403
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2016/2017 (41 appeals lodged)	$1,054,747	$202,574	$196,949	$285,681	$369,543
2017/2018 (36 appeals lodged)	$884,828	$221,520	$461,976	$201,332

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.5 / 74

Item GB.5	S10147
	28 March 2018

Fitzsimons Lane Voluntary Planning Agreement - 900 Pacific Highway Gordon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report back following the re-exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

background:	This report follows the statutory exhibition of the amended Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon for the purposes of dedicating land along the Fitzsimons Lane frontage. The Local Centres Development Control Plan and Public Domain Plan make provision for the widening of Fitzsimons Lane for improved vehicular access and pedestrian amenity.

comments:	Following the statutory exhibition period, the Draft Planning Agreement is now being reported back to Council for approval to execute it and complete the dedication process.

recommendation:	That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Evergordon Pty Ltd to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Fitzsimons Lane, Gordon.

Purpose of Report

To report back following the re-exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

Background

This report follows the statutory exhibition of the amended Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway Gordon for the purposes of dedicating land along the Fitzsimons Lane frontage, following its change of ownership and consequential modifications to the original draft Planning Agreement.

The intention of the land dedication is to allow for the widening Fitzsimons Lane and the delivery by Council of future public domain improvements including improvements to the pedestrian environment following the effective completion of intensive redevelopment activity in the vicinity.

Planning for Gordon Local Centre

As part of the strategic planning framework for Gordon, provisions were made for the rather angular Fitzsimons Lane, which narrows near the intersection with Merriwa Street, to be widened and realigned to provide improved vehicular access and pedestrian amenity to this area of Gordon. The area around Fitzsimons Lane is undergoing significant urban renewal with ten consolidated properties either under construction, under DA or pre-DA.

Until recently this area was primarily commercial in nature, with multi-storey corporate offices. The redevelopment of this mixed-use zoned area has seen primarily residential redevelopment including mainly ground floor non-residential floor space for professional consulting rooms, cafés, small convenience retail uses and local service uses.

Extract from the Public Domain Plan 2010 showing the location of the area targeted for widening

The strategic planning documents including the Local Centres Development Control Plan, the Public Domain Plan and the supporting Contributions Plan, collectively envisaged that the development potential of that narrow section of land would be available to the development site, stripping its market value and facilitating its dedication in the most cost effective manner – enabling the contribution plan to focus on the delivery of high quality public domain works.

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 makes provision for the completion of the future streetscape works but not for the acquisition of the land. The consistent approach in respect of narrow, linear and/or small parcels of land is that the development potential from the area of land required for the widening is reallocated to the remainder of the development site and therefore not lost to the landowner. This allows the landowner to dedicate the land free of cost to Council, by retaining the value of the development potential, and for the broader public benefit to be obtained in the most cost-effective manner.

As the land itself is therefore not valued by the contributions plan, a Planning Agreement approach is triggered to facilitate the dedication. The first Planning Agreement for Fitzsimons Lane was executed in February 2017 and the process of dedication of that land at the rear of 904-914 Pacific Highway Gordon has recently been completed. The second Planning Agreement for Fitzsimons Lane for dedication of the land at the rear of 870-898 Pacific Highway Gordon was executed in March & April by Council and the landowner respectively.

It is because the strategic planning documents including the Local Centres Development Control Plan, the Public Domain Plan and the supporting Contributions Plan, collectively envisaged that the development potential of that narrow section of land would be available to the development site, stripping its market value and facilitating its dedication in the most cost effective manner – that the contribution plan is able to focus on funding the future delivery of high quality public domain works.

The draft VPA for 900 Pacific Highway Gordon is the final land dedication in the laneway to be completed enabling work to commence on the delivery of the public domain improvements.

The intention of the dedications is to facilitate the widening of Fitzsimons Lane to 15 metres where it currently narrows from the apex of the dog-leg as it approaches the intersection with Merriwa Street, to facilitate traffic and pedestrian improvements, particularly the latter, to activate the lane and support this mixed use precinct.

Comments

Previous Council Report and Exhibition

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 27 March 2018, Council resolved as follows:-

A. That public notice of the exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement and Explanatory Note relating to the property at 900 Pacific Highway, Gordon, for the purposes of facilitating land dedication along the frontage to Fitzsimons Lane, be duly given.

B. That the draft Planning Agreement together with the Explanatory Note be made available for inspection, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended.

C. That a report be brought back to Council following the completion of the statutory exhibition process associated with the draft Planning Agreement.

D. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to make any administrative changes to the draft Planning Agreement (including attachments) that do not alter the overall intent in order to facilitate exhibition and to protect Council’s interests.

The Draft Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway Gordon

The Draft Planning Agreement Attachment A1 and the associated Explanatory Note (included within the document) are relatively straightforward documents compared to planning agreements that facilitate the delivery of works and infrastructure; in that they simply facilitate and explain the dedication of an identified area of land free-of-cost to council.

They record the nature of the understanding between the developer and Council. For example, Council can only use the land for the purposes of works to the carriageway, both vehicular and pedestrian and associated street landscaping works in Fitzsimons Lane. This is in accordance with the Local Centres DCP and the Public Domain Plan.

The land is a narrow section, totalling approximately 89sqm, and stretching approximately 16 metres on a slight angle (in rounded figures), along the Fitzsimons Lane frontage.

The intention of the dedication is to widen Fitzsimons Lane to approximately 15 metres at its narrowest section from the apex of the dog-leg as it approaches Merriwa Street (discounting the linear extent of the existing splay at the acute corner on the opposite side of Fitzsimons Lane and Merriwa Street from the calculation).

Importantly the Draft Planning Agreement does not include works to deliver the future public domain improvements. Council staff are preparing and costing a draft design for the Fitzsimons Lane public domain which is expected to be reported to Council prior to public consultation over the course of 2018. Delivery by Council is most appropriately scheduled when the current intensive redevelopment activity is near-complete.

Attached Plan of Subdivision

It should be noted that Land and Property Information (LPI) may request minor amendments to the survey plan prior to or subsequent to lodgement to satisfy any additional requirements of the subdivision process including ensuring that the land becomes part of a public road and into Council’s ownership on registration.

Planning Agreements are registered on the title of the land the subject of the Development Application. In the case of the previous Planning Agreement relating to Fitzsimons Lane at the rear of 904-914 Pacific Highway Gordon, the LPI required the registration of the Planning Agreement to be removed from the road land lot before it could be created. A similar process is expected with this Planning Agreement.

The recommendation includes delegation to the General Manager of the authority to give effect to the Planning Agreement following its execution inclusive of all administrative requirements.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme Three: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai.

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.

P8.1.1.1.1.1-2

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan

2010 ensures new development contributes towards the cost of delivering supporting infrastructure.

P4.1 Our centres offer a broad

range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community’s assets.

Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

Theme Four: Access, Traffic and Transport

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

T1.1 A range of integrated transport choices are available to enable effective movement to, from and around Ku-ring-gai.

T3.1 An accessible public transport and regional road network that meets the diverse and changing needs of the community.

A network of safe and convenient links to local centres, major land uses and recreational opportunities is in place.

A strategic access, traffic and transport plan is being implemented for the Northern Sydney Region.

T 1.1.3.1.1

Link roads and road widening.

Governance Matters

The negotiation of the Draft Planning Agreement was commenced under the Planning Agreement Policy 2008. Since then, the Planning Agreement Policy 2016 has been exhibited and adopted.

The Draft Planning Agreement has been prepared with input from Urban Planning, the Property Unit and the Corporate Lawyer. Council appointed Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers to act on their behalf. The developers/landowners of the site at 900 Pacific Highway Gordon are represented by Vincey Poon.

Risk Management

Council has retained the same external legal firm for a series of laneway Planning Agreements ensuring consistency and equity.

Financial Considerations

The strategic planning for the widening of Fitzsimons Lane foreshadowed that the associated developments would retain the opportunity to utilise the floor space potential of the land to be dedicated thus negating its market value. This is a cost-effective means of facilitating the dedication of land free-of-cost.

There is a cost in terms of the scheduling of the design and delivery of the works in the 2018-2020 financial years in the Long Term Financial Plan however, it should be noted, that with ten out of thirteen properties with frontage to Fitzsimons Lane being the subject of development proposals and many nearing completion, that the development contributions for the delivery of this work have been received and, as such, it is timely to schedule the delivery of this work.

Social Considerations

The widening of Fitzsimons Lane will facilitate an improved vehicular and pedestrian environment as this area rapidly transitions from an employment area to a mixed use zone featuring predominantly residential development. These improvements have long been envisaged in the original Local Centres Development Control Plan and the Public Domain Plan and are now coming to fruition concurrent with redevelopment under the Local Centres LEP.

Environmental Considerations

The Draft Planning Agreement that is the subject of this report involves land dedication only. The design of the public domain improvements should be instigated in parallel with these latest redevelopments ready to commence delivery concurrent with their completion. Environmental considerations are a core component of the detailed design of all Council’s public domain improvement works.

Community Consultation

The draft Planning Agreement was endorsed for public exhibition at the OMC of 27 March 2018.

It was placed on statutory exhibition commencing on Friday, 6 April 2018 and concluding on Friday, 4 May 2018 inclusive.

The exhibition was advertised in the North Shore Times and a letter was sent to nearby property owners and occupiers. A total of 916 letters were sent to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties, many being strata subdivided unit developments. The significant increase from 674 letters from the original notification was due to the completion and strata subdivision of nearby development. At the close of the exhibition period, no submissions had been received.

Internal Consultation

The Draft Planning Agreement has been prepared in consultation between officers of Urban Planning and the Property Unit and Council’s Corporate Lawyer. Council engaged additional legal support from Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie as well as the services of a surveyor.

Summary

It is recommended that the revised Draft Planning Agreement be adopted unchanged from the exhibition version apart from any minor typographical corrections from the final hard copy to be executed, and ensuring all contact details are complete and up-to-date, and the like.

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Evergordon Pty Ltd as specified within Attachment A1 to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Fitzsimons Lane Gordon at the rear of 900 Pacific Highway Gordon.

B. That the Council grants delegation to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Planning Agreement under Common Seal.

C. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to make any minor administrative changes to the document that do not alter the overall intent in order to protect Council’s interests.

D. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to authorise any minor or administrative changes to the survey drawing and associated administration sheets to ensure the objectives of the VPA are fulfilled in the most practical and efficient manner.

E. That the Planning Agreement register be updated to include the Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway Gordon upon execution.

F. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to give effect to the requirements of the Planning Agreement after execution as they apply to actions required of the Council including fixing the Common Seal to documents related to the transfer of land, and all related and/or associated processes thereof.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Co-ordinator

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Draft Exhibited Voluntary Planning Agreement for 900 Pacific Highway Gordon

2018/077421

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.6 / 81

Item GB.6	S11340
	6 April 2018

Consideration of submissions - planning proposal to amend Schedule 5 of KLEP (2015)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of KLEP (2015) to remove the heritage listing on 4 properties.

background:	On 22 November 2016, Council resolved to proceed with a Planning Proposal with respect to an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP (2015)), to amend schedule 5 of KLEP (2015) to remove local heritage listing on 4 properties. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 1 February 2018 and 16 February 2018. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition.

comments:	A total of 3 submissions were received and have been assessed in this report.

recommendation:	That Council proceeds with an amended Planning Proposal to remove the local heritage listing on three properties and retain the listing on one property, and resolve to make the Plan under s. 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of KLEP (2015) to remove the heritage listing on 4 properties.

Background

On 22 November 2016 Council resolved:

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared, in accordance with section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to remove the following properties from Schedule 5:

• 36A and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon (Lot B, DP 366349);

• “Edelstein” 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga (Lot D, DP 330058);

• 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee (Lot 14, DP 14753);

• 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra (Lot 2, DP 542710).

B. That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

C. That Council request the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act for this planning proposal.

D. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.

E. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition processes

Council received a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal on 9 January 2018 (see Attachment A1) and the submission from OEH (see Attachment A2) . The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from Thursday 1 February 2018 to Friday 16 February 2018.

Comments

A heritage item is a place, which may include built structures, landscapes, moveable objects and relics, that have recognised cultural significance. In NSW, heritage items of local significance are assessed against 7 criteria:

a) Historical significance – an item is important in the course, or pattern, of the cultural or natural history of the local area;

b) Historical association significance – an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance to the local area’s cultural or natural history;

c) Aesthetic significance – an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area;

d) Social significance – an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area, for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

e) Technical/research significance – an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the local area scientific, cultural or natural history;

f) Rarity – an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the local area’s cultural or natural history; and

g) Representativeness - an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of the local area’s cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments.

Community submissions

As a result of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a total of three submissions were received. One submission was in support of the delisting of 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra, one submission was in support of the delisting of 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga and one submission was against the delisting of 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee. A summary of the submissions with responding comments can be found in Attachment A3.

Representation had been made to Council in the past from the owners of 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra, 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon requesting the delisting of their properties. The erroneous listing of 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee was noted by Council who notified the owners. The owners of 17 Bangalla Street made no objection to the delisting.

The submission against the removal of the heritage listing on 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee expressed concern that a house of aesthetic and historical significance could be removed from the heritage list and exposed to potential demolition. This is not the case as the house remains a contributory item within a heritage conservation area and the fabric and setting which remains intact will still be conserved as per Council’s Development Control Plan and the Local Environmental Plan.

Summary of recommendations for each property

1. 36A and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon

Recommended to remove the heritage listing

Figure 1: 36A and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon - a modern two storey dual occupancy built after 1995.

The heritage listing was attributed to an earlier dwelling on this site, however this item was demolished after 1992 and the listing was not removed from the State Register or Councils LEP. See the State Heritage Inventory at Attachment A2. There is currently a modern dual occupancy on this site. There were no objections to the delisting.

2. 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga

Recommended to retain the heritage listing

7 Grosvenor St - Property Photo 1

Figure 2: 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga - single storey Georgian Revival style house built 1938.

In preparing the required heritage assessments for the Office of Environment and Heritage it was found that 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga was designed by the architect/owner. Further investigation found the plans for the house were held at the NSW State Library.

The house was purchased in August 2014 with the draft listing in place and this was evident on the Section 149 Planning Certificate for the purchase of the house and enquiries were made by the conveyancer asking for information on the draft heritage item. As such the new owners were aware of Council’s planning proposal process to locally heritage list the property.

In August 2015, 12 months after the purchase and four months after the heritage listing came into effect the owners made enquiries to Council as to why the property was considered to have heritage significance. Council officers could find no inventory sheet or other records on Council’s electronic document management system pertaining to the heritage significance of the property. It was presumed the listing was erroneous, an error made during the translation of Schedule 7 of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance into Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (2015). Council staff then made a commitment to include this property in a planning proposal to initiate the process for delisting.

The requirements for agency consultation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Gateway Determination meant that Council had to seek the opinion of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) on the Planning Proposal. The response from OEH was that Council was required to have a heritage assessment for each of the properties recommended for delisting. In doing this assessment for 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga the interesting history of the owner architect was revealed (see Attachment A4). The assessment found the property to be architecturally designed and the architect’s own home. The changes to the house are known and considered to have little impact on the design integrity of the property. As such the house is considered to have heritage value and should retain its local heritage listing. As the house already had a draft listing when purchased the retention of the property as an item does not change the known and informed affectations on the property as of the time of purchase by the current owners.

There were no objections to the delisting and the owners support the delisting.

3. 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee

Recommended to remove the heritage listing

Figure 3: 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee - a transitional bungalow (transitioning from Federation to Inter-war). Originally was single storey but now reads as two storeys. This photo illustrates the altered roof form and the faux extension which includes a double garage and loft facing the street (Raymond Avenue).

This property was first listed on 2 April 2015 when the KLEP 2015 came into effect. The property was listed after a faux heritage addition to the property had been made in 1988. Further review concludes that the listing is not warranted.

In 1988 the house had a substantial addition in a faux heritage style. The change from original to new build is evident in the change of brick, the quality of the tuck pointing (better in the original brickwork) and the use of wooden shingles on the new elements of the house (e.g. dormer). What is still evident of the original house illustrates a higher design quality that is a well-considered building in proportion, scale and architectural detailing.

The integrity of the fabric and the design have been compromised by changes and it is not considered to have retained its aesthetic significance.

The house has a level of protection through HCA controls as it is located in the Warrawee Conservation Area (C3).

There was one objection to the removal of the listing but it is considered that the protection as a contributory building in a conservation area will conserve the intact elements of the building which are located on the elevations addressing the street and the garden setting.

4. 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra

Recommended to remove the heritage listing

Figure 4: 14 Warrangi Street Turramurra – Inter-war bungalow built c.1930, has a large over scaled two storey extension that is integrated into the original roof and directly abuts house.

This property was first listed on 2 April 2015 when the KLEP 2015 came into effect. The property is considered to be listed in error after extensive modifications had occurred in 1986, 1993 and 2000, including a subdivision at the rear of the property in 1970.

The house was listed due to its significance for its ‘contribution to the streetscape character of the area and as an intact example of an Inter-War Californian Bungalow with Art Nouveux details’.

The property is recommended to be removed due to modifications to the building altering its level of intactness as an extant example of this style of housing. Changes to the building have enlarged the size and scale of the building from its original ‘modest’ form. Modifications include a first floor addition to the rear of the property that is visible from the street, construction of non-original bay windows, bathroom renovations and the addition of a swimming pool.

Also, this house is not situated in a HCA, therefore the streetscape character is not considered to be highly significant to Council. Substantial development to surrounding dwellings has occurred in the immediate area, further minimising the aesthetic and historical significance of the streetscape character and the dwelling’s contribution within it.

There were no objections to the delisting.

integrated planning and reporting

Heritage conservation

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions

Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans

Governance Matters

The draft plan was placed on exhibition in accordance with the gateway determination to seek further State agency and stakeholder feedback prior to being reported back to Council.

Council under the gateway determination has been granted delegated authority, to make the Plan under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function under the Act in making the Plan.

Risk Management

The public exhibition process has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements contained within the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment under the former Section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Financial Considerations

The costs associated with this matter are covered by the Strategy and Environment Department - Urban Planning and Heritage budget. Additional costs may be incurred for any further heritage assessment of the sites.

Social Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s local cultural heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist in meeting its requirements to identify and protect items of true local cultural heritage significance.

Environmental Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist in meeting its requirements to identify and protect items of local cultural heritage significance.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited between 1 February and 16 February 2018. Notification letters were sent to the property owners and adjoining residents.

Internal Consultation

Where relevant the Planning Proposal has been referred to relevant internal sections of Council.

Summary

Following the consideration of the submissions on the public exhibition to amend Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan it is recommended to proceed with the local heritage delisting of:

· 36A and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon (Lot B, DP 366349);

· 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee (Lot 14, DP 14753);

· 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra (Lot 2, DP 542710).

And retain the heritage listing on:

· 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga (Lot D, DP 330058);

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolves to adopt the amended Planning Proposal to remove the local heritage listing on:

· 36A and 36B Carlotta Avenue, Gordon (Lot B, DP 366349);

· 17 Bangalla Street, Warrawee (Lot 14, DP 14753);

· 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra (Lot 2, DP 542710).

As identified in Schedule 5 and the Heritage Map of Ku-ring-gai local Environmental Plan 2015.

C That Council, using its delegated authority, proceeds to make the Plan under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

D That those who made submissions be notified of Council’s resolution.

Andreana Kennedy

Heritage Specialist Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Gateway Determination and Delegation	2018/024680
	A2	s56 response Heritage Division OEH - planning proposal Ku-ring-gai Council remove 4 locally listed items	2017/170929
	A3	Submission summary table - amendment to schedule 5 - local heritage delistings	2018/110371
	A4	SHI - Edelstein 7 Grosvenor St Wahroonga - Website Version	2018/129933

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.7 / 89

Item GB.7	PRE0121/17
	29 March 2018

St Lucy's School, Wahroonga - Request for Exemption from Development Contributions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider a request for exemption from s94A development contributions on the unique merits of the case and in accordance with the limited provisions for exemptions specified in the Contributions Plans.

background:	The development contributions system provides for Local Government to levy much-needed contributions towards the provision of local infrastructure. However a core principle of contributions is that they should not have the effect of inhibiting development by imposing an unreasonable economic burden, especially in the case of non-for-profit or charitable institutions that provide a clear and demonstrable community benefit such as the education / care of special needs children. As such, both contributions plans contain clauses relating to the capacity for such entities to make a specific and unique merit-based case for exemptions from contributions.

comments:	St Lucy’s School at Wahroonga is a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. It provides specialised schooling exclusively for children with one or more predominantly severe disabilities.

recommendation:	That the application by St Lucy’s for exemption from S94A contributions be supported on the basis of their unique extenuating circumstances with specific reference to the extended community benefit from their mission to provide education for children who are unable to attend mainstream schools and their charitable status.

Purpose of Report

Background

Council is in receipt of a request for a merit-based exemption from the obligation to pay development contributions under s94A in association with proposed works at St Lucy’s School in Wahroonga. The request can be found at Attachment A1.

Overview of the current proposals for St Lucy’s School and Limitation of this report

There are currently two Development Applications associated with St Lucy’s School lodged with Ku-ring-gai Council.

6 & 8 Billyard Avenue, 21 & 23 Cleveland Avenue Wahroonga

DA0583/17 is described as follows: Demolition of existing structures at 6 & 8 Billyard Avenue and the staged construction of a basement carpark, classroom buildings and associated landscaping. Increase student numbers to 240 and staff numbers to 105. The site (St Lucy's School) contains a heritage item and is within a heritage conservation area. The proposal includes an exemption request from the Ku-ring-gai S94A Contributions Plan 2015.

10 Billyard Avenue Wahroonga

DA053/17 is described as follows: change of use from a dwelling to educational establishment.

This report relates solely to the request for exemption for development contributions (on merit) and as provided for within the contribution plan.

It is not to be construed to be a merit assessment of the application DA0583/17 to which it relates as a whole. Nor is it to be construed as making any comment in respect of DA0530/17 which does not meet the criteria for the levying of s94A Contributions.

Both these Development Applications are currently under assessment and will be the subject of future assessment report(s) prepared by the assessing planner.

Any recommendation or decision by the Council in respect of the prospective development contributions that would ordinarily arise in the event of any future consent are not to be construed as any commitment to, or reflection of, any such consent. Nor should it be taken into account as part of the process of merit assessment, until the point of recommendation for determination.

Ku-ring-gai s94A Contributions Plan 2015

St Lucy’s School is located outside of the Local Centres and is a non-residential development. The applicable contributions plan in this case is Ku-ring-gai s94A Contributions Plan 2015.

This contributions plan contains a section on the capacity for merit exemptions in section 1.6 on page 8-9.

Merit exemptions from the application of this s94A Contributions Plan

It is not always possible to identify in advance all developments which may be able to make a meritorious case for an exemption from the obligation to pay some or all of the applicable contributions. On the principle of ensuring public accountability, transparency and equity between all developers, this section specifies the limited opportunity for making a merit- based case for exemption.

Council may formally consider, on the individual merits, a case for exempting the following types of development from the levying of contributions:

· Developments which provide a distinct community benefit on a not-for-profit basis including but not necessarily limited to: fire stations, police stations or police shopfronts, ambulance stations, rescue services, State Emergency Service (SES) and Rural Fire Services (RFS) operational bases and the like1;

· Development by or for non-profit or cooperative organisations which provide a distinct community benefit including but not limited to: the provision of childcare services (especially for under-2s and/or special needs children) including kindergartens and pre-schools; outreach services, community services or the like, on a cooperative or not-for-profit basis;

· Development which involves an application solely for the internal conversion of one existing single terrace style shop-top type dwelling (typically located in the town centres along the Pacific Highway) or a freestanding single dwelling which has recently been used for commercial purposes back to residential use. This potential exemption will not apply where that conversion occurs as part of a larger redevelopment which must be considered as a whole;

· Development, or part of a development, where it may be unclear but can be reasonably argued that the nature of the work or the nature of the proposal could fall within the categories of works excluded by clause 25J of the Regulations; and/or

· Development where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that in any particular category of contribution that the development, by the particular nature of its use, in the unique circumstances of the case, should not be subject to the imposition of an indirect contribution levy. Note: Given that the grant of any such exemption, full or partial, may be considered to create a precedent or confer a pecuniary advantage on one developer over others, such an exemption is not likely to be granted unless there are absolute meritorious circumstances that would distinguish the case of the subject development from any other. All such arguments will be put before Council for formal determination and the full text of any such submission will be publicly available on Council’s website for public scrutiny.

Full details of any case for exemption must be included as part of the Development Application to enable the Council to make a merit-based assessment of the unique circumstances of the specific case in question concurrent with the consideration of the application as a whole. In considering any application for an exemption the Council will also take into account the extent to which the proposed development comprises or includes the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services that provide a public benefit, and/or whether the applicant is affected by any adverse financial circumstance which will impact on its ability to fund the payment of any contribution or levy which is imposed in accordance with this indirect Contributions Plan.

This merit assessment process cannot be undertaken by a consent authority other than council. In the case of a development where the consent authority is a JRPP, then it will be necessary for Council to make a prior determination on this matter.

¹ This provision is not intended to include corporate headquarters of any type.

St Lucy’s School

It is considered that St Lucy’s School meets the criteria of providing a distinct community benefit on a charitable/not-for-profit basis through the provision of educational/care services for children with special needs. It should also be noted that it is a listed relevant criterion that Council may also take into account whether the applicant is affected by any adverse financial circumstance which will impact on its ability to fund the payment of any contribution or levy which is imposed in accordance with this indirect Contributions Plan.

The relevant matters are as follows:-

St Lucy’s is a Registered Charity; donations are tax deductible.

While St Lucy’s does charge fees, St Lucy’s relies on the donations it receives to support a large operating deficit because fees are kept low to ensure income is not a barrier to access.

“Parents are reminded that St Lucy’s School fees are kept artificially low to ensure that parents on low incomes are not prevented from having their child attend. The result is a large operating deficit which St Lucy’s fills by asking for donations. We encourage parents who are able to pay more, to do so via a donation accompanying the fees. Donations are tax deductible.” St Lucy’s website

“We rely on philanthropy to enable us to deliver St Lucy’s unique educational experience to all children who will benefit from an education at St Lucy’s.” St Lucy’s website

St Lucy’s is a school specifically for children with disabilities in one or more of the areas of intellectual disability, language disability or autism, visual or hearing impairment as follows:

Evidence of eligibility must be based on approved diagnostic tests with quantified (numeric) results that come within the guidelines.

EITHER

Intellectual disability in Mild to Severe range: <70 IQ assessed by either Stanford Binet or. WISC (or WIPPSI) assessment instrument. An ABAS II (Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System) will also be necessary for students in the 70-75 IQ range.

AND/OR

Severe language impairment with score on CELF III or Pre-School CELF for Expressive or Receptive language of <70.

AND/OR

Diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder signed by clinical psychologist or paediatrician using the DSM-V criteria for one of the autism disorders combined with evidence from school or pre-school or other evidence of inability to access learning in mainstream setting.

AND/OR

Visual impairment with acuity 6/24 or below combined with other disability of language, cognitive function, behavioural difficulty or other impediment to learning in a mainstream setting.

AND/OR

Hearing loss of 30+ decibels or more in both ears, plus communication difficulties.

While St Lucy’s is a Catholic school, children of all faiths who meet the disability criteria are eligible for enrolment.

Comments

The provision of highly specialised schooling for children with one or more predominantly severe disabilities who would otherwise need to be individually accommodated across the NSW schooling system, benefits not only the families involved but the whole community. St Lucy’s School is in the process of applying to provide for high school education for children who have a level of disability which would make it very challenging for them to attend a mainstream high school. The key purposes of the development applications currently with Ku-ring-gai Council are to facilitate this change of focus to provide for K-12 school rather than solely K-6. This change of scope was first proposed in 2014 but deferred until 2017 for financial reasons.

The estimated cost of the proposed development is $11,844,419 would give rise to nominal s94A contribution of $118,444.19 at 1% of the development cost. Given St Lucy’s charitable status and reliance of donations for both capital works and supplementary operating costs, this figure is considered to represent an additional and unreasonable onus. It is also questionable whether prospective donors would consider this payment, even as part of the cost of development, a reasonable potential use of their donations.

Contributions must be levied in accordance with a contributions plan and cannot be altered other than as provided for by that contributions plan. Both adopted Contributions Plans contain limited provisions to facilitate the capacity to argue a merit-based case for exemption for the specific purpose of ensuring that contributions do not have the inadvertent effect of precluding, limiting or delaying the provision of development that has key community benefits.

The development in this case facilitates the provision of specialised schooling for children with one or more predominantly severe disabilities by an organisation that is a registered charity and which relies heavily on such donations.

Precedent

This application is the first report to Council of a merit-based case for exemption from Ku-ring-gai Section 94A Contributions Plan 2015. It was lodged and exhibited as part of DA0583/17.

To date, since the 2010 adoption of the current Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, there has been only one other case of exemption under these criteria for non-residential development.

That matter related to construction of the dementia wing of the Neringah Hospital. The merit application relied on both the not-for-profit status of the owner/operator as well as the nexus inherent in direct (s94), as distinct from indirect (s94A) contributions. Hospitals are assessed as non-private dwellings and the residents of a dementia wing are unable to freely access most of the infrastructure provided through contributions triggering an issue of direct nexus.

Both the current case of St Lucy’s and the previous case of the dementia wing of Neringah Hospital are considered to be matters of a unique and specific merit which are not considered likely to create a precedent that could be utilised by any other entity other than one meeting the same criteria.

The probability of further applications from St Lucy’s in the future as it continues to provide additional high schooling capacity is a matter for consideration in acknowledging their specific precedent but this does not detract from the overall merit argument on its own.

Public Exhibition

The request for exemption from development contributions was formally notified concurrent and as part of the standard notification process for DA0583/17.

As at the date of finalising this report, after the close of exhibition, 11 submissions in total have been received from the residents of adjoining properties that relate to DA0583/17 to which the request for exemption belongs; and 9 submissions in total that relate to DA0530/17 which does not meet the threshold criteria for the levying of contributions. It should be noted that some of these were joint submissions by individuals residing in the same property. Some of the submitters added to their submissions or made multiple submissions. Many submissions included comments on both DA0530/17 for 10 Billyard Avenue and DA0583/17 for 6-8 Billyard Avenue (associated with the main school at 21-23 Cleveland Avenue) in the same submission. All the submissions for both applications received as at the date of drafting this report have been reviewed for comment on the request for an exemption from development contributions.

In this context, there are two references to the request for exemption.

“The roof tiles on the Federation House on No 10 Billyard Avenue need considerable repair. However, as Council is aware, the Applicant has claimed an exemption from the 1% Contribution Levy due to their alleged impecunious status. Given the Applicant’s request for exemption, I am concerned that the Applicant lacks sufficient funding to adequately repair and maintain 10 Billyard Avenue as required under both local and State legislation and that the house on 10 Billyard Avenue will deteriorate over time.”

“My other concern is the request by St Lucy’s for exemption from the 1% Contributions Levy, given the 2010 purchase of No 8 Billyard Avenue for $1.2M, No 10 Billyard Avenue in 2017 for $4.75M and a Development proposal to knock down and rebuild two classroom blocks for $12M.”

Commentary

The properties at 6 and 8 Billyard Avenue are owned by the Trustees of the Sisters of St Dominic. The property at 10 Billyard Avenue is owned by Dominican Education Limited. The former two properties are zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Educational Establishment. The latter is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The last sale price of 10 Billyard Avenue in May 2017 was $4.75M. The Statement of Environmental Effects acknowledges this property is owned by the school but is not part of DA0538/17. The last sale price of 8 Billyard Avenue was in September 2010 and was $1.2M. The owners are essentially part of the larger Catholic Church of Australia.

There is a separate Development Application DA0530/17 lodged for the use of 10 Billyard Avenue for school purposes. The Statement of Environmental Effects states that no physical works are proposed to the property. As such, there is no trigger for the assessment of s94A contributions for this proposal, and no accompanying request. It should be noted that works under $100,000 are exempted from s94A contributions and that an application for the provision of disabled access is, in any case, a work excluded from s94A contributions by the operation of clause 25J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000.

The school’s website provides commentary on the process of adapting the school for K-12:

“With the assistance of external consultants, St Lucy’s School investigated whether it was financially viable to expand to accommodate secondary-aged students in 2014. This expanded secondary-aged school model was at that time envisaged to be located off-site and would cater for students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. At that time, the expanded secondary-aged model was found to be financially unviable, producing an additional $1 million deficit each year.

In 2017, there have been several factors which have prompted a reinvestigation into whether St Lucy’s could accommodate secondary-aged students at Wahroonga. The key changes are:

· Parents continuing to experience difficulty with finding and securing a preferred and appropriate placement for the secondary years, particularly in a Catholic School

· Ongoing parent requests for secondary years at St Lucy’s School

· Purchase of additional land adjoining the Wahroonga campus

· Increases in Federal Government funding announced and legislated in 2017 and beginning 2018 and onwards over the next ten years.”

While it is possible that the school has benefitted from extensive philanthropy or bequests as part of the broader Catholic Church or unaffiliated contributions, with respect to the purchase of the additional land, the use of donations for the payment of development contributions where other core criteria facilitating a justified exemption have been met, could be considered unreasonable.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P8.1.1 Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.

Development Contributions Plans are updated and implemented.

Manage current contributions system, receipting and indexation.

Governance Matters

The consideration of an exemption from development contributions gives rise to probity concerns. Accordingly, the Contributions plans specify the limited criteria for making a case for exemption. Each of the Contributions Plan (which contain the same provisions relating to exemptions) have been advertised, formally adopted as Council Policy and notified in the local newspaper prior to commencement.

The process for such an exemption request is that the request is lodged prior to or concurrent with the relevant development application; advertised for public comment and reported to an ordinary meeting of Council which is open to the public. The formal request for exemption is also attached to this report.

Risk Management

The primary risks are the implied financial risks that would be created by a broad exemption that could be widely misused and the probity risks inherent in making an individual decision based on a merit argument.

The former risk is mitigated by precise articulation of the specific grounds for exemption. The latter is mitigated by the listing of specific and limited grounds within in the exhibited and adopted contributions plan and by the public exhibition for comment and public reporting of the request for exemption.

Financial Considerations

An estimated cost of $11,844,419 would have given rise to s94A contributions of $118,444.19. It is possible there may be further applications from St Lucy’s in the future that may rely on this exemption for similar reasons.

The contributions at issue are under the s94A Contributions Plan rather than the main s94 Contributions Plan. Indirect, s94A, contributions are based on the cost of the proposed development and fund prioritised works based on the actual cumulative rate of receipts. This is a different process compared to s94 contributions, which are a mathematical function of the cost of the required infrastructure divided by the anticipated contributing population. As such, a merit exemption in the case of s94A contributions could not have the same potential financial impact as the merit exemption of a development under the s94 plan in terms of creating an identifiable shortfall.

Social Considerations

St Lucy’s school provides an invaluable community benefit in the form of specialised provision of educational facilities for children with one or more predominantly severe disabilities.

Environmental Considerations

There are no specific environmental considerations arising from the matter of the levying or otherwise of development contributions.

Community Consultation

The Development Application, together with the associated request for exemption from development contributions, was exhibited for 30 days from Thursday, 14 December to Friday, 12 January 2018 inclusive.

A total of 154 letters were sent to neighbouring properties and businesses and the receipt of the application was notified in the North Shore Times on Thursday 14 December 2017. Signage was placed on the property in accordance with standard practice for development applications.

The listing in DA tracking specifically references to request for exemption as follows:-

Description: Demolish existing structures at 6 & 8 Billyard Avenue and the staged construction of a basement carpark, classroom buildings and associated landscaping. Increase student numbers to 240 and staff numbers to 105. The site (St Lucy's School) contains a heritage item and is within a heritage conservation area. The proposal includes an exemption request from the Ku-ring-gai S94A Contributions Plan 2015
Submitted: 04/12/2017

The subject title of the letters to neighbouring properties is essentially the same as this description. Only one direct comment and one indirect reference were received in relation to this matter.

Internal Consultation

Staff of Development and Regulation and Strategy Planning have been involved in the matter and the Corporate Lawyer has been advised prior to finalisation of this report. It is important to ensure that the matter has been considered on its individual merits, that the circumstances are unique and are within the terms allowed by the Contributions Plan and do not give rise to a broader precedent.

Summary

It is considered that the application by St Lucy’s for a merit exemption from s94A contributions can be supported on the basis of their unique extenuating circumstances with specific reference to the extended community benefit from their mission to provide education for children with special needs who are unable to attend mainstream schools on a not-for-profit basis and their status as a registered charity.

The scope of access to capital funding from the broader Catholic Church, while probable in assisting the purchase of the properties, is not considered to negate the merits of the arguments satisfied above in relation to the provision of a distinct community benefit through the provision of education exclusively for children with special needs which is significantly reliant on donations as a registered charity.

Recommendation:

That the application by St Lucy’s for a merit exemption from s94A contributions for DA0583/17 be supported on the basis of their unique extenuating circumstances with specific reference to the extended community benefit from their mission to provide education exclusively for children with special needs who are unable to attend mainstream schools on a not for profit basis and their status as a registered charity.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Co-ordinator

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Request for Exemption

2017/333744

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.8 / 98

Item GB.8	S11689
	16 April 2018

Planning Proposal to modify zoning, height and FSR to land at 95-97 Stanhope Road Killara - Lourdes Retirement Village

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider a Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara on land currently operating as Lourdes Retirement Village.

background:	The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to: 1. rezone the land from R2 (Low Density Residential) to R3 (Medium Density Residential); 2. increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 0.3:1 to 0.8:1; 3. increase the maximum height on part of the site from 9.5m to: · 11.5m adjacent to Stanhope Road; · 22m adjacent to 91 Stanhope Road and to the north of the site; and to · 24m to the central part of the site. The key objective of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to increase the number of dwellings for Seniors Housing and make improvement on the current facilities.

comments:	This report presents the assessment of the Planning Proposal and addresses key issues regarding the application. Whilst increased housing provision for the growing aged population is supported, the site is challenged by its proximity to bushland and the associated bushfire hazard and evacuation risks. In addition, the site is located within a highly visible and intact heritage context and an established low density residential area, distant from the local centre where the proposed densities are more typical, and whose impacts are in keeping with that urban context.

recommendation:	That Council not support the request for the Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara (Lourdes Retirement Village) and that it not be submitted for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider a Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara on land currently operating as Lourdes Retirement Village.

Background

The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) zoning, height and FSR standards to enable an increase in the provision of Seniors Housing and associated services and facilities within the Lourdes Retirement Village.

Discussions with the applicant regarding their proposal have been ongoing. Council officers first met with the applicant and landowner, at their request, in October 2015 to discuss their intentions for the site.

A formal Pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held with the applicant and Council staff on 7 December 2016 to discuss a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of land at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara. The minutes of this meeting are attached to this Report at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 8 September 2017. Following the submission two letters were sent to the applicant (September and December 2017), and one meeting was held (December 2017), requesting additional information to complete their Planning Proposal documentation. The updated Planning Proposal was received by Council on 2 February 2018.

Assessment of the Planning Proposal commenced on 21 March 2018 following the receipt of completed documentation (in line with Council’s requirements and the Department of Planning and Environment’s A guide to preparing planning proposals.)

A copy of the Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A2.

Site description and local context

The site consists of two lots at 95 and 97 Stanhope Road, Killara identified as Lot 21 and Lot 22 in Deposited Plan 634645. It is an irregularly shaped allotment with a total area of approximately 5.25 hectares, owned by Stockland Aevum Limited and currently operating as the Lourdes Retirement Village.

The site is located within a low density residential area and is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential). The area to its north and west is typical of low density residential areas in Ku-ring-gai, with high quality single dwellings within established garden settings.

The land to the south and east of the site is zoned E2 (Environmental Conservation) and contains high quality bushland with biodiversity value. In addition, the adjacent bushland area is identified as a Heritage Item known as Seven Little Australians Park, and which partially sits within the C22 Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation Area located adjacent to the south and west of the site.

The site contains a historical building Headfort House which is utilised as the site Chapel and other administrative functions.

The site has a single frontage with access off Stanhope Road to its north and has its own internal road system servicing the development. It is located on the ridgeline at Stanhope Road with a relatively flat area close to the road and significant falls across the site to the south and east.

The topography of the site affords panoramic views to the south and east across the heritage bushland and residential areas characteristic of the high quality Ku-ring-gai landscape with built form placed under the tree canopy. The views extend to the skylines of the Chatswood and Lindfield town centres where built form penetrates the tree canopy and serve as a marker of key urban centres in the landscape.

Ku-ring-gai’s prevailing tree canopy character with dominant built form only to urban and local centres.(Photo taken from Lourdes site)

Reason for the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal outlines the following reasons for proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015:

· The existing building stock on the site is experiencing a decline in viability and cannot meet the expectations of the emerging baby boomer market, which differs significantly from the more modest demands of previous generations.

· The existing development, constructed in 1983, does not provide services and facilities that are competitive with market demand.

· The dwellings do not have lift access, and the vehicular and pedestrian access is not legible, with some internal streets being too steep to walk.

The proposed amendments would facilitate redevelopment of the site to achieve the following outcomes as indicated in the Planning Proposal:

· provision of increased Seniors Housing to meet growing demands;

· replacement of aged building stock with Seniors Housing apartments;

· delivery of quality communal facilities including communal open space;

· improvement of the internal street and pedestrian network; and

· restoration and preservation of Headfort House.

The following is also listed, however the proposal does not demonstrate this outcome:

· address site features, including the bushland fringe and topography and retention of significant trees.

The Planning Proposal includes the below as an objective, with an explanatory illustration in its Urban Design Study (Attachment A3):

· enable future renewal of the southern part of the site if approved under a separate Planning Proposal.

This objective, with the associated illustration of apartment block type buildings to the south of the site, is not supported and contradicts the content of the Planning Proposal which states that due to challenges around bushfire management, the southern part of the site, adjacent to the bushland, would remain as is with the existing housing.

Whilst the Planning Proposal does not seek amendment of the maximum height to this southern part of the site, it seeks to rezone the site in its entirety to R3 (Medium Density Housing), and apply the increased floor space ratio (FSR) to the whole site. This will enable the intensification of development through increased heights to the north of the site close to Stanhope Road (shaded in blue in the diagram below). The below diagram illustrates the development outcomes being sought for this site (from Urban Design Study attached to Planning Proposal).

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks amendments to the KLEP 2015 to apply R3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning and the associated FSR of 0.8:1 to the entire site. It also asks for a range of increased heights, greater than the standard 11.5m maximum height permitted within R3 zones, to the upper portion of the site whilst retaining the 9.5m height to the south and east of the site. The details of the application are tabulated and illustrated as follows:

KLEP 2015 Standards – 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara
	KLEP 2015 - Existing	KLEP 2015 - Proposed
Zoning	R2 (Low Density Residential)	R3 (Medium Density Residential)
Floor Space Ratio	0.3:1	0.8:1
Height of Building	9.5m	- 11.5m adjacent to Stanhope Road (3 storey) - 22m adjacent to 91 Stanhope Road and across the northern part of the site (6 storey) - 24m to the central part of the site (7 storey) - 9.5m to the south of the site (2 storey)
Minimum Lot Size	840sqm	No change
Heritage mapping	Part Heritage Conservation Area C22	No change
Biodiversity mapping	Part area of biodiversity significance	No change

Proposed Zoning

Proposed FSR

Proposed Height

The proposed amendments will facilitate the expansion of the current Lourdes Retirement Village accommodation, enabling buildings of 3-7 stories (11.5–24m) to the upper portion of the site. The dwelling provision on the site will be doubled, as indicated in the table below, and replace the existing Residential Aged Care Facility, community spaces and independent living units.

The Planning Proposal and supporting studies refer to the increased heights enabling 6 story buildings on the site; however, the sections in the Planning Proposal’s Urban Design Study show that a number of buildings are 7 storey due to the sloping topography and that the line of maximum building height is able to accommodate an additional level on some of the buildings.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Dwelling Numbers – 95-97 Stanhope Rd, Killara
	Existing Dwelling numbers (Planning Proposal pg 6)	Proposed Dwellings numbers (Urban Design Study pg 69)
Independent living units (ILU)	108	281
Serviced apartments (SA)	49	59
Residential aged care facility (RACF)	83 bed	130 rooms
TOTAL	240 dwellings	470 dwellings
Note: Since ILU and SA may house single people, each RACF bed is treated as one dwelling. Note: Whilst the Urban Design Study illustrates 6 storey built forms, the heights being sought (24m) would enable 7 storey development to parts of the site – this would increase the dwelling numbers and GFA stated in the Study.

Several supporting studies form attachments to the Planning Proposal and provide justifications for the Planning Proposal. These are listed below and may be viewed at Attachment A3 – A18 to this Council report.

· Planning Proposal - Attachment A – Urban Design Study, prepared by Architectus

· Planning Proposal - Attachment B – Site Survey, Prepared by Norton Survey Partners

· Planning Proposal - Attachment C – Traffic Impact Assessment, Prepared by ARUP

· Planning Proposal - Attachment D – Bushfire Protection Assessment, Prepared by EcoLogical Australia

· Planning Proposal - Attachment E – Heritage Letter – Response to Draft Urban Design Study, Prepared by GML Heritage

· Planning Proposal - Attachment F – Heritage Significance Assessment – Headfort House, Prepared by GML Heritage

· Planning Proposal - Attachment G – Social Effects Report, Prepared by Elton Consulting

· Planning Proposal - Attachment H – Lourdes Demand Study, Prepared by Elton Consulting

· Planning Proposal - Attachment I – Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement, prepared by Naturally Trees

· Planning Proposal - Attachment J – Ecological Assessment, prepared by ACS Environmental

· Planning Proposal - Attachment K, L, M, N, O, P – Resident Meetings/Presentations/Minutes, Prepared by Stockland

The studies have been considered by Council officers with comment detailed in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A19.

A Planning Proposal is not a Development Application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (previously Section 79C). A Planning Proposal relates only to an LEP amendment and the proposed amendments need to be acceptable as a means for facilitating certain outcomes on the site, regardless of the subsequent approval or refusal of any future Development Application.

The Urban Design Study included with the Planning Proposal provides an indication of the possible type and scale of built outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal. However, in considering the Planning Proposal, the building envelope across the entire site has to be considered as any future application on the site could potentially deliver alternative footprints and development of differing bulk and scale than indicated in the Urban Design Study.

Comments

Introduction

Seniors Housing in Ku-ring-gai may be developed in two ways:

1. Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP).

The SEPP enables the development of Seniors Housing in any zone where ‘dwelling houses’ are permitted. Under the KLEP 2015 ‘dwelling houses’ are permitted in all the residential zones enabling the operation of the SEPP.

Seniors Housing developed under the SEPP is limited to a maximum height of 8m to ensure the integration of the development into the local context. The exception is within zones where ‘residential flat buildings’ are permitted under the local planning instrument. In these locations the SEPP allows ‘vertical villages’ and the heights under the local instrument prevail as the SEPP is silent on those standards.

2. Under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015).

The KLEP 2015 stipulates Seniors Housing as a permitted development in the following zones:

- R1 (General Residential);

- R3 (Medium Density Residential);

- B2 (Local Centre);

- B4 (Mixed Use.)

This enables Seniors Housing to be developed within those zones and be assessed under the standards of the KLEP 2015, including the maximum height provisions.

The KLEP 2015 does not permit Seniors Housing in the R2 (Low Density Residential) nor within the R4 (High Density Residential) zones; therefore, all Seniors Housing in these zones can only be developed and assessed under the SEPP.

Currently, given the site at 95-97 Stanhope Road is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential), the Lourdes Retirement Village may only proceed with Seniors Housing development under the standards of the SEPP. This Planning Proposal seeks to amend the zoning from R2 (Low Density Residential) to R3 (Medium Density Residential) to facilitate development under the KLEP 2015 with the associated increased development standards to enable an increased intensity of development on the site.

Planning Proposal Assessment

The Planning Proposal documents have been evaluated by Council’s Planning, Architectural, Urban Design, Heritage, Transport, Bushfire and Ecological officers.

In addition, due to the serious nature of bushfire risk and the current position by RFS which has influenced the mapping of many areas across Ku-ring-gai, bushfire consultants Australian Bushfire Protection Planners Pty Ltd were engaged to review the applicant’s Bushfire Protection Assessment. The bushfire consultant’s Independent Review of Bushfire Impact report may be seen at Attachment A20.

Associated with the bushfire risk review, Council’s methodology to determine evacuation risk, as applied to areas of bushfire risk across the local government area, has been employed to understand the risks associated with evacuating increased numbers from this area, particularly where that population is elderly and vulnerable. This Bushfire Evacuation Risk Assessment is at Attachment A21 to this Report.

Analysis of the Planning Proposal and its attachments has been conducted and summarised in the Table of Assessment attached to this Report. Assessment of the documentation has found a number of inconsistencies across the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies which are noted in the Table of Assessment.

The key issues raised in the officers’ assessments have led to the conclusion that the rezoning, resulting in intensification of residential dwelling development on this site, cannot be supported. This is primarily due to:

· bushfire and evacuation risks related to aged and vulnerable people;

· limited access to public transport and local services for a population whose reliance on private vehicle use will diminish as they age; and

· the impacts on the locality’s heritage significance, Items and Conservation Area.

Further, the increase in heights across this site cannot be supported due to:

· the lack of strategic merit and inconsistencies with local, district and regional strategies.

Bushfire and evacuation risks

A highly significant consideration for this site is the bushfire risk and the associated bushfire evacuation risk. This is especially critical given the proposal seeks to increase the number of aged and vulnerable residents on the site.

The majority of the site is identified as bushfire prone land on the Bushfire Prone Land Map 2017, being located within the Buffer Area as illustrated below. Bushfire prone land is land that is likely to be subject to bushfire attack, and the Buffer is the area in which developments and people are most likely to be affected by a bushfire burning in the adjacent land. Therefore, the majority of the subject site poses a high risk to the onsite population.

Bushfire Prone Land 2017

The Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment report, at Attachment A6, presents an assessment of the risks and concludes the following:

“…that the subject land is capable of accommodating future development and associated land use with appropriate bushfire protection measures and bushfire planning requirements as prescribed by s.117 (2) Direction 4.4 – ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’ and PBP.

A number of strategies have been provided in this report to mitigate bushfire risk including:

• Ensuring adequate setback from bushfire prone vegetation (APZs);

• Ensuring adequate access and egress from the subject land through a well-designed road system;

• Considering the adequacy of water supply and the delivery of other services (gas and electricity);

• Providing for effective and ongoing management of APZs; and

• Considering construction standards (AS3959) implications for future developments depending on development type.”

Investigation of the Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment by Council’s bushfire and ecology officers and the consultant Australian Bushfire Protection Planners in their Independent Review of Bushfire Impact report, at Attachment A20, dispute this conclusion.

Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (NSW Rural Fire Service) identifies the existing and proposed Seniors Housing land use on the site as a ‘Special Fire Protection Purpose Development’ and provides details on the requirements for such infill developments. It provides Performance Criteria that must be satisfied in the assessment of such development. This Performance Criteria can be satisfied in two different ways:

· use of acceptable solutions listed within the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006; or

· by demonstrating another solution satisfying the specific objectives and Performance Criteria listed within the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. This solution is referred to as a Performance Solution.

The Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment has applied a Performance Solution approach under Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Following are the key issues:

1. Bushfire Threat and Bushfire Attack Assessments

The applicant’s bushfire assessment adopts a Performance Solution approach to the assessment of bushfire threat and bushfire attack. Its modelling includes the bushfire design fires as illustrated by yellow arrows in the below diagram (A). It has used specific slopes agreed with RFS, and selectively utilises two other performance solutions, Short Fire Run and weather data analysis (which has informed the assessment of the Fire Danger Index (FDI)), to identify the site specific Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and Bushfire Attack Level (BAL).

Minor discrepancies in the assessment of specific slopes were identified within some locations as illustrated in the maps below.

(A) Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment – land slope

(B) Independent Review of Bushfire Impact - land slope

The assessment of BAL rating to the future buildings determined in the Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment report is therefore not accurate. Use of the correct FDI of 100 will result in an increase in the level of radiant heat on the buildings. Based on their current proposed location, the result will be an increase in the BAL rating above the accepted BAL 12.5. This increase in radiant heat and construction standards to the proposed buildings do not comply with the performance requirements for Special Fire Protection Purpose Development as per Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

2. Access and egress

Due to the inaccuracies in the determination of the APZs, the assessment of the safety of the occupants is also incorrect and evacuation in the event of bushfire will therefore be required on this site.

All the properties (including 95-97 Stanhope Road) within the catchment area, mapped in the below diagram, exit on Stanhope Road, which is the only exit road from this catchment area.

Catchment area for the assessment of bushfire evacuation risk.

A Bushfire Evacuation Risk Assessment has been undertaken to understand current and potential impacts to this area. The methodology used is the same as applied to Council’s Deferred Areas Planning Proposal, which was supported by the Rural Fire Service and recently endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning. The results of this analysis show:

· The catchment area has a total of 256 dwellings currently existing, Based on the Cova (2005) criteria used in the Deferred Areas Planning Proposal, this number of dwellings exceeds the recommended maximum 50 dwellings for the one exit road (Stanhope Road) by 206 dwellings.

· The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal would result in a total of 486 dwellings within the total catchment area, exceeding the recommended maximum 50 dwellings for the one exit road (Stanhope Road) by 436 dwellings.

· The egress from this catchment area is inadequate in the event of evacuation from bushfire event:

- Currently, Stanhope Road has just enough capacity to evacuate the existing catchment within 30mins.

- With the increase in population that would result from the densities facilitated by the Planning Proposal, the time taken to evacuate the catchment will increase to over 60mins. This exceeds the exit road capacity criteria set by Cova (2005) (as per the Bushfire Evacuation Risk Assessment) by 32mins.

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal would result in almost doubling the number of dwellings within the Lourdes Retirement Village which will house vulnerable groups. This will result in the need for a higher level of response by the Emergency Services to assist in the relocation of the residents to a safer neighbourhood place including the frail and disabled in appropriate transport. This assistance may not be available.

The Planning Proposal establishes a loop perimeter internal road identified as ‘First Avenue’. A review of the likely impact on this road has identified that with the use of the increased Fire Danger Rating (FDI) for the site the north-eastern, eastern and south-eastern sections of the loop will be exposed to radiant heat levels greater than 10kW/m², including all areas between the bushland and the APZ. This section of the loop road will therefore not provide safe access/egress for residents and an operational platform for firefighters assisting during bushfire.

The Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Protection Assessment does not respond to the risk to the existing Independent Living Units retained to the south and east of the site in the Asset Protection Zone setback to the new buildings.

Whilst a new assessment may be conducted by the applicant with the correct FDI, previous advice from the NSW Rural Fire Service on similar projects has confirmed that the Service is unlikely to accept an increase in the occupancy of such facilities due to the need to evacuate an increased number of vulnerable people from the site, placing additional demand on road infrastructure and the emergency services.

3. Consideration of multi-level buildings

The Planning Proposal will enable the construction of multi-level buildings up to 7 stories exceeding the existing two to three storey height. Such buildings have higher densities and increased external façade surface areas potentially exposed to bushfire attack.

The increased height can result in exposure to convective heat and is exacerbated on this site by the steep slopes across which bushfire will travel.

Additionally, the provision of multi-storey buildings housing higher populations will make egress from the building more challenging and place an increased demand on road infrastructure during evacuation.

The NSW Rural Fire Service recommends that multi-storey buildings should not be located along ridges (such as this site) or slopes with significant fire runs.

Ø This Planning Proposal is not supported as the RFS have confirmed that it will not accept the lowered Fire Danger Index for this site location that have been used in the Planning Proposal’s assessment. The RFS approved Fire Danger Index will result in increasing the bushfire risks above those addressed within the Planning Proposal’s Bushfire Assessment.

Ø Significant evacuation issues have been identified for the area and which will be exacerbated by the increase in vulnerable population on this site resulting from the development potential of this Planning Proposal.

Ø The proposal will result in exposure to radiant heat and provide construction standards that do not comply with the Special Fire Protection Purpose developments under Section 117 Direction 4.4 Planning for Bush Fire Protection and Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

Access to transport and services

95-97 Stanhope Road is located in a low density residential area predominantly serviced by private vehicles. Public transport to the site is limited to one bus service, Route 556, which links the site to East Killara and Lindfield Station. The bus service operates from 6am to 8.30pm, and runs at low frequencies: 30 minute intervals during am and pm peak times, and 1 hour intervals outside peak times. The frequencies and hours of operation are even lower on weekends.

Killara railway station and post office are the closest services to the site. They are located at 1.3km from the site, beyond easy walking distance for the residents and with no public transport links to them.

Other basic services and facilities such as supermarkets, pharmacies, medical centres, cinema, library and local parks are located well outside the convenient 10 minute walking catchment as suggested in ‘Planning guidelines for walking and cycling’ (PCAL, 2004), and therefore not within an attractive and manageable walking distance for residents of this site. Access to these services and facilities by residents is reliant on either private vehicle use or the limited service of the 556 bus.

Given its limited frequency, particularly during off-peak times when, as stated in the Planning Proposal (pg 16), residents are most likely to travel, the 556 bus service is unlikely to be attractive as a mode of travel for residents, employees or visitors.

Despite the location of this site on a bus route, there will continue to be a heavy reliance by residents on private vehicle use to access basic services and local facilities. This poses an issue for the ageing population. Unless residents have access to a private vehicle and remain able to drive as they age, the site location presents as a barrier isolating the ageing residents from the services, facilities and community groups that this ageing population might access.

Ø The significant increase in aged population in this location, facilitated by the Planning Proposal, is not supported. Whilst the site increases the housing stock for the aged population, the site is not well located resulting in a heavy reliance on private vehicle use or limited public transport connections to essential services. Its limited access precludes good ongoing connection with the local community outside the site.

Heritage significance, Items and Conservation Area

The site is partially included in and surrounded on three sides (west, south and east) by the C22 Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). It is adjacent to the Seven Little Australians Park Heritage Item (No.I1100) to its south and east, and is in the vicinity of the heritage listed Swain Gardens (No.I1103) to its west and the Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park (No.I1099) to the east.

Due to the partial inclusion within, and proximity of the HCA and the Heritage Items, heritage consideration is a key component in the assessment of the Planning Proposal and its resultant built form.

The Planning Proposal does not consistently acknowledge its partial inclusion within the HCA nor does it adequately respond to the site’s heritage context. It does not demonstrate integration into the suburban character or scale of the adjacent HCA, neither does it give consideration to the setting of the bushland heritage landscape of the listed Seven Little Australian Park adjacent to its boundary, nor to the vistas from the Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park. The Planning Proposal states:

Although it is acknowledged that this is an increase in density beyond that of the sites wider surrounds, this is required to afford a high quality outcome for future residents, and the Urban Design Report shows that this density can be achieved without imposing on streetscape character or the significance of Headfort House.

Whilst the garden setting retained at the Stanhope Road frontage of Headfort House will contribute to the street appearance of the HCA, the Planning Proposal would enable 3 storey (11.5m) and 6 storey (22m) buildings to Stanhope Road which do not create interface and transitional areas of bulk and scale within the streetscape and the context of the HCA. In addition, the proposal will enable buildings up to 7 stories (24m) on the highest point of the site. This will have consequences for district views to the site and for the setting of the bushland Heritage Items.

The logic applied to heights following contours is acknowledged, however it is not appropriate in this low density residential context adjacent to the bushland, Heritage Items and the HCA. The heights being sought will locate the tallest (6-7 storey) buildings on the highest points of the site, will be visible above the tree canopy, and through the tree canopy (due to the densities and associated bulk and mass of built form), from several heritage locations including Seven Little Australians Park and Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park.

Seven Little Australians Park is a nature reserve that includes bush walks including historical paths of the early residents of Killara. These bushwalks were intended as a bush retreat, a place to get away from the built up suburbs and have historic and aesthetic significance. This sense of escape will be lost with the visibility of the 6-7 storey buildings from the bush tracks within the reserve.

The image below shows a view from the bush track below Ethel Turner lookout in Seven Little Australians Park. Circled is the Optus Base Station which is located opposite Lourdes Retirement Village (north east side). The Optus Base Station has at its highest point an RL of 117.65. The RL of the proposed maximum building heights as indicated in the Urban Design Study is 127.3 (with lift overrun).

Optus Base Station at RL 117.65 visible above tree canopy. Photos taken from Seven Little Australians Park.

The proposal seeks an increased height to RL 127.3 making it highly visible above the canopy.

Optus Base Station at RL 117.65 visible above tree canopy. Photo taken from Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park and oval.

The proposal seeks an increased height to RL 127.3 making it highly visible above the canopy.

The impact on the bushwalks and their intended historical ambience as a ‘bush retreat’ has not been adequately addressed. A maximum building height that renders any new structure not visible above the canopy would show regard for the locally heritage listed bushland park. This would also integrate with the wider principles of the Ku-ring-gai character of buildings placed within a landscaped setting and below the tree canopy.

These are views from existing heritage conservation areas across the Seven Little Australians Park especially Crowns Block Conservation Area. At present these sites take in bush vistas but the inclusion of these buildings would result in visible built structures above the canopy. It is important that building heights on the site are below the canopy so regional vistas from conservation areas of the bush are not interrupted by new built elements; and, that the provision of deep soil areas to facilitate improved tall canopy trees be a consideration for any urban study for the site.

Headfort House:

Headfort House is located on the north-west corner of the Lourdes site. While it is not currently locally heritage listed the building was assessed by the consultants GML Heritage to have heritage significance to Ku-ring-gai based on three heritage criteria: historical significance, historical association and social significance. The former house, now Chapel, is a two storey Federation Arts and Craft style building that has undergone known modifications for its adaptive reuse. The house importantly has historical significance as it was purpose built c1918 as a boys’ school known at this time as Headfort School.

Photograph of Headfort House c. 1921.

The extant building is circled in red.

Photo Source: GML Heritage: Headfort House – 95 Stanhope Road, Killara – Heritage Significance Assessment May 2017.

Photograph of Headfort House taken March 2018.

Architectural details of the Arts and Craft building still present on the entrance façade.

Photograph of Headfort House taken March 2018.

Infilled windows apparent on the first floor.

Headfort House was assessed in the Heritage Significance Assessment by GML Heritage at Attachment A8 and found to have cultural significance for the following heritage criteria:

Historical significance	· as evidence of the growth of Killara and its development from rural area to residential suburb; as evidence of the effect of WWII on the local area (use by AWAS in the 1940s); and as a tuberculosis hospital.
Historical association	· building is associated with the prominent educator Thomas Wade who was the founding headmaster of Headfort House.
Social significance	· to the AWAS, patients and staff of Lourdes hospital, and importance to Ku-ring-gai’s sense of place

The statement of significance for Headfort House (Attachment F – Heritage Significance Assessment) states:

Headfort House has significance at a local level. Headfort House has historical significance as it is evidence of the early Twentieth-Century growth and development of the suburb of Killara and the resultant need for schools in the area. It has further historical significant for its use by the Australian Women’s Army Service (AWAS) for training during WWII, and for its later use as a tuberculosis hospital. Headfort House is associated with the reverend Robert Thomas Wade, a prominent educator, ichthyologist and palaeontologist who was the founding headmaster of the Headfort School. The building also has potential social significance for its association with the AWAS, patients and staff of Lourdes Hospital, and for its importance to the Ku-ring-gai community’s sense of place.

Given that Headfort House has local heritage significance based on the 3 heritage criteria above, it does meet the test for local listing. Therefore, it is recommended to amend the Planning Proposal to locally heritage list Headfort House and its immediate curtilage. It is not recommended that this listing include the entire Lourdes site, instead it should be contained to what has been found to have local significance as per the GML heritage assessment (Planning Proposal Attachment F – Heritage Significance Assessment).

In contradiction to the content of its supporting Heritage Significance Assessment by GML, the Planning Proposal states the below.

The assessment found that although Headfort House has significance at a local level, it does not reach the threshold for heritage listing at a local level.

This is an incorrect statement with inadequate consideration of the significance of Headfort House being given in the Planning Proposal and in the design considerations of the Urban Design Study. In addition, the Planning Proposal’s Attachment E - Heritage Letter response – Draft Urban Design Study by GML Heritage states:

Whilst the site is not presently heritage listed, GML’s Heritage Significance Assessment (prepared for Stockland in 2017) found that the former Headfort School building (Headfort House) in its garden setting is of heritage significance to Ku-ring-gai. The site is immediately adjacent to two heritage items listed on the LEP 2015.”–

Ø Given its significance, Headfort House and its immediate curtilage should be listed as local heritage item on Ku-ring-gai’s Local Environmental Plan (2015) and that any future planning proposal for 95 Stanhope Road Killara include this local heritage listing.

Ø Any proposal for this site would be required to restrict the building heights on the site to below the canopy so regional vistas of the bush items and conservation areas are not interrupted by new built elements, and to enable new landscaping to provide and improve the tree canopy on the site itself.

Ø As a potential Heritage Item the proposed building height of 22m (6 storey) immediately adjacent to Headfort House is considered excessive. It is recommended the building height in the vicinity of the potential Heritage Item be limited to the existing ridge-height of the historic portion of Headfort House.

Ø The new/relocated grotto should not present as a wall to the street, nor with a carport-like structure in the front garden as currently implied by the Urban Design Study. The visual curtilage to Headfort House from the street should be retained and enhanced to respect its significance and also to ensure consistency with the predominant residential character of Stanhope Road and the adjacent HCA, of houses fronting the street within quality landscaped garden settings.

Local, District and Regional strategic merit

The Planning Proposal does not demonstrate consistency with strategic local, district and regional principles. Whilst it aligns with the provision of additional housing numbers and choice, it conflicts with other key planning factors. Its departure from the current planning principles and standards applying to this location are not justified and would create a precedent for the numerous retirement village type facilities within Ku-ring-gai.

The justifications to question 3, 4, 5, 6 in the proposal focus on the merits of the site development and provision of additional housing, but does not give due (and in some instances inaccurate) consideration to issues relating to its context. Key points are outlined below with details included in the Table of Assessment attached to this Report.

1. Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015)

The KLEP 2015 mapping delineates E2 (Environmental Conservation) areas directly adjacent to this site with objectives “to protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values”. In addition, part of these E2 lands are Heritage Items and HCA with objectives “to conserve the environmental heritage of Ku-ring-gai” and “to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views”. The site is also located within a quality low density residential area zoned R2 (low Density Residential) with an objective “to provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai”.

The proposal shows limited understanding of the adjacent quality and intact bushland and heritage elements, associated existing high character value of the residential location, and of Ku-ring-gai Council’s key and prevailing landscape character of buildings under the tree canopy within these types of low density areas.

The proposed heights permitting 3–7 storey buildings (11.5-24m), with the tallest being on the high point of the site, will clearly detract from the quality and identity of the area. It will penetrate above the tree canopy and will not provide the interface transitions to the adjacent low density dwellings, heritage neighbourhood and Items, including to Headfort House at the front of the site and adjacent to the neighbouring HCA.

The site is located in an established low density residential area distant from the local and neighbourhood centres. The area is not undergoing a transition warranting a departure from the local character and the principles mapped in KLEP 2015 with development densities being focussed around centres with high availability of transport and services. Therefore any proposal must demonstrate how it will support the desired future character which, at this location, will be a continuation of the existing character. The Planning Proposal does not demonstrate alignment or integration of these objectives.

2. Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan 2030 (CSP)

Whilst the Planning Proposal demonstrates some consistency with the objectives of the CSP, some of the justifications are not validated by the proposal.

· Theme 1 – Community, People and Culture

- Ku-ring-gai has an ageing population and a key focus is providing appropriate housing, accessible services, facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of this ageing population.

- It is acknowledged that the Planning Proposal will provide additional housing for seniors within Ku-ring-gai to support the demand for the aging population, however, the housing for seniors needs to be appropriately located.

- The Planning Proposal will provide for increase in seniors housing in an out of centres location, not supported by infrastructure, transport or services, and the site has overriding constraints of bushfire hazard, evacuation risks, and heritage and biodiversity.

- The Planning Proposal has not addressed C7.1 An aware community able to prepare and respond to the risk to life and property from emergency events. The site is identified as Bushfire Prone Land, has constrained capacity to enable safe evacuation, and provides for a land use that caters to people who are particularly vulnerable in the event of a bushfire.

· Theme 2 – Natural Environment

- The natural environment is highly valued in Ku-ring-gai, especially the extent of bushland and biodiversity, and the established tree canopy. The Community Strategic Plan outlines that “development should not occur at the expense of the local natural character and no impact detrimentally on the local environment”.

- The Planning Proposal provides an inconsistent and incomplete assessment regarding significant vegetation on site (including threatened ecological communities listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016) and fails to effectively demonstrate that the development resulting from the proposed amendments can be designed, sited and managed to avoid potentially adverse environmental impact or if that a potentially adverse environmentally impact cannot be avoided that appropriate offsetting can be met.

· Theme 3 – Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

- The proposal shows limited understanding of the adjacent quality and intact bushland and heritage elements, associated existing high character value of the location, and of Council’s key and prevailing landscape character of buildings under the tree canopy within these types of low density areas.

- The proposed heights permitting 3–7 storey buildings (11.5-24m), with the tallest being on the high point of the site, will clearly detract from the quality and identity of the area.

- The site is located in an established low density residential area distant from the local and neighbourhood centres. The area is not undergoing a transition warranting a departure from the local character.

- Headfort House has been identified as having local heritage significance, and it is considered that the proposed building height of 22m adjacent to this potential heritage item is excessive.

· Theme 4 – Access, Traffic and Transport

- The site is not well located in terms of proximity to shops and services (such as supermarkets, pharmacies, medical centres), and frequent public transport in order to support the significant increase in residential density. The site is serviced by one infrequent bus service

- The future residents of this site and employees will likely be using cars to access jobs, basic services and facilities. Unless residents have access to a private vehicle and remain able to drive as they age, the site location presents as a barrier isolating the ageing residents from the services, facilities and community groups that this ageing population might access.

- The site is not well located, resulting in heavy reliance on private vehicles and limited public transport

3. North District Plan

The Planning Proposal argues its consistency with the objectives and actions of the North District Plan primarily around the provision of housing supply and choice. However, it does not demonstrate consistency with the Priorities of the North District Plan as indicated below:

· Planning Priority N3 – Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs.

- Whilst the provision of housing for seniors and aged care will contribute to meeting the needs of the ageing population, the site location does not have ready access to the necessary shops, services, facilities and transport to support the growth of this population group at this location. In addition other site constraints such as heritage, biodiversity and bushfire hazard risk present high conflict with the desires of the proposal.

· Planning Priority N5 – Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport.

- The proposal states that it is consistent as it provides housing supply, choice and affordability, however it does not address the issue of access to services and to a lesser extent, jobs which form part of this Priority.

- Access to shops and services by walking is important as it would contribute to reducing the number of trips generated and the distances travelled, especially by car, and increase the potential to derive health benefits of walking as a mode of travel to shops and services.

- The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Planning Priority as the provision of the housing is in an out of centres location, not supported by infrastructure, transport or services and has overriding constraints on the site of bushfire hazard risk and the important heritage and biodiversity setting.

· Planning Priority N6 – Creating and renewing great places and local centres and respecting the Districts heritage

- The Heritage Assessment by GML submitted with the Planning Proposal found ‘Headfort House’ located on the subject site to have local heritage significance. However, the Planning Proposal and Urban Design study have given inadequate consideration to the heritage significance of Headfort House.

- The proposal seeks heights that will deliver development that will sit above the prevailing tree canopy characteristic of the immediate and wider Ku-ring-gai area. This will adversely impact the heritage setting and views and vistas related to adjacent heritage Items as discussed in the body of this Report.

· Planning Priority N12 – Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30min city.

- The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Priority as the site is not well located in terms of accessibility to public transport and services due to its out of centre location. Future residents of the site and employees will continue to rely on private cars to access jobs, basic services and facilities.

- The North District Plan uses 30 minutes of travel time to a metropolitan/strategic centre by public transport as an indicator of developing a well-connected city. While not being in a metropolitan/strategic centre, 30 minutes travel time is largely recognised in transport planning as a fairly stable travel time budget. The very limited 30 minute public transport catchment suggests that employees are likely to be outside this catchment and therefore are likely to use other means of transport (i.e. private vehicle) in their journey to work. In reality, the 30 minute frequency of the route 556 bus service during am and pm peak times (and 1 hour frequency outside peak times) is unlikely to be attractive as a mode of travel for residents, employees or visitors.

- It is likely, therefore, that future residents of this site and employees will likely be using cars to access jobs, basic services and facilities

· Planning Priority N16- Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

· Planning Priority N19- Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering greengrid connections

- The Planning Proposal’s Ecological Assessment does not address onsite vegetation that is not proposed to be removed, including indigenous trees considered local to the surrounding vegetation communities and significant vegetation along Stanhope Avenue.

This address is considered important as it includes:

i. Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016); and

ii. Coastal Shale-Sandstone Forest, a community listed as 92% cleared the NSW BioNet Vegetation Classification Database lists this community (that is, it has less than 8% of its estimated distribution prior to pre- European extent estimates).

- The Planning Proposal’s Ecological Assessment indicates that the site does not contain threatened ecological communities. This is incorrect as analysis of aerial photographs within the site, from 1943 to 2016, shows persistent vegetation within areas mapped by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (within the site). The vegetation assemblage, landscape and soils within these areas are consistent with the scientific determination of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. It is also consistent in that the determination recognises this community even within areas where the original forest or woodland structure no longer exist (i.e. individual remnant trees).

- The Planning Proposal provides an inconsistent and incomplete assessment regarding significant vegetation on site (including threatened ecological communities listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and does not effectively demonstrate that the proposed development can be designed, sited and managed, to avoid potentially adverse environmental impact or, if that if a potentially adverse environmental impact cannot be avoided, that appropriate offsetting can be met.

- The Planning Proposal will result in the removal of, or put at risk, a significant number of high category trees. The broad landscape planning provided within the Urban Design Report, does not provide sufficient detail to determine future canopy outcomes (including on site planting).

· Planning Priority N22- Adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change.

- The North District Plan notes that ‘placing development in hazardous areas or increasing density of development in areas with limited evacuation options increases risk to people and property’. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Planning Priority as it will result in an increase of a vulnerable population on this site, exposing them to bushfire risk and evacuation risks in the event of bushfire.

· Planning Priority N17 – Protecting and enhancing scenic and cultural landscapes

- The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Planning Priority as the proposed building heights, particularly located on the highest parts of the site, will rise above the prevailing tree canopy, and be inconsistent with the low density area context with built form placed under the canopy. The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will result in buildings extending above the tree canopy, impacting on the scenic landscape and cultural heritage landscape setting of Items including the adjacent Seven Little Australians Park. The protrusion of the built form above the canopy is not warranted as this site is distant from any local centre where such interruptions to the tree canopy are warranted as skylines marking key urban centres.

4. Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities (March 2018)

The Planning Proposal argues its consistency with the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan primarily around the provision of housing supply and choice but it does not demonstrate that consistency as indicated below:

· Objective 10 - Greater Housing Supply

- The Greater Sydney Region Plan recognises that not all areas are appropriate for significant additional development, due to lack of access to shops, services and public transport and local amenity constraints.

- While the Planning Proposal will contribute to delivering the required additional housing for Greater Sydney, the location of this additional housing resulting from the amendment sought by the Planning Proposal is not appropriate due to its out of centre location (away from shops, services and transport) its low density residential and heritage setting, and constraints on the site, namely bushfire hazard and evacuation risk.

· Objective 11 – Housing is more diverse and affordable.

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with this objective relating to housing diversity, as it provides housing for seniors and aged care housing, which will be important for the ageing population.

· Objective 13 – Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced.

- Heritage identification, management and interpretation are required so that heritage places and stories can be experienced by current and future generations.

- The Heritage Assessment by GML submitted with the Planning Proposal found ‘Headfort House’ to have local heritage significance. However, the Planning Proposal and Urban Design study have given inadequate consideration to the heritage significance of Headfort House.

- The proposal does not give due consideration to the impacts on the adjacent Heritage Items and HCA.

· Objective 14 – Integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30minute cities.

Strategy 14.1 Integrate land use and transport plans to deliver the 30min city.

- The land use is not integrated with transport provision in this area.

- The site is not well located in terms of accessibility to transport and services due to its out of centre location. Future residents of the site and employees will continue to rely on private cars to access jobs, basic services and facilities.

· Objective 27 – Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhanced.

Strategy 27.1 Protect and enhance biodiversity by:

- Supporting landscape-scale biodiversity conservation and the restoration of bushland corridors

- Managing urban bushland and remnant vegetation as green infrastructure

- Managing urban development and urban bushland to reduce edge-effect impacts

· Objective 30 – Urban tree canopy cover is increased

· Objective 28 – Scenic and cultural landscapes are protected

- The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Objective, as the heights sought by the planning proposal, particularly on the highest part of the site, will result in a built form that will extend above the tree canopy, impacting on views in the surrounding areas and impacting on the scenic landscape value of the surrounding area, particularly as the site forms the backdrop to the adjacent Heritage Item (Seven Little Australians Park).

· Objective 37 – Exposure to natural and urban hazards is reduced.

Strategy 37.1 – Avoid locating new urban development in areas exposed to natural and urban hazards and consider options to limit the intensification of development in existing urban areas most exposed to hazards.

- The site is identified as Bushfire Prone Land, has constrained capacity to enable safe evacuation, and provides for a land use that caters to people who are particularly vulnerable in the event of a bushfire. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this objective and strategy, as it will result in an increase in population to an existing vulnerable community, exposing them to bushfire risk and evacuation risks in the event of bushfire.

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with key strategic documents at the local, district and regional levels. It aligns with the objectives of housing provision for the growing aged person demography, however this is at the cost of other key strategies within those plans.

Given the issues of bushland setting, heritage conservation, interface issues with adjacent low density dwellings, the amendment seeking increased heights (11.5-24m) is not supported. Any additional height would have to ensure that the building envelope remains beneath the canopy as per the prevailing character of the Ku-ring-gai area, particularly outside the local centres, and especially adjacent to areas of high heritage bushland significance. This would ensure that any views to the site from surrounding areas continue to read in alignment with the Ku-ring-gai landscape of built form under the canopy. In particular the setting of the listed Seven Little Australians Park is not detracted from by any built form dominating and penetrating the canopy uphill from it, and the views and vistas from the listed Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park are preserved

A more acceptable maximum height would be 11.5m (3 storey) with the associated FSR. This will ensure the integration of a new Seniors Housing development into the local heritage, bushland and low density context, supporting the local character. It would also enable appropriate interface areas to the adjacent residential detached dwelling at 91 Stanhope Road, Headfort House and existing dwellings on the site, and to Stanhope Road, preserving the dominant Ku-ring-gai character of buildings placed underneath the tree canopy. Having said this, any intensification of Seniors Housing on the site is not supported due to the overriding issues around increased vulnerable populations being accommodated on a high bushfire and evacuation risk site.

Ø The ability of the Planning Proposal to deliver additional Seniors Housing demographic trends is agreed, however the proposal does not demonstrate any overarching strategic merit due to its contradiction and erosion of local character and inconsistency with the approaches of the local, district and regional strategic plans.

Other matters

A petition with 113 signatures was tabled at the 27 March 2018 Council meeting, opposing the Planning Proposal. The Petition, titled Safety of Residents of Lourdes Retirement Village during Bushfire Evacuation was prepared by residents of the Lourdes Retirement Village. It raises concerns regarding the increased population that would be the result of the Planning Proposal and the bushfire and evacuation risks associated with such population on this site. The issues raised in the petition have been covered in the body of this Report.

Conclusion

Whilst the motivations for this Planning Proposal are understood and the need to upgrade the current housing stock and facilities on the site is acknowledged, there has been a significant progression in understanding the risks associated with bushfire hazard. This is especially so given the expected continuation of climate change and global warming with the associated increase in bushfire occurrence, intensity and duration.

Due to this understanding and in the face of growing State and Federal policy around these issues, Ku-ring-gai Council, in close consultation with RFS, has applied special zoning to high risk areas similar to this site that prevent housing and uses for vulnerable groups. Where these uses are already in existence, this Council seeks to manage the numbers of populations on them and prevent any further increase of elderly at risk in the event of a bushfire.

The proposal has not adequately factored in a number of key issues including bushfire risk and evacuation risk, adequacy of transport services, links with facilities, the unique heritage setting, prevalent low density residential area character under the tree canopy, and the high quality built and landscape character of this locality.

As discussed in this Report and the attached Table of Assessment, the proposed density and heights, illustrated in the Planning Proposal Urban Design Study, will result in built form that:

· does not complement and integrate with the adjacent HCA nor with the adjacent Heritage Items;

· does not enhance the setting of Headfort House on the site which has the merit for local listing;

· does not maintain an appropriate character within the low density residential area, particularly with regards to heights that are extreme for this location and sit above the tree canopy;

· does not consider the interface transition and overbearing bulk and scale to the existing 2 storey dwellings proposed to be retained to the south of the site, to Headfort House, nor to the neighbouring dwelling at 91 Stanhope Road;

· does not adequately consider the value of the Stanhope Street frontage and compatibility of scale and address to the street, rather focusing on the creation of the internal streets, including the relationship of Headfort House with Stanhope Street and the placement of built structure in front of the building line;

· does not respond to the natural environment particularly its proximity to open bushland with high environmental value but also with the associated bushfire hazards and bushfire evacuation risks;

· does not acknowledge the highly unlikely increase in local services or facilities within easy walking distance including public transport service to that area, and unable to meet the demands of the increased aged population that would result from the proposal; and

· does not demonstrate consistency with local, district and regional strategic plans, and will be unable to deliver outcomes that will support the strategic principles of the Plans due to the location of the site and the key aspects that conflict with increased development on the land.

Therefore, this Planning Proposal cannot be supported and it is recommended to be refused.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

Continue to review existing strategies and plans

Governance Matters

The process for the preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Under Clause 10A of the EP&A Regulation 2000, if Council does not support a request made for the preparation of a Planning Proposal under Part 3 of the Act, the Council is required to notify the proponent as soon as practicable in writing that the proposal is not supported

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on this Planning Proposal. Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

This is a private Planning Proposal and Council’s Fees and Charges have been applied to cover the Departmental costs of processing the Planning Proposal. Should the proposal proceed to exhibition, advertising fees will be sought from the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges. Costs to develop the recommended site specific DCP controls upon Gateway determination will be sought from the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

Social Considerations

The applicant has submitted a Planning Proposal to increase the provision of Seniors Housing on their site which currently operates as the Lourdes Retirement Village. Whilst this housing provision is supported, it is not supported on this particular site due to the high bushfire hazard and evacuation risks to the vulnerable on site population, and due to the isolation factors caused by distance from local services and a limited single bus service operating at low frequency.

Environmental Considerations

All aspects of the proposal with potential environmental impacts have been considered in the preparation of this Council Report. Assessment has included comment on the ecological and arboricultural reports included in the Planning Proposal. Any specific development that occurs on the site as a result of the proposal will be considered in detail at the development application stage.

Community Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken by the applicant to inform its community of this proposal. The Planning Proposal attaches these presentations and minutes of meetings which delineate plans, outcomes and timelines associated with the proposal. As a result of these presentations, Council received and considered a Petition with 113 signatures from the Lourdes Retirement Village residents opposing the Planning Proposal.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has taken place for the preparation of this report. Council’s planning, architectural, urban design, heritage, transport, bushfire and ecological staff have assessed and provided comment which has informed the recommendations of this Report.

Summary

The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) to enable an increase in the provision of Seniors Housing and associated services and facilities within the Lourdes Retirement Village. It seeks to apply R3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning and the associated FSR of 0.8:1 to the entire site, and a range of increased heights (11.5-24m), greater than the standard 11.5m maximum height permitted within R3 zones, to the upper portion of the site whilst retaining the 9.5m height to the south and east of the site.

The site is located within a low density residential area with high quality single dwellings within established garden settings directly next to the C22 Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation Area. The adjacent areas house high quality bushland with biodiversity value which is identified as the Seven Little Australians Park Heritage Item. The site contains a historical building, Headfort House, utilised as the site Chapel and other administrative functions.

Whilst the provision of additional housing for the aged is recognised, the location of this site precludes its consideration for development intensification that would result from this Planning Proposal.

The rezoning and development standards will result in higher numbers of Seniors Housing development on this site that cannot be supported due to:

· bushfire and evacuation risks related to aged and vulnerable people;

· limited access to public transport and local services for a population whose reliance on private vehicle use will diminish as they age; and

· the impacts on the locality’s heritage significance, Items and Conservation Area.

Further, the increase in heights across this site cannot be supported due to:

· the lack of strategic merit and inconsistencies with local, district and regional strategies.

This Report as presented has drawn the following conclusions why this Planning Proposal cannot be supported:

Recommendation:

It is recommended:

A. That Council does not support the request for the Planning Proposal at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara (Lourdes Retirement Village) and that it not be submitted for a gateway determination for the following reasons:

i. High bushfire risks due to the proximity of the site to open bushland;

ii. High bushfire evacuation risks related to aged and vulnerable residents within Seniors Housing;

iii. Limited access to public transport and services;

iv. Impacts on the locality’s heritage significance, Items and Conservation Area;

v. Interface impacts on adjacent low density dwellings, Stanhope Road and bushland;

vi. Lack of strategic merit and inconsistencies with the KLEP 2015 and Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan;

vii. Lack of strategic merit and inconsistencies with the North District Plan and Greater Sydney Regional Plan.

B. That, in accordance with cl10A of the EP&A Regulation 2000, the proponent be notified of Council’s decision not to support the Planning Proposal.

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Pre Planning Proposal Meeting Minutes - Lourdes Retirement Village - 7 December 2016		2018/133623
	A2	Planning Proposal - 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara - Lourdes Retirement Village		2018/133282
	A3⇨	Planning Proposal - A - Urban Design Study, prepared by Architectus	Excluded	2018/129308
	A4⇨	Planning Proposal - B - Site Survey	Excluded	2018/129312
	A5 ⇨	Planning Proposal - C - Traffic Impact Assessment	Excluded	2018/129319
	A6 ⇨	Planning Proposal - D - Bushfire Protection Assessment	Excluded	2018/129325
	A7 ⇨	Planning Proposal - E - Heritage Letter Response to Draft Urban Design Study	Excluded	2018/129331
	A8 ⇨	Planning Proposal - F - Heritage Significance Assessment - Headfort House	Excluded	2018/129334
	A9⇨	Planning Proposal - G - Social Effects Report	Excluded	2018/129335
	A10 ⇨	Planning Proposal - H - Lourdes Demand Study	Excluded	2018/129337
	A11 ⇨	Planning Proposal - I - Arboricultural Impact Appraisal	Excluded	2018/129343
	A12 ⇨	Planning Proposal - J - Ecological Assessment	Excluded	2018/129345
	A13 ⇨	Planning Proposal - K - Resident Meeting 1 - Minutes	Excluded	2018/129347
	A14 ⇨	Planning Proposal - L - Resident Meeting 2 - Presentation	Excluded	2018/129348
	A15 ⇨	Planning Proposal - M - Resident Meeting 3 - Presentation	Excluded	2018/129354
	A16 ⇨	Planning Proposal - N - Resident Meeting 4 - Presentation	Excluded	2018/129357
	A17 ⇨	Planning Proposal - O - Resident Meeting 5 - Presentation	Excluded	2018/129361
	A18 ⇨	Planning Proposal - P - Resident Information - Session Minutes	Excluded	2018/129366
	A19	Table of Assessment - Planning Proposal - Lourdes Retirement Village		2018/134806
	A20	Independent Review of Bushfire Impact prepared by Australian Bushfire Protection Planners Pty Ltd		2018/105115
	A21	Bushfire Evacuation Risk Assessment - 91-97 Stanhope Road, Killara		2018/133285

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	PT.1 / 43

Item PT.1	S10468

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.1 / 45

Item GB.1	S05273
	7 May 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.2 / 51

Item GB.2	S05273
	7 May 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.3 / 58

Item GB.3	S09112/7
	2 May 2018

Attachments:	A1	Attachment A1 - Restricted Assets Report - March 2018		2018/129298
	A2	Attachment A2 - Summary of Capital and Operational Projects Budget Adjustments - March 2018		2018/129302

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2013/2014	16
2014/2015	31
2015/2016	38
2016/2017	41
2017/2018 (as at 31 March 2018)	36

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.4 / 69

Item GB.4	S11352

Attachments:	A1	Applicant 1	Confidential
	A2	Applicant 2	Confidential
	A3	Applicant 3	Confidential
	A4	Applicant 4	Confidential
	A5	Applicant 5	Confidential
	A6	Applicant 6	Confidential
	A7	Applicant 7	Confidential
	A8	Attachment 8	Confidential
	A9	Attachment 9 - Minister for Planning Letter	2012/239899

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.9 / 127

Item GB.9	S04034
	29 March 2018

Attachments:	A1	Lease renewal application	2018/128719
	A2	Proposed Lease Area	2018/128716
	A3	Heads of Agreement	Confidential
	A4	Market Valuation Report	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.10 / 132

Item GB.10	S10245
	24 April 2018

Attachments:	A1	Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 Heritage Maps current and proposed	2018/115217
	A2	Comments from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage	2018/067126
	A3	Submission recevied in response to public exhibition of planning proposal to heritage list stables located at 11 Kywong Avenue, Pymble	2018/120236

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	GB.11 / 138

Item GB.11	CY00416/6

Attachments:	A1	Draft Code of Practice Authorising Flying-fox Camp Management Actions 2018	2018/130303
	A2	Draft Council submission - Draft Code of Practice Authorising Flying-fox Camp Management Actions 2018	2018/130313
	A3	Appendix 1: Potential Flying-fox habitat in Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area	2014/300169

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	NM.1 / 144

Item NM.1	FY00382/10

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	NM.2 / 147

Item NM.2	S10082

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 May 2018	NM.3 / 148

Item NM.3	S11955