Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 26 March 2019 AT 7.00pm

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.2 TENDER 31/2018 - ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR PORTFOLIO OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

In accordance with section 10(2)(d)(i)

Attachment A1: RFT 31-2018 Evaluation Committee Assessments - RECOMMENDATIONS for Council Report Attachment A

GB.6 RFT1-2019 St Ives Showground - Regional Playground - Construction

In accordance with section 10(2)(d)(i)

Attachment A1: RFT1-2019 SISG Regional Playground - List of Tenderers received

Attachment A2: GO GARDENING PTY LTD Standard Financial Assessment (Procurement)

259352

Attachment A3: Tender and EOI – Weighted Evaluation – RFT1-2019 SISG Regional Playground - Signed

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 8

File: S02131

Meeting held 12 March 2019

Minutes numbered 35 to 40

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 Vale David Don Turner 14

File: CY00455/7

I would like to inform my councillor colleagues and the local community of the passing this month of David Turner. Mr Turner was the celebrated architect responsible for the design of the former UTS campus at Lindfield.

Born in the UK in 1931, David Turner moved to Australia in 1961 where he joined the NSW Government Architect’s office as a design architect.

Having previously worked as an architect in England and America, Turner strove to design buildings that would suit the Australian environment and be at one with the native bushland.

He is best known for his design of the University of Technology Sydney Ku-ring-gai campus at Lindfield, a project described as “possibly one of the purest examples of a brutalist gumtree campus in Australia.”

David Turner based the building’s design on the concept of an Italian hill village with external fortressing and internal circulation. A number of influences including the New Brutalism movement and the work of French architect Le Corbusier helped shape his designs for the site. Importantly, Turner’s vision also reflected the philosophy of Frank Lloyd Wright and the desire to work with, rather than against the landscape.

The finished building completed in 1972 had a rambling quality that also reflected the rock outcrop it was built on, and its landscaping aimed to retain as much of the surrounding bushland as possible. A unique feature of the building was the native plants inserted throughout courtyards and roof decks.

The UTS campus won the prestigious Sir John Sulman Award for Architecture in 1978 and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ NSW Chapter Award for Enduring Architecture in 2005.

Closed as a university campus in 2015, David Turner’s signature building now lives on as the site of the innovative public school Lindfield Learning Village. The school opened to 350 students this year and will eventually cater to 2000 students.

The Council recognised the building’s significance by listing it as a local heritage item in Ku-ring-gai’s Local Environmental Plan.

In 2010 David Turner retired but continued his interest in architectural heritage by volunteering with a number of organisations including the Walter Burley Griffin Trust and the National Trust.

He was also a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee for Blue Mountains City Council, where he spent the last years of his life. In 2017 he published his memoirs Challenges in boyhood, life, architecture and heritage.

David Turner is survived by his wife Eva, children Bruce, Darian and Lucy and grandchildren Anatole and Miranda. On behalf of Ku-ring-gai and the Council, I extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends on the loss of this distinguished contributor to Ku-ring-gai’s built heritage.

Petitions

Recommendations from Committee

RC.1 Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee 28 February 2019 16

File: CY00022/11

Meeting held 28 February 2019

Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC10.

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 Investment Report as at 28 February 2019 25

File: FY00623

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for February 2019.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for February 2019 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

GB.2 TENDER 31/2018 - ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR PORTFOLIO OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 34

File: RFT31-2018/R

To consider tenders submitted for the provision of advice and support for Council property development projects.

Recommendation:

That Council accept the tenders from the tenderers identified in Attachment A for inclusion on a panel for the provision of advice and support for Council’s portfolio of property development projects on a non-exclusive basis.

GB.3 Companion Animals - Cats 39

File: CY00445/7

To provide Council with a report assessing the feasibility of introducing cat trapping and other feline restrictive practices across the Ku-ring-gai local government area in response to the Notice of Motion on this matter adopted by Council.

Recommendation:

A. THAT Council receives and notes the information contained within the report.

B. THAT Council continue to undertake its functions and delegations under the Companion Animals Act 1998.

C. THAT Council continue to proactively promote responsible cat ownership, particularly with those residents living close to urban/ bushland interface zones.

D. THAT Council make application for grant monies when available so as to support special educational programs aimed at responsible cat ownership and protection of local wildlife.

E. THAT Council participate in regional educational awareness programs in respect of responsible cat ownership.

F. THAT Council continue to be actively involved in legislative reviews of the Companion Animals Act 1998 and Regulation so as to realise the introduction of control measures imposed on roaming cats, similar to those imposed on roaming dogs.

G. THAT Council does not introduce cat trapping or other feline restrictive practices across the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

H. THAT Council hosts a mini cat expo that promotes responsible cat ownership, including registration & desexing and showcases suitable cat containment systems that can be erected in backyards.

GB.4 Draft Graffiti Management Policy 52

File: S04840

To consider the approval of the draft Graffiti Management Policy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Graffiti Management Policy.

GB.5 East Lindfield Community Centre 65

File: S12142

To report to Council the outcomes of the community consultation for the demolition and redevelopment or restoration of the East Lindfield Community Centre.

Recommendation:

That Council acknowledge the report regarding the current condition of the building and the outcome of the community consultation and accept the communities’ choice of Option No. 2. That the existing available budget be utilized for the design of a new facility to be constructed when funding becomes available from the sale of Council assets.

GB.6 RFT1-2019 St Ives Showground - Regional Playground - Construction 76

File: RFT1-2019

To consider the tenders received for the construction of the Regional Playground at St Ives Showground and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Render Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the Tender submitted by Tenderer ‘A’.

GB.7 Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra. 82

File: S12120

To refer the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Road and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra on land currently operating as a plant nursey and service station to Council for its consideration.

Recommendation:

That the Planning Proposal, as amended in this report, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

GB.8 175 Rosedale Road St Ives - Funding for repairs and maintenance to Old Headmasters Cottage 168

File: S07252/10

To brief Council on the present position regarding the Old Headmasters Cottage, 175 Rosedale Road, St Ives and to seek funding for necessary repairs including structural works in order that the premises are made suitable for future use under a commercial lease to be tendered.

Recommendation:

That Council approves of funding being provided to repair the Old Headmasters Cottage as set out in this report and for a tender process to be conducted to ascertain the extent of commercial interest in a new lease over the building.

GB.9 Implementing The North District Plan -
Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement 180

File: S12037

To update Council on the implementation of the North District Plan.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes this report and allocates funds towards the preparation of the Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement.

GB.10 Draft Lovers Jump Creek Flood Risk Management Study and Plan 215

File: S09972

To seek endorsement to place the Draft Lovers Jump Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

A. That Council Places the Draft Lovers Jump Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan on public exhibition for a period of 42 days.

B. That a community forum is undertaken during the Draft Lovers Jump Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan public exhibition period.

C. That all properties impacted by a management option or identified as Mainstream and Overland Flow Flood Planning Areas in the Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study Review Report (2018) are directly notified about the public exhibition period.

D. That following the public exhibition period, feedback is provided to Jacobs to inform the final Lovers Jump Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

E. That following the close of the public exhibition / consultation period a report is brought back to Council to consider any submissions received on the Draft Lovers Jump Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

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 Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
HELD ON Thursday, 28 February 2019

Present:	Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Cedric Spencer, Chairperson) Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Peter Kelly, Deputy Chairperson) Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Sam Ngai) Director Operations (George Bounassif) Roads & Maritime Services (Peter Carruthers) Roads & Maritime Services (Mitchell Ryan) Representing Police Local Area Command Ku-ring-gai (Snr Const Narelle Tomich) Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore (Const James Logan) Representing Member for Davidson (Michael Lane) Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai (David Ross) State Member for Ku-ring-gai (Alister Henskens)

Staff Present:	Manager Traffic and Transport (Deva Thevaraja) Manager Regulation and Compliance ( Anne Seaton) Team Leader Traffic (Michael Foskett) Team Leader Regulation (Tony McCormack) Strategic Transport Engineer (Joseph Piccoli) Administration Officer (Nala Redford)

Others Present:	Representing Bike North (Ms Lyness Beavis)

Apologies:	Nil

The Meeting commenced at 9.00am

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No interest was declared.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

KTC01

Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee

File: CY00022/10

Meeting held 18 May 2018

Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC10

The Committee Recommended:

That Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC10 were received and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Representing Police Local Area Command Ku-ring-gai arrived during discussion

GENERAL BUSINESS

KTC02	General Matter - Traffic & Transport Policy File: S02527 Vide: GB.1
	To update Council’s Traffic & Transport Policy, which was last updated in 2015.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic and Transport informed the Committee that Council’s Traffic and Transport Policy was developed in early 2000 and the Policy is due for a review. He advised that there are proposals to introduce some traffic facilities in the Policy, particularly the introduction of speed cushions at the intersections of roundabouts. He further advised that the use of rumble bars around curves and at intersections is proposed to be formalised by including this facility in the Policy. The Representative for Bike North addressed the Committee and commented that Section J (Pedestrians) and Section S (Cycling) of the Traffic & Transport Policy should be revised to consider a more proactive approach to cycling given the Greater Sydney and Planning Commission / North District Plan goals for Active transport. It was agreed that the second paragraph in Section S should be re-worded by acknowledging and referencing the greater Sydney Commission / North District Plan goals for Active transport.
	The Committee Recommends: A. Review the Traffic and Transport Policy acknowledging and referencing the Greater Sydney and Planning Commission District Plans, specifically the Active transport Plans. B. Council to conduct an in depth community consultation regarding the Traffic and Transport Policy. C. Council consult with local members regarding the Traffic and Transport Policy. D. Council report back to the Traffic Committee once the review of the Traffic & Transport Policy is complete. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC03	General Matter - 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan - Update File: S02527 Vide: GB.2
	To consider adoption of the updated 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan.
	The Committee’s Comments: Strategic Transport Engineer spoke on this item to discuss the updates in the 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan. Representing Member for Davidson expressed his objection to the request for a speed camera on page 18 of the 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan, rank 26. He suggested that this be removed from the Plan. State Member for Ku-ring-gai commends the Council for not only having a 10 Year Plan but the proposal to revise the plan every 5 years. The State Member requested a meeting to discuss the priorities with regards to regional and state roads that are on here, to be able to put Council’s case forward to the State Government for any funding within the Ku-ring-gai electorate area.
	The Committee Recommends: That the draft 2019-2028 Traffic and Transport Plan be adopted by Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC04	Roland Avenue, Wahroonga File: TM11/11 Vide: GB.3
	To consider the installation of traffic calming devices along Roland Avenue, Wahroonga.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic and Transport spoke on this item to outline the traffic issues and the proposed options. The Representative for Bike North agreed with the proposed calming measures on Roland Avenue but suggested that parking be further restricted around the sharp corner where rumble bars are in place. The Member for Ku-ring-gai supported the proposed calming measures.
	The Committee Recommends: That a detailed design be carried out for two lane angled slow points at four locations along Roland Avenue, as shown in Plan Roland/KTC/02/19. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC05	Link Road/Stanley Street/Horace Street, St Ives File: TM9/11 Vide: GB.4
	To consider the replacement of the roundabout at the intersection of Horace Street, Link Road and Stanley Street with traffic signals.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport informed the Committee of the result of the consultant’s report on the feasibility of replacing the existing roundabout at the intersection of Link Road/Stanley Street/Horace Street with a traffic light. The Member for Ku-ring-gai advised that students of Masada College has the option of crossing Link Road at Mona Vale Road intersection than crossing at Stanley Street roundabout. The Committee members advised that the signalised crossing is about 500m away from the roundabout and it would not be practical for students to walk all the way to Mona Vale Road to cross the road. The Chairperson of the Committee advised that he has seen more students crossing in the middle of Link Road than at the roundabout. The Representing Member for RMS advised that it would be the responsibility for Council to find funding. He further advised that the summary of the report itself confirmed that the proposed traffic lights to replace the roundabout would not be a preferred option. As a result, the RMS representative advised that there is no guarantee that funding will come through from RMS to this project. The Representing Member for Davidson advised that there is a gap in traffic allowing pedestrians to cross at the roundabout with due care. He therefore believes there is no need to take any action to replace the roundabout with traffic lights. The Manager Traffic & Transport advised that given the absence of any recorded accidents involving pedestrians at this roundabout, it would be highly unlikely that this project would receive funding from RMS. As an alternate to traffic lights, consideration could be given to a mid-block signalised crossing between the roundabout and Newhaven Place for school children to cross Link Road safely than at the Stanley Street roundabout.
	The Committee Recommends: That Council investigate the feasibility of a mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing on Link Road, between the roundabout at Link Road/Stanley Street and Newhaven place, and report back to the Traffic Committee. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

State Member for Ku-ring-gai departed during discussion

Representing Bike North departed during discussion

KTC06	Tryon Road, Lindfield File: TM6/11 Vide: GB.5
	To consider widening Tryon Road on both sides of Archbold Road to allow sufficient width to provide right turn bays.
	The Committee’s Comments: Team Leader Traffic spoke on this item to outline the traffic issues and the proposed options. The Representing Member for Davidson suggested to look at items GB.5 and GB.6 as an area wide review to be able to seek funding from higher sources. Councillor Ngai discussed the existing traffic condition and driver behaviour at this signalised intersection, and he welcomes the proposed treatment.
	The Committee Recommends: That subject to available funding, a detailed design be prepared for the widening of Tryon Road at Archbold Road. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC07	Archbold Road, Lindfield File: TM6/11 Vide: GB.6
	To consider measures to improve safety at several unsignalised intersections along Archbold Road, Lindfield.
	The Committee’s Comments: That Council’s Team Leader Traffic & Transport spoke on this item to outline the traffic issues and the proposed options. Councillor Ngai discussed the option of introducing ‘Left Only’ during peak periods, being ‘Mon-Fri 6-10am & 3-7pm’. Representing Member for Davidson discussed the option of introducing ‘No Right Turn’ restriction during peak periods only, being ‘Mon-Fri 6-10am & 3-7pm’ and review this after 12 months. Following extensive discussion between the Committee Members, it was decided to restrict right turn movements out of the eastern leg of Chelmsford Avenue onto Archbold Road.
	The Committee Recommends: That ‘Left Only’ restrictions be introduced on the eastern leg of Chelmsford Avenue at Archbold Road, as shown on Plan No. Chelmsford/KTC/02/19. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC08	Park Avenue, Roseville File: TM8/11 Vide: GB.7
	To consider the installation of ‘No Stopping 8am-9.30am, 2.30pm-4pm School Days’ restrictions on the northern side of Park Avenue near Archbold Road.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport spoke on this item to outline the traffic issues and the proposed options. He advised that the proposed part-time kerbside restriction is to discourage parent/carers from parking in Park Avenue and dangerously crossing the road during school peak hours. Further this restriction would provide better visibility for the residents when exiting their properties. The Representing Member for Davidson informed the Committee that residents of Park Avenue attempted twice to introduce parking restrictions outside their properties. He believes that their driveways are not different to other driveways in Ku-ring-gai and they should be treated equally. He further advised that when parents park their vehicles on the northern side of Park Avenue and escort their children, then there is no issue of danger. Taking all these into consideration, he believes that the proposed restrictions in Park Avenue is unnecessary. The Manager Traffic & Transport advised that parents have the option of parking closer to Roseville Public School rather than parking a couple of blocks away from the school. The proposed kerbside restrictions in Park Avenue is mainly to address the dangerous pedestrian safety at Archbold Road intersection rather than to address residents’ concern with restricted visibility.
	The Committee Recommends: A. That ‘No Stopping 8am-9.30am, 2.30pm-4pm School Days’ restrictions be installed on the northern side of Park Avenue near Archbold Road, as shown in Plan Park/TDA/188/18 Rev 1. B. That the double centre lines in Park Avenue at Archbold Road be modified, as shown in Plan Park/KTC/02/19 Rev 1. C. That residents of No. 2 Park Avenue, 33 Archbold Road and Council’s Team Leader Regulation be informed of Council’s decision. For the Recommendation: Councillor Spencer, Roads & Maritime Services and Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore Against the Recommendation: Representing Member for Davidson

KTC09	Ortona Road, Lindfield File: TM6/11 Vide: GB.8
	To consider the installation of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on all four legs of the intersection of Ortona Road and Eton Road, Lindfield.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport informed the Committee that this proposal was a minor one, but received objection from the Representing Member for Davidson when considered under the Delegated Authority. He advised that this intersection is heavily used by parents. Particularly in the afternoon peak hours when they park their vehicles too close to the intersection and walk to Lindfield Public School for collecting their children. The proposal is to formalise the statutory parking restrictions at this intersection whilst maximising the kerbside parking spaces in Ortona Road. As a result of this exercise, the statutory restrictions have gone beyond the recommended 10m at any intersections. He further said that the proposal with increased statutory restrictions does not result in the loss of any parking spaces in Ortona Road, but provided increased visibility at the intersection. The Representing Member for Davidson informed the Committee that his objection to this proposal is not about signposting. Rather, he welcomed the introduction of statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at intersections but they must be consistent with standards. He believes that all statutory restrictions shall be 10m from any intersections and there must be a good reason for moving them further. In this case he believes there is no good reason for increasing the recommended statutory restrictions. The Representing Member for RMS advised that Council can opt to increase the recommended statutory restrictions at intersection depending on situations. These situations can be the presence of driveways and turning paths of vehicles at the intersection. He supports Council’s proposal to increase the restrictions further than the recommended 10m in this case.
	The Committee Recommends: A. That ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be installed on Ortona Road at Eton Road, as shown in Plan Ortona/KTC/02/19. B. That Council’s Team Leader Regulation be informed of Council’s decision. For the Resolution: Councillor Spencer, Roads & Maritime Services and Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore Against the Resolution: Representing Member for Davidson The above Resolution was subject to an Amendment which was LOST. The Lost Amendment was: (Moved: Representing Member for Davidson) That Stop signs outside property numbers 6, 7 and 9 be placed at 10 metres from the intersection. For the Recommendation: Representing Member for Davidson Against the Recommendation: Councillor Spencer, Roads & Maritime Services and Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore

KTC10	Acron Road, St Ives File: TM9/11 Vide: GB.9
	To consider the installation of a median island and additional ‘Stop’ sign and markings in Acron Road, on the southern side of Douglas Street.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport advised the Committee that the proposal to reinstate the existing ‘STOP’ control in Acron Road at Douglas Street was previously considered by the Delegated Authority, but it received objection from the Representing Member for Davidson. The proposed median island in the middle of Acron Road is to place an additional ‘Stop’ sign to reinforce the existing ‘Stop’ signs on either side of the road. He further advised that the median island is proposed 5m away from the intersection to accommodate turning paths of garbage trucks and other large vehicles. Similar treatments have recently been introduced in Killara area. The Representing Member for Davidson welcomed the proposed treatment but suggests that the median island should be close to the STOP line to discourage motorists from cutting corners. The Representing Member for RMS advised that the proposed 5m set back of the median island matches with the position of the other ‘STOP’ signs. He believes that the propose set back of the island is necessary for accommodating turning paths at the intersection. Council’s Director Operations advised that the 5m set back is necessary to accommodate the turning paths of garbage vehicles. He said if the median island is moved close to the STOP line, the chance of the sign being hit by garbage vehicles is high. For an operational point of view he did not support the Representing Member for Davidson’s suggestion to move the median island close to the intersection.
	The Committee Recommends: A. That the BB lines in Acron Road on the northbound approach to Douglas Street, St Ives, be extended to a distance of 20 metres south of Douglas Street, as shown in Plan No. Acron/KTC/02/19. B. That a short median island be installed in Acron Road, five metres south of Douglas Street, as shown in Plan No. Acron/KTC/02/19, with an additional ‘Stop’ sign mounted in the median. C. That Mr S Schaefer, of 50 Hayle Street, St Ives, be informed of Council’s decision. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY for Recommendations A. & C. For the Recommendation (B. Only): Councillor Spencer, Roads & Maritime Services and Representing Police Local Area Command Ku-ring-gai Against the Recommendation (B. Only): Representing Member for Davidson

general discussion

Member for Davidson

1. Intersection of Balfour Street & Pacific Highway, Lindfield.

Response: Council has prepared a traffic scheme for the Lindfield local centre, which includes modifications to this intersection. Council’s proposal for this intersection is to extend the right turn bay on Pacific Highway (northbound) that provides access to the railway underpass, and to ban right turns from Havilah Road (“underpass road”) onto Pacific Highway and transfer right turn movements to the proposed traffic signals at the intersection of Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway.

2. Intersection of Tryon Road and Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield.

Response: Discussions with RMS and Transport for NSW are ongoing concerning the intersection configuration. In the meantime, staff are in the early stages of preparing a Request For Quotation for the detailed civil works and traffic signal design for the new traffic signal installation at this intersection.

3. Intersection of Pacific Highway and Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

Response: The proposed signalisation of this intersection is also included in the traffic scheme for the Lindfield local centre, and is the also the subject of RMS review. The upgrade to this intersection is closely related to the Lindfield Village Hub, the proposal for which has not been finalised yet.

4. Archbold Road at Owen Street, Roseville/Lindfield.

Response: Survey of the intersection completed including identifying underground services. A design is yet to be commenced.

The Meeting closed at 10:40 am

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.3 / 38

Item GB.3	CY00445/7

Companion Animals - Cats

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To provide Council with a report assessing the feasibility of introducing cat trapping and other feline restrictive practices across the Ku-ring-gai local government area in response to the Notice of Motion on this matter adopted by Council.

background:	Council at its meeting of 4 December 2018 adopted a Notice of Motion (NOM) in respect of Companion Animals – Cats. The NOM, moved by Councillors Greenfield and Smith, called for an investigation into the feasibility of introducing:- cat trapping; a subsidised cat desexing and microchipping program; limiting the number of cats per household, prohibiting persons living near wildlife protection areas from owning cats; streamlining the animal registration process and implementing an education program focussed on microchipping, registration, desexing and containment of cats.

comments:	The Companion Animals Act 1998 and associated Regulation sets the general requirements for keeping of companion animals (both cats and dogs) within NSW. This includes registration requirements. It is pleasing to note that the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area enjoys one of the highest lifetime registration rates within the State. Currently, our registration rate is 92.8% of all identified animals, compared to the State average of 53%. Statistics from the NSW Companion Animals Register also show that 82.3% of all cats on the register and residing within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area are desexed compared to the State average of 35%. Much of Council’s high achievements in regard to Companion Animals is due to our ongoing educational and reminder programs in co-operation with neighbouring councils and other external organisations. Anecdotally, the Ku-ring-gai pet owning community are acknowledged as being among the most caring and compliant within the State. Notwithstanding, Ku-ring-gai has large tracts of bushland and ecologically sensitive areas and it is a fact that domestic cats are often observed in the bushland interface areas.

recommendation:	Refer to recommendations A to H as outlined below.

Purpose of Report

Background

Council at its meeting of 4 December 2018 adopted a Notice of Motion (NOM) in respect of Companion Animals – Cats.

The NOM called for an investigation into the feasibility of introducing:- cat trapping, a subsidised cat desexing and microchipping program, limiting the number of cats per household, prohibiting persons living near wildlife protection areas from owning cats, streamlining the animal registration process and implementing an education program focussed on microchipping, registration , desexing and containment of cats.

The NOM also called for investigation of feasible options for restricting the impacts of cats on native wildlife and making advances to the Minister seeking reforms to the Companion Animals Act in respect of the keeping of cats.

Comments

In preparation of this report a large amount of research was undertaken, with both external and internal stakeholders, including other local government authorities, Office of Local Government, and relevant officers within Council’s Bushland Services, Strategy & Environment and Development & Regulation departments.

It is pleasing to note that the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area enjoys one of the highest companion animal lifetime registration rates within the State. Currently, our registration rate is 92.8% of all identified animals, compared to the State average of 53%. Statistics from the NSW Companion Animals Register also show that 82.3% of all cats on the register and residing within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area are desexed compared to the State average of 35%.

Much of Council’s high achievements in regard to companion animals is attributed to our ongoing educational and reminder programs in co-operation with neighbouring councils and other external organisations.

Anecdotally, the Ku-ring-gai pet owning community are acknowledged as being among the most caring and compliant within the State. Notwithstanding, Ku-ring-gai hosts large tracts of bushland and ecologically sensitive areas and it is a fact that domestic cats are often observed in the bushland interface areas.

There are three distinct population classifications of cats that public land managers refer to, they are :

- domestic / owned cats

- stray / unowned/semi-owned cats

- feral cats

These differing informal classifications have a direct implication on how one manages the issue.

Domestic cats live in domestic households, they generally spend most or a significant portion of their time indoors. They may be allowed to roam and may hunt and kill small mammals, birds and reptiles but they are generally dependent on their owners for food.

Stray/unowned cats are abandoned or free cats. They are largely dependent on humans for food but not always. The often supplement their food sources by hunting small mammals, birds and reptiles. Stray cats spend their time around urban or semi-urban areas.

Feral cats live, hunt and reproduce in the wild. They are the same species as domestic cats but differ in how and where they live. Feral cats have no or very limited contact with humans and are not dependent on humans for food. Feral cats hunt small mammals, birds and reptiles which comprise100% of their food source.

RESEARCH

Statistics of cat activity within bushland

Statistics were reviewed from NSW National Parks & Wildlife, Metro North and from programs undertaken by the former Pittwater Council, together with Ku-ring-gai’s own internal programs and discussion with Hornsby Council representatives.

NSW National Parks & Wildlife(NSW NP&W) report that wildlife camera monitoring in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park and some associated crown lands detected minimal cat activity in the reserves. Cameras were deployed at 50 locations in each reserve for 14 nights. The cameras were placed in positions well away from the urban interface. The actual number or cats sighted by the cameras was three in total. NSW NP&WS concluded that feral cat activity outside the interface zones of the park was minimal. However, it was acknowledged that instances of domestic cats roaming the urban interface zones were common, these domestic cats were generally found to be residing in residential properties close by.

The former Pittwater Council undertook a “cats in parks” surveillance program in 2013/14. They seized nineteen cats. Fifteen of those cats were found to be microchipped and registered, so their ownership and usual place of residence was easily traced and the cats were returned to their owners. The remaining four cats had no microchip and were unregistered. They were found to be non-feral, stray cats and were re-homed through a cat welfare agency.

Studies conducted within Council’s own biodiversity monitoring programs and the formal “Threat Abatement Program”, undertaken within the confines of both the Garigal and Ku-ring-gai National Park, reveal that the majority of cat sightings occurred within the urban bushland interface zones. The cats observed are primarily “domestic cats” that are allowed to roam. Secondary to those sightings are stray cats, there was very little evidence or sightings of feral cats.

These statistics and findings would suggest that Council’s energies should be focused on domestic companion animal cats, rather than feral cats, with the area to be targeted being the bushland/ urban interface zones.

With over 3200 private residential premises directly abutting our bushland reserves and with Ku-ring-gai pet ownership households estimated to be 1 in 4, a significant number of domestic cats are believed to roam daily within our reserves. Their activities may include hunting, injuring or killing native animals, spreading pathogens and disease, disrupting species life cycles & habitats and depositing of faeces and other territorial markings.

The NOM called for several management strategies to be investigated. Each of these are addressed below:

Cat trapping

Cat trapping is a resource intensive activity. Traps must be appropriately set, monitored and serviced. Trapped animals must be appropriately dealt with in accordance with legislative requirements and humane animal treatment guidelines. Given that the overwhelming majority of cats found within our bushland reserves are domestic cats and that 92% of them are likely to be microchipped and lifetime registered, Council would in each instance be required to contact the owner and return it directly to its owner or hold it within our pound facility to await collection by the owner. The other cats, likely to be stray/un-owned or semi owned would be held within the pound, given a health assessment and, if suitable, offered up for adoption.

The regulatory option available in this case would be to issue penalty infringement notices only to the owners of cats found not to be microchipped or registered. Currently, the penalty is $180 for not microchipping a cat and $220 for not registering a cat. There is no offence or penalty for allowing a cat to roam.

The cost of purchasing traps is approximately $60 per trap. Individuals may also hire traps from commercial hire companies which charge $20 to $34 dollars per day.

If a cat is caught in a trap, the trapper is responsible for ensuring that the cat is adequately checked for ownership details (microchip) and then the cat must be returned to the owner or delivered to the council pound.

If Council intends to commence a trapping program, it should be mindful that the cost would be significant in terms of resources required to manage and administer the program. The annual cost would be in the order of $85,000 annually, being 0.5 FTE additional to current staff establishment plus the additional cost of tools and resources required to service the program, including veterinary and impounding services.

Subsidised cat desexing and microchipping

According to studies undertaken in Australia, the UK and the USA, de-sexing schemes are more likely to be successful than cat trapping programs in limiting actual cat numbers and therefore their impact on wildlife.

Some NSW councils report that they have had great success with cat de-sexing programs, via either discounted or fully free programs. These councils tend to be in regional and outer regional areas with a different socio-economic background to that of Ku-ring-gai. Such programs are also effective in areas where large numbers of stray and unowned cats are found. Ku-ring-gai does not have significant populations of stray and unowned cats.

The Co-operative De-Sexing Program run by the National De-sexing Network relies on councils making a contribution to offset the cost of desexing pets. The subsidy program is only available to pensioners, concession card holders or persons who own more than one cat. Generally, this subsidy is in the order of $90 for a male cats and $120 per female cat. The current desexing costs at local veterinarians are in the order of $170 for a male cat and $240 for a female cat. NSW RSPCA desexing charges are $115 for a male cat and $190 for a female cat.

It should also be noted that if one were to purchase their cat from a welfare organisation, such as the RSPCA, the current cost would be $110. Given that this cost includes desexing of the kitten, the RSPCA in effect provides a desexing subsidy to their clients.

Given that the NSW Companion Animals Register reveals that 82.3% of all Ku-ring-gai cats are currently desexed, it appears that the great majority of Ku-ring-gai cat owners are prepared to pay for their pets desexing without the need for any subsidy. Similarly, the cost of microchipping is approximately $30 per cat. Given that our lifetime registration rate is in excess of 92.8 %, it is believed that near 100% of our pets are identified via microchip so a subsidised microchip program is not considered necessary in Ku-ring-gai.

Limiting the number of cats per household

The Companion Animals Act and associated Regulation does not limit the number of companion animals that may be kept. Generally, all cases are determined on individual merit. If Council were of the mind to consider such a restriction it would need to do so via its powers under the Local Government Act and ability to create a Local Orders Policy.

Georges River Council (GRC) reports that its Local Orders Policy restricts the number of cats to a maximum of 2 per household. GRC reports that they only see cases on a complaint basis, as GRC does not have the resources to be proactive in their enforcement of the Local Orders Policy. GRC also reports that the majority of their community are unaware of this Local Orders Policy.

The current thinking of professionals engaged in day to day companion animal management is that limiting the number of cats allowed to be kept on individual premises would preclude achievement of full registration. This is because people owning more cats than permitted under the restriction would likely only register the number of cats allowed under the restriction

If this thinking is correct, the imposition of this type of Local Orders Policy would directly affect our current high (voluntary) rate of lifetime registrations.

Prohibiting persons living in close proximity to wildlife protection areas from owning cats

If Council were of the mind to prohibit persons living close to wildlife protection areas from owning cats, there are two formal land occupancy restriction options available. Both options would require the formal lodgement of documentation with the NSW Land Registry Services and would be shown as a formal dealing on the land title. The options available are Environmental and Conservation Agreements or a Section 88B Instrument under the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Environmental and conservation agreements may be established in order to protect environmental values (flora, fauna, wetlands, ecosystems etc.) on privately owned land without the complexities and expense of acquiring the land by compulsory resumption. Only the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Nature Conservation Authority may effect such an agreement, however, this requires very complex appending documentation such as a land survey map that clearly defines the restricted conservation zone ,as opposed to the remainder of the property comprising of the house or other “living” or “working” parts of the property . The conservation agreement is required to be registered as a formal dealing on the land title. The land owner and authority would then need to work together co-operatively to establish the parameters of the agreement.

Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 makes provision for the creation of an instrument to restrict the use of land. Such a covenant is restrictive in nature and can be used to protect residential amenity, preserve the environment or restrict undesirable development.

Section 88B instruments cannot be imposed retrospectively. The opportunity for Council to impose a Section 88B restrictive covenant, to prevent occupiers of land from keeping a cat is only at the time of Council approving a development application via a condition of consent. In applying such a condition, Council would need to be mindful of the “Newbury planning principles” which require that conditions must be imposed for a planning purpose; must fairly and reasonably relate to the development proposed and must be reasonable. It is unlikely that such a condition would satisfy the Newbury Principles nor withstand a challenge in the Land & Environment Court, given the inability to have similar restrictions imposed on applications for similar works obtained under the provisions of Complying Development Certificates. Moreover, it is also unlikely that such a condition would accord with the terms of S4.17 of the EP&AA in respect of imposition of conditions. Furthermore, an uneven playing field would likely be established, given that the majority of our private residences adjacent to our national parks and nature reserves were erected during the years 1940 – 1970.

Northern Beaches Council reports that they have had mixed success with challenges before the Land & Environment Court regarding imposition of 88B Instruments aimed at fauna conservation.

Streamlining the animal registration process

The Companion Animals Act 1998 and associated Regulation sets the general requirements for keeping of companion animals (both cats and dogs) within NSW. This includes registration requirements.

In 2018 the Office of Local Government (OLG) made significant amendments to the NSW Pet Registry so as to make it easier to register pets. Dog and cat owners across the State can now register their pets through Service NSW in person or on line, no longer do they need to rely solely on local governments to access the system on their behalf.

The OLG is continuing to work on rebuilding the NSW Companion Animals Register so as to include suggestions received during their consultation phase in 2017. Improvements foreshadowed include the ability for veterinary practitioners to access the system to update it when pets are microchipped, desexed or euthanised.

What causes most confusion for the community is the fact that registration is still a 2 step process. Step 1 is the initial identification of the pet by microchip and recording details of the owner at the time (typically a breeder). Microchip identification is undertaken when the animal is at kitten or puppy stage 8 – 12 weeks of age and must be undertaken prior to an animal being sold or gifted to its new owner. Step 2 is the lifetime registration process, where all relevant details of the pet and its new owner and residential address are recorded on the NSW State Pet Register. Typically, this occurs when the animal is between 3 -6 months of age.

The NSW Animal Register applies a pricing principle so as to encourage cat and dog owners to desex their pets. In NSW, the current cost to lifetime register an undesexed cat or dog is $207 but only $57 to register a desexed cat or dog.

Given that it is medically desirable for cats and dogs to be desexed near 6 months of age, it is most common for the cat or dog owner to delay lifetime registration until after the desexing procedure so that they are eligible for the discounted lifetime registration fee of $57.

This 2 step process of course has direct consequences on local government. Ku-ring-gai Council expends considerable time and resources in contacting new pet owners to ensure they complete their lifetime pet registration. Council’s commitment to this program is however well rewarded, that is why we enjoy such high registration rates on the NSW Companion Animals Register and how we are able to reunite the majority of stray animals back with their owners. The collection of registration and ownership details also allows for effective direct education of our pet owners.

Implementing an education program focussed on microchipping, registration, desexing and containment of cats.

The current educational material distributed to cat owners by Ku-ring-gai Council focuses on responsible pet ownership. It asks cat owners to undertake a self-check, including questions such as ;-

- Is your cat identified by a collar, tag or microchip?

- Does your cat wear two or more bells?

- Is your cat desexed?

- Has your cat been identified and registered if it is over 12 weeks of age?

- Is your cat locked inside from sunset to sunrise”

If you answered yes to these questions, you’re on track with responsible cat ownership!

Council’s written and web based educational material also addresses protecting the cats’ life and that of local wildlife. It is suggested that people keep their cats inside, especially at night as most of our wildlife is nocturnal and cats attack native animals.

Information is also provided concerning “nuisance cats.” A cat can be classified as a nuisance if;

· It makes a noise that persistently occurs and interferes with the peace and comfort of persons in nearby premises.

· It repeatedly damages anything outside the property on which it is ordinarily kept.

As no specific budget is allocated for cat owner education programs, the distribution of our printed material is either via direct mail at time of registration enquires or contained within “new resident welcome baskets”, via public community events or contained within information racks in Council’s libraries and at Council Chambers.

Council’s website also contains special information regarding cat ownership responsibilities and information for residents concerned with cat activities in the local area.

From time to time, special grants are available from the Office of Local Government (OLG) to assist councils in running responsible cat ownership education programs. The last OLG funding program occurred in 2015. At that time, Council was successful in obtaining a combined grant shared between Pittwater, Warringah and Ku-ring-gai Councils. The $36,000 provided for 6 public discussion education seminars, a special “Cat Expo” that focussed on responsible cat ownership and protection of native fauna and production of an educational booklet covering multiple topics on responsible cat ownership. Council officers will continue to keep appraised of any upcoming grants and will make the necessary applications.

The 2019 Dogs Day Out has been postponed for this financial year due to the inability to secure the St Ives Show Ground on a suitable date. With this in mind, it is recommended that Council utilise some of its resources to host a mini cat-expo that focusses on responsible cat ownership.

The mini cat expo 2019 could be held in the foyer display area of Gordon Library and showcase suitable cat containment systems that cat owners could erect within their own back yard. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service could be invited to participate with their “native fauna at risk” display and Council could distribute education materials focussed on responsible cat ownership, including registration, desexing, and containment.

Feasible options for restricting the impacts of cats on native wildlife

It is considered that the most appropriate options for Council to undertake so as to protect local wildlife is to implement robust educational programs, which includes promotion of suitable cat containment programs or housing systems.

Unsuccessful approaches were made to the OLG in May 2018 seeking reform to the Companion Animals Act so as to treat cats similar to dogs, i.e. not to permit roaming cats.

Recent enquires revealed that Randwick Council resolved in October 2018 to establish a committee to consider measures including:

- keeping cats in at night

- higher registration fees

- penalties to owners for allowing their cats to run free or defecate in public places or on neighbouring properties( as already apply to dog owners)

To date, only one meeting of this committee has occurred, the outcome of the committee meeting was that “cat confinement or curfew was too hard to regulate” and that the other proposed measures would be best left to a formal amendment of the Companion Animals Act.”

Make advances to the Minister of Environment seeking reforms to the Companion Animals Act, as it applies to the Ku-ring-gai Council area, in respect of the keeping of cats

The Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Gabrielle Upton, is the responsible minister for the Companion Animals Act 1998 and associated Regulation.

In 2018, the Office of Local Government called for submissions in regard to its review of the Act and Regulation. At that time, Ku-ring-gai Council made a formal submission calling on reform, particularly in regard to Section 32 of the Act that allows a cat to roam and leave its own property. Council called for reform so as to implement similar provisions within the Act as apply to roaming and nuisance dogs.

It is expected that following the NSW government election in March 2019 that amendments to the Act as suggested in our submission will be announced.

integrated planning and reporting

Community people & culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
A community where residents feel safe and enjoy good health.	Programs are implemented to manage risks and impacts on public safety.	Implement Companion Animals Management Plan 2018-2020

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A community where residents feel safe and enjoy good health.

Programs are implemented to manage risks and impacts on public safety.

Implement Companion Animals Management Plan 2018-2020

Governance Matters

Council must enact its delegations in accordance with the Companion Animals Management Act 1998 and associated Regulation. Council has statutory responsibilities to report its companion animal activities to the Office of Local Government Act within its Annual Report.

Risk Management

Council manages risks by the identification, assessment and implementation of control measures of reasonably foreseeable hazards and risks. Should Council adopt this report as proposed no increase in risk is foreseen.

Financial Considerations

If Council were to implement a trapping and desexing program, this would have a significant budgetary consequence, requiring adjustment to other Council projects. It is estimated that the Companion Animals Management Budget would need to be increased by some $100K ($85K trapping, 15K for desexing).

Should Council maintain the status quo, no budget adjustment will be required, however staff will continue to search for grant funding opportunities as they arise from time to time so as to supplement our ongoing responsible pet ownership programs and native wildlife protection activities.

Social Considerations

The trapping of cats , introduction of local order polices restricting cats or imposition of formal measures to prevent people living near wildlife protection areas from owning cats e.g. 88B Instrument under Conveyancing Act, may have a significant impact on local residents, particularly those that reside near an urban/ bushland interface zone. It is expected that if Council were to implement restrictive cat ownership policies there would be considerable concern from the wider community and particular groups such as the NSW Cat Fanciers Society.

Environmental Considerations

Increased responsibility by cat owners to ensure their pets do not roam into bushland or attack native wildlife would have significant benefit to our local ecosystems.

Community Consultation

There has been no consultation with the Ku-ring-gai community in preparation of this report.

Consultation was undertaken with the Office of Local Government, Randwick Council, Georges River Council, National Parks & Wildlife, National Desexing Network, Animal Welfare League and Council’s Unite for Pets group. Contributing information was also provided by staff of the former Pittwater and Warringah Councils and from Hornsby Council.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation was conducted between relevant staff within the departments of Development & Regulation, Strategy and Environment and Bushland Services.

Summary

The Companion Animals Act 1998 and associated Regulation provide the legislative framework on how to manage, identify and register cats and dogs in New South Wales.

Ku-ring-gai Council is acknowledged as one of the highest achievers in terms of compliant registration and identification of companion animals within the state with over 92 % of our animals lifetime registered. Ku-ring-gai has an ongoing and robust program in following up pet owners to ensure that they undertake the 2 step registration process. i.e. identification of the young animal between 8- 12 weeks of age, then life time registration between 3-6 months of age, with an associated financial encouragement to ensure desexing in undertaken . Desexed animals receive eligibility to the discounted life-time registration fee of $57, as opposed to $207, a saving of $150.

Ku-ring-gai Council also enjoys one of the highest desexing rates for cats, with over 82% of the cats residing in Ku-ring-gai desexed.

Much of our success is attributed to our commitment to employ a dedicated Companion Animals Officer, whose duties include ongoing design and implementation of responsible pet ownership programs, including direct liaison with the community.

In 2018, Ku-ring-gai Council received 21 complaints concerning alleged “feral animals”. Of these 21, only 2 matters concerned cats. Our records also indicate that during 2018, Council received 4 complaints regarding nuisance cats and 5 requests for cat pick-ups. During this same period Council received 148 roaming dog complaints and 50 requests for dog pick-ups. Our statistics are somewhat echoed by NSW Parks wildlife officers whom report that Ku-ring-gai National Park and Garrigal National Park are not experiencing significant populations of feral cats, rather that they more commonly sight cats within the urban/ bushland interface zones.

Whilst it is acknowledged that continuing education of pet owners needs to be undertaken so as to ensure protection of our precious local native fauna and flora, it is believed that the current practices of the majority of our cat owning residents are responsible. Further, there has been a general shift in community attitudes, with persons realising it is no longer appropriate for pet cats to stalk and kill other animals. Special outdoor cat containment systems are becoming more mainstream, acceptable and affordable. Cat owners are also increasingly realising the advantages of keeping their cats inside at night as not only are they less likely to be run over by cars or attacked by other cats , dogs or powerful owls , they will also not be a nuisance to neighbours.

Our statistical evidence, along with that of other organisations surveyed in preparation of this report does not support the adoption of special regulatory programs for cats within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

Recommendation:

A. THAT Council receives and notes the information contained within the report.

B. THAT Council continue to undertake its functions and delegations under the Companion Animals Act 1998.

C. THAT Council continue to proactively promote responsible cat ownership, particularly with those residents living close to urban/ bushland interface zones.

D. THAT Council make application for grant monies when available so as to support special educational programs aimed at responsible cat ownership and protection of local wildlife.

E. THAT Council participate in regional educational awareness programs in respect of responsible cat ownership.

G. THAT Council does not introduce cat trapping or other feline restrictive practices across the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

H. THAT Council hosts a mini cat expo that promotes responsible cat ownership, including registration & desexing and showcases suitable cat containment systems that can be erected in backyards.

Vibeke Faurby

Companion Animals Management Officer

Anne Seaton

Manager Regulation & Compliance

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:

A1⇩

Notice of Motion - 4 December 2018 Companion Animals - Cats

2019/076272

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
C5.1.1.A A community where residents feel safe and enjoy good health	Programs are implemented to manage risks and impacts on public safety	Facilitate resource and promote collaborative approaches to community safety that prevent anti-social behaviour and support local crime prevention initiatives.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.5 / 64

Item GB.5	S12142

East Lindfield Community Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report to Council the outcomes of the community consultation for the demolition and redevelopment or restoration of the East Lindfield Community Centre.

background:	On 8 May 2018 Council resolved to consult the community regarding possible restoration of the existing East Lindfield Community Centre or demolition and development of a new facility.

comments:	A communication and engagement process was undertaken with the community regarding the future of the East Lindfield Community Centre. Results indicate the preferred option is No. 2 for a knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces.

recommendation:	That Council acknowledge the report regarding the current condition of the building and the outcome of the community consultation and accept the communities’ choice of Option No. 2. That the existing available budget be utilized for the design of a new facility to be constructed when funding becomes available from the sale of Council assets.

Purpose of Report

To report to Council the outcomes of the community consultation for the demolition and redevelopment or restoration of the East Lindfield Community Centre.

Background

On 16 April 2018 Council resolved to:

“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.”

Community Consultation

Council staff undertook a community engagement process, designed primarily to capture the community’s preference between the two (2) options as outlined in the Council resolution of 8 May 2018:

1) To sympathetically restore and expand the East Lindfield Community Centre

2) Knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces.

To provide further insights, the community was asked to provide the reason for their preference and ideas about the future function and features in the facility.

Results of the consultation process indicate the community support the knockdown and rebuild option.

Communications and engagement process

The following steps were taken to inform and consult the community about the future of the East Lindfield Community Centre:

· Information sheet mailed to every postal address in East Lindfield (residential and business) – a total of approx. 1200 were sent via Australia Post.

· Online community engagement portal containing background information, survey and quick poll.

· Information stall at East Lindfield Markets (Sunday 13 November 2018) providing the community an opportunity to ask staff questions and complete the survey.

· Information sheets, posters and surveys placed at the East Lindfield Community Centre, Council’s Customer Service Centre and Lindfield Library.

· Media release.

· Facebook posts.

· Emails to regular Hirers of the Community Centre - regular hirers were invited to attend a workshop to discuss the future of the hall, but due to lack of interest, the session was cancelled.

· Visit to shops in East Lindfield Shopping Centre.

Results of the community engagement process

Preferred Option

A total of 90 surveys were completed and 47 votes were received in the poll. The majority (73%) of survey participants lived within 500 metres of the centre (73%) with 45% being occasional users/attendees at the hall and 25% being regular users/attendees of the hall. Regular and occasional hirers made up 13% or survey participants.

Survey (Online and Paper) - Overall results indicated a preference for Option 2 with 56 (62%) supporting this option. Option 1 was supported by 34 (38%) participants.

Support for Option 2 was slightly higher in residents living within 500m of the Centre who completed the survey. 33 (65%) supported Option 2 while 18 (35%) supported Option 1.

Online Poll - The support for Option 2 was reflected in the Online Poll which indicated support for the Option 2 by 37 (79%) participants with 10 (21%) indicating support for Option 1.

Other – Website comments - Three (3) written comments were submitted to the website, all of which indicated support for Option 1.

Reasoning behind preference

The survey asked people to explain their preference. Below are some of the commonly expressed reasons provided.

Reasons for supporting Option 1 included:

· Appreciation of the existing building and its architecture/design.

· Maintaining local character and heritage.

· Lower costs.

· Shorter timeframes to see improvements.

· Concern about what a new building would like, how it would function and its impact on the local area.

Reasons for supporting Option 2 included:

· A new building can be purpose built for current and future needs, offers more flexibility and a longer life.

· Offers better value in the long run.

· Existing building is too old and dilapidated to save.

· A new build could be part of a broader redevelopment of the site and environs.

· A new build provides the opportunity to create an iconic building.

Ideas for the future:

Of those who preferred Option 1 (restore and expand), ideas for the future included:

· Improved heating system.

· Toilet upgrades and relocation.

· Improved kitchen facilities.

· Scope for more flexible room layout – smaller meeting rooms.

· Audio visual upgrade.

· Installation of solar panels, rainwater capture etc.

Of those who preferred Option 2 (knockdown and rebuild), ideas for the future included:

· Multi room flexible multipurpose space capable of accommodating a wide variety of activities.

· Performing space with facilities to support.

· Accessible toilets.

· Functional kitchen.

· Innovative energy efficiency/water efficient design solar panels etc.

· Something unique that improves on the existing building whilst fitting in with the locale.

· Low maintenance.

Examples of facilities elsewhere to inspire the development

The community provided some examples of other sites that Council could look at for inspiration. These included:

· North Sydney Council’s Coal Loader Centre for Sustainability

· Willoughby Park Centre

· Cactus Cafe at Wellington NSW

· Auditorium at Mary Mackillop Nth Sydney

The results of the consultation, as well as conversations had with community members at various points in the project indicate the community centre is very important to the community of East Lindfield.

Many like the building’s design and historic connection with the suburb, have strong personal connections to the building, and as such are reluctant to see it demolished and rebuilt.

However, the majority see a new building as the best way forward providing an opportunity to create a fit for purpose multi-function facility that will better meet the needs of the community now and into the future.

Current Building Condition

An Asset Condition Assessment was undertaken on the East Lindfield Community Centre on 16 February 2018. A summary of the findings include:

Architectural and Structural

· Non-conformances with the external entrance stairs and main entrance pavement.

· Unsatisfactory and slippery vinyl floor located at the internal lobby.

· The solid doors and hardware to the electrical switchboard, kitchen and ladies toilet require replacement.

· Unsatisfactory and slippery vinyl floor located at the kitchen.

· Kitchen walls require stripping, re-render and retiling.

· All kitchen cupboards, benches, sinks and appliances require replacement.

· Female toilet walls require stripping, re-render and retiling.

· Female cubical doors require replacement.

· Female toilet water closets (WC) require replacement after retiling.

· Female toilet mirrors require replacement.

· Provide one ambulant toilet to the female toilets.

· Replace floor, door and hardware to the storage area.

· Repolish the hall and stage floor.

· Replace the hall timber framed glazed doors and windows with aluminium framed fixtures.

· Reconstruct the stage access stairs to comply with width and handrail standards.

· Two (2) step lifts required, one to the front of the stage the other to the rear of the stage .

· The alcove area between wall and stage requires a topping slab to increase the levels to eliminate trip hazards to adjoining rooms.

· The alcove area also requires a new ceiling, a new aluminium framed glazed door.

· Replace the storeroom ceiling and floor covering.

· Replace the male toilet ceiling and floor covering.

· Replace male cubical toilet doors and hardware.

· Provide one ambulant toilet to the male toilets.

· Replace the ceiling and doors to the male toilet air lock.

· Remove and renew tiled roof with insulation blanket.

· Cut out and replace corroded structural steel to the lower end of the roof.

· Replace damaged timer to the façade.

· Replace asbestos sheeting to the eave soffits, male toilets and computer room building.

· Replace metal deck roofing to the female toilets, kitchen, male toilets, storeroom and computer room.

· Replace non-functioning natural ventilation unit and repair moisture damage to the ceiling in the main hall.

· Patch cracks, repaint the entire building, internal and external walls and fixtures.

BCA Compliance

· Provide one ambulant toilet to the female toilets.

· Two (2) step lifts required, one to the front of the stage the other to the rear of the stage.

· Provide one (1) ambulant toilet to the male toilets.

· Rebuild all stairs around the stage.

· Reconstruct external doors from stage to comply with departure standards.

· Reconstruct existing stair treads leading from the car park.

· Allow for DDA access from the car park to the facility.

· Repair the change in level from the external door threshold to the ground level.

· Replace all non-conforming door handles and security devices.

· Upgrade electrical distribution board to current standards.

· Upgrade general access to the building to current DDA codes.

· Construct a new DDA compliant toilet facility within the building.

· Installation of a hearing augmented system.

Electrical Services

· Minor upgrades to the current switch boards and distribution boards.

· Replace existing cables to circuits.

· Installation of smoke detectors and building occupant warning system (BOWS).

Hydraulic Services

· Reduce external ground level or raise internal ground levels to address the height of the external overflow relief gully.

· Replace all external sewer pipes due to ongoing sewer choke issues.

· Replace all gutters and down pipes.

· Replace all in ground stormwater pipes.

· Upsize water meter.

· Amplify water services connection to existing fire hose reel.

· Replace water heaters and safe waste trays.

Mechanical Services

· Upgrade of ventilation throughout the building is required.

Community Facility Strategy

Council recently adopted the Ku-ring-ai Community Facilities Strategy. The strategy determines the need to retain the East Lindfield Community Centre as a neighbourhood facility which provides for a range of neighbourhood level community events and social , educational, cultural and recreational activities at low cost and targeted at the needs of the immediate surrounding community. The centre should include meeting/activity spaces, kitchen, administration areas and ideally includes integrated outdoor area for children’s play and other outdoor activities. The strategy advocates for multi meeting rooms with differing sizes.

The current facility consists of one (1) large hall. The ability to have multiple rooms would require an entire refit of the building or demolition. This would allow improved flow between multiple meeting rooms, toilet amenities, kitchen facilities and the integration with the outdoor space for each hall.

Options

The current building is categorised as a Condition 3. This assessment is based on the asset still functioning safely although there are signs of significant deterioration. The options available to Council include:

1. To sympathetically restore and expand the East Lindfield Community Centre.

This option would renew the building to a Condition 1. It will impose design limitations as the new facility would be constrained to the existing building footprint.

2. Knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces.

This option would provide Council with the flexibility to include a diverse facility catering for all community needs. It would incorporate the use of the surrounding area into the overall design of the new facility. The building will be less costly to maintain in the short term and will retain a Condition 1 rating for a longer period.

3. Upgrade the building in accordance with the Asset Condition Report.

It is anticipated this will renew the building to a Condition 2 (acceptable physical condition, minimal risk of failure which requires normal maintenance plus minor repairs) due to retaining the existing aging infrastructure. This would continue to impact Council’s asset backlog. The report has indicated limitations could result to an extended scope of work which would financially impact the upgrade.

4. Maintain the building in its current form.

This will require a significant upfront investment to upgrade essential services. The ongoing maintenance will retain the building as a Condition 3 which will continue to impact Council’s asset backlog.

integrated planning and reporting

Issue P7: Enhancing community buildings and facilities

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P7.1: Multipurpose community buildings and facilities are available to meet the community’s divers and changing needs.

P77.1.1: The condition and functionality of existing and new assets is improved.

P7.1.1.1: Implement a prioritised program of improvements to community meeting rooms, halls, buildings and facilities.

Governance Matters

The Major Projects Steering Committee have been consulted regarding the outcomes of this report.

Risk Management

The main risks of the different options include:

1. To sympathetically restore and expand the building is defined as utilising the existing footprint to deliver the scope. There is a risk that additional costs may arise from unknown existing conditions such as the condition of the roof, building footings, asbestos and services. There is a risk that this option will not deliver the community expectations as identified in the community consultation results and the community facility strategy. This option was not identified by the community as their preferred option. There will also be project development risks which would be managed through a project management plan.

2. In terms of delivering a brand new facility incorporating ideas from the community with the latest design elements and guidelines outlined in the community facility strategy, this option would bear the least risk. This option was identified as the communities preferred option. There will be project development risks which would be managed through a project management plan.

3. There will be significant unknown costs associated with upgrading the building in accordance with the Asset Condition Report. The cost estimates identified in the report do not include contingencies. It is difficult to identify the contingencies due to the unknown condition of the building attributes until they are exposed. These attributes include, cabling, water services, building frame, asbestos etc. The adoption of this option will not deliver some of the community’s expectations for the building.

4. To maintain the building to its current form will increase the deterioration of the building. The building will quickly slip to a Condition 4 and 5 which will have a significant impact to Council’s backlog and reputation of managing assets. This will impact the local community and users.

The implementation of Options 1, 2 and 3 requires funding through asset sales.

If Council adopts either of these options the maintenance of the building will be scaled back to ensure it remains operational in the short term. This is not viewed as sustainable if funding from asset sales does not become available and may potentially result in the closure of the building.

Financial Considerations

East Lindfield Community Centre project has been included in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. However, it is currently unfunded and reliant on future sales of Council assets.

The cost of:

Option 1

To sympathetically restore and expand is estimated at $3-4 million.

Option 2

To knock down and rebuild with multiple meeting places is $5-6 million.

Option 3

To upgrade the building in accordance with the Asset Condition Report is $1,478,083. This does not include contingencies, project management fees and design costs. An additional $500,000 would be a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs associated with contingencies and project management fee and design costs.

Option 4

To maintain the building in its current form. Council’s current maintenance expenditure would ensure the building is maintained and functional for a short period of time. This is not sustainable for the medium to long term future of the building.

Council has allocated $392,000 in this year’s budget to commence the staged renewal of the existing building.

Social Considerations

The community centre is vital for the local community and has been identified to be retained in the Ku-ring-gai Community Facility Strategy.

Environmental Considerations

The current building does not provide any environmentally sustainable elements. A new facility can incorporate the latest technology to ensure the building meets current sustainable standards.

Community Consultation

Council staff have undertaken a community engagement process, designed primarily to capture the community’s preference between the two (2) Options as outlined in the Council resolution of 8 May 2018:

1) To sympathetically restore and expand the East Lindfield Community Centre

2) Knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces.

The overall results were 38% for Option 1 and 62% for Option 2.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on the results from the community consultation at the recent Councillor’s workshop. The Major Projects Steering Committee have been consulted on the results of the survey.

Summary

Council recently commissioned a condition report for the East Lindfield Community Centre.

The report has identified areas within the building that require a significant financial investment to address noncompliance and defects within the building.

Two (2) options were explored in response to the report. These options included to sympathetically restore and expand the East Lindfield Community Centre and knockdown and rebuild with multiple meeting spaces.

Council staff undertook a community engagement process, designed primarily to capture the community’s preference between the two (2) options. The results of the consultation process indicate the community support the knockdown and rebuild option.

Based on the current condition of the building, an assessment of the risks associated with different options and the community consultation, it is proposed to knockdown and rebuild the building.

It is proposed to utilise the current budget of $392,000 to commence the design and community consultation with a view to construct the building once funding is available through asset sales.

Recommendation:

That Council resolve to:

A. Receive and note the outcome of the community consultation.

B. Provide in principle endorsement for the knockdown and rebuild of the East Lindfield Community Centre, subject to preparation of concept plans, detailed cost estimates and subsequent approval of a business case.

C. Utilise the current budget of $392,000 to commence the design stage.

D. Further consultation with the community regarding the proposed design.

E. Plan the construction of the new community centre when funding becomes available from the sale of Council assets.

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.7 / 80

Item GB.7	S12120

Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Road and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra on land currently operating as a plant nursey and service station to Council for its consideration.

background:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to: 1. rezone the land from R2 (Low Density Residential) to B1 (Neighbourhood Centre); and 2. amend schedule 1 of the KLEP 2015 to allow commercial premises on the land to have up to 1,540 square metres of gross floor area. The key objective of the proposal is to formalise the existing, long term commercial uses on the site that are adjacent to the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre.

comments:	The purpose of this report is to determine whether the Planning Proposal should be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination that will enable its public exhibition. The Planning Proposal was reported to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 18 March 2019 as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals, issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is acknowledged that the existing uses on the site complement other uses in the Centre. Expansion of the commercial function in the local neighbourhood needs to fit into the overall, broader strategic framework for Ku-ring-gai. It must also result in positive, safe and practical benefits for the centre, its surrounding neighbourhood and the community it serves.

recommendation:	That the Planning Proposal, as amended in this report, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Road and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra on land currently operating as a plant nursey and service station to Council for its consideration.

Originally, SJB Planning presented an Amendment to Schedule 1 of KLEP 2015 to result in the following configuration:

· A 1,000 square metre building, possibly for an independent fresh food grocer (Note: Harris Farm is stated in the Supplementary Planning Statement (Attachment A6 copy available);

· A 235 square metre adjoining building (mainly along the Alice Street frontage), possibly for a florist, nursery and café; and

· A 305 square metre separate building on the corner of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue, which is proposed to accommodate one or two speciality shops.

In August 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) introduced the following new definitions that are relevant to this Planning Proposal i.e. garden centre, neighbourhood shops, and neighbourhood supermarkets. The proposed retention of the FSR standard of 0.3:1 will allow the desired maximum floor space of 1,540 square metres. Also, the new neighbourhood supermarket definition specifies a maximum floor area of 1000sq.m. It is important to note that this amount of floor space was separately specified in the Planning Proposal as submitted.

As a result of these DPE changes, the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 is considered unnecessary. By not limiting permissible land uses, or specifying a particular building size, the recommended approach will also allow greater flexibility regarding future (permissible) use and building configuration on the site.

Background

Previous Planning Proposal

The subject site was part of a previous Planning Proposal submitted by a different applicant. Discussions regarding the site and the previous Planning Proposal with Aldi as the proponent have dated back to 2015. The first pre- Planning Proposal meeting was held on 27 May 2015.

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 12 August 2015, which sought to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

· rezone the subject site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

· amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3: 1 to 0.75 :1; and

· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites.

This Planning Proposal could have resulted in a maximum of 3,850 square metres of new floor space on the site.

The Planning Proposal was the subject of a Council report on 8 December 2015. Council resolved not to support the Planning Proposal on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with directions and actions in the Metropolitan Strategy “A Plan for Growing Sydney” which seeks to undertake urban renewal and growth within transport corridors and strategic centres in order to create jobs that are closer to home. Specifically Directions 1.7, 2.2, 3.1 and Actions 1.7.1, 2.2.2, and 3.1.1.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with s.117 Directions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, specifically:

• 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

• 6.3 Site Specific Provisions

• 7.1 Implementation of “A Plan for Growing Sydney”

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 relating to the revitalisation of local centres and managing the impacts of new development within centres.

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and functions of neighbourhood centres and will conflict with the hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with the strategic directions and development principles within the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005 (Hill PDA) and Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Subregional Employment Study 2008 (SGS Economics and Planning) which seek to retain of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retail within the higher order centres.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, specifically aim 1.2(g), objective of Clause 6.9(1) and the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in that the proposal is of a scale that is inappropriate for a neighbourhood centre, will service a wider catchment than the surrounding residential area and will conflict with the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai.

The Planning Proposal was subsequently submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Gateway Review by the proponent. The DPE refused the Review application on 9 March 2016. This fact remains noted on the DPE rezoning review web page.

Planning Proposal

A summary of the Planning Proposal the subject of this report can be found in the Purpose of this Report section earlier. Further detail can also be found in the Planning Proposal section ahead. A copy of Attachment A4-A16 is available.

A Pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held at Council on 21 March 2018. See Attachment A7 (copy is available), for the Minutes of this meeting.

The new Planning Proposal was initially registered with Council on 27 August 2018. Council sent a letter outlining the additional information required to complete the Planning Proposal on 5 October 2018. The amended proposal was received and formally registered with Council on 31 October 2018.

The new Planning Proposal has not yet been publicly notified by Council.

Key differences between the previous and current planning proposals

The new Planning Proposal retains the existing FSR of 0.3:1 similar to the existing R2 (Low Density Residential) zone. The previous proposal increased the FSR on the site to 0.75:1, which is equal to the existing FSR in the existing, adjacent Eastern Road neighbourhood centre. The new Planning Proposal specifies a maximum gross floor area of 1,540 square metres, including a neighbourhood supermarket with a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres. The previous Planning Proposal had a maximum gross floor area of 3,850 square metres, including a gross floor area for an Aldi supermarket of 1,955 square metres.

The new Planning Proposal has reduced the potential gross floor area on the site by 60% from the previous Planning Proposal. Further, the size of the supermarket component has been reduced by almost 100%. The new Planning Proposal will have significantly less impact than the previous proposal, particularly in terms of the bulk, scale and function of future development on the site.

The previous proposal specified Aldi as the main supermarket tenant on the site. The new Planning Proposal remains more general, and flexible, in terms of future uses and users of the site.

Site description and local context

The site is located in Turramurra, 17 kilometres north-west of the Sydney CBD and approximately 5 kilometres south-east of the Hornsby CBD. The site is approximately 1.3 kilometres north of Turramurra Railway Station and Turramurra Local Centre. It is 1.5 kilometres north of the Pacific Highway. See Map 1.

Map 1: Location of Site between Hornsby, Turramurra and St. Ives

There is a local bus service from Macquarie University via the Station to the site and on to Hornsby via Wahroonga. There are 14 services per day from approximately 7am until 8pm Mondays to Fridays. There is another, less frequent service to and from Wahroonga four times daily via the site on week days (576T). Night and weekend buses are less frequent, or non-existent, in the local neighbourhood.

The site consists of two lots, at 45-47 Tennyson Avenue (Lot 1 DP 4323 and Lot 2 DP515147) and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra, which is identified as Lot 1 DP 515147. It is an almost square and has the following frontages to 3 streets: Eastern Road (71.19m), Tennyson Avenue (71.81 m) and Alice Street (72.54m). The total area of the site is 5129 square metres (Council Geocortex map system estimates the site to be 5120 square metres).

The site is currently zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP).

Image 1: Aerial photo of the site and surrounds. The site is outlined in red

Image 2: Current Zoning Extract from KLEP 2015 – R2 Low Density Residential (pink).

The site is outlined in red.

The Tennyson Avenue property is currently used for a garden centre (Honeysuckle Garden Centre), associated car parking and structures. There are 8 full time and 5-10 part time (seasonal) casual staff employed at the nursery (applicant’s advice January 2019). The Eastern Road property is used for a service station and associated vehicle mechanical workshop (GRD Automotive Services) Service Station. There are 5 full time and 1 casual staff employed by this business (pers. Comm. applicant January 2019). The existing floor area of both businesses is 824 square metres. These existing uses are long term, well established enterprises.

The garden centre property operated as an apple orchard and possible market garden from the early 1900s. From 1954 to 1968 it was owned by Ampol Petroleum Ltd., but it is likely to have been vacant by 1961. Between 1968-1978 it was used as a bus depot. From 1978 it has been used a nursery and landscaping supply shop, and as a café and nursery since 2002. The other property has been used as a service station and mechanical workshop since the 1950’s.

The site is generally level. There is a gentle fall from north to south of approximately 3 metres. See Attachment A5. A copy is available. The majority of the site is unvegetated, however there is significant vegetation on the eastern and southern edges of the site. This is discussed ahead in more detail.

The site is located immediately north (across Tennyson Avenue) of the existing Eastern Road shops. These shops and adjacent car parking areas are zoned B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) under KLEP. The floor area of the existing shops is approximately 1512 square metres. It is a well-established group of 7 shops that includes a small IGA supermarket (570 square metres), BWS Liquor Store, butcher, pharmacy, fruit and vegetable shop, café and drycleaner. All shops have remained occupied over time.

The total existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned area is approximately 3,684 square metres. This includes angled street front parking and the car park (to the south and east of the existing shops) provide a total of 55 car parking spaces (internal transport referral response December 2018) in the following breakdown:

· Rear car park 37 spaces;

· angle parking along the Eastern Road frontage of 12 spaces;

· parallel parking on the Tennyson Road frontage of 2 spaces; and

· parallel parking on the Eastern Road frontage of 4 spaces.

The car park is accessed on the eastern side of the commercial buildings by Tennyson Lane, and on their western side by Eastern Road. The lane links Tennyson Avenue and Eastern Road in a reverse L configuration.

Immediately east of the laneway in Tennyson Avenue is a Kindergarten (Turramurra Beehive Child Care) and a privately operated Swimming School (Turramurra Learn to Swim).

The site is surrounded by a low density residential area that is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) under the KLEP 2015. The area to its north and west is typical of low density residential areas in Ku-ring-gai, with high quality detached dwellings within large, established garden settings. Immediately east of the site is a small group of townhouses.

Reasons for the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal outlines the following reasons for the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015(p.5 Executive Summary):

· It responds to the historic use of the site for retail premises (noting the existing site contains a garden centre and service station);

· It will economically support surrounding development, namely the neighbourhood retail centre immediately to the south;

· It will be compatible with the surrounding development, namely the surrounding low density residential development, as well as the neighbourhood retail centre immediately to the south;

· It will provide the opportunity to expand and upgrade local employment opportunities for the site in a well serviced location;

· It will achieve urban design integration and renewal of the locality;

· Development consistent with the Planning Proposal will facilitate remediation of land contamination from present uses on the site;

· It will protect and enhance existing native vegetation (biodiversity) on the site;

· The proposal can be accommodated utilising the existing road network, which has been assessed as being capable of accommodating the additional traffic generation; and

· It is consistent with the local and regional strategic planning framework.

The following additional merit was identified in the Supplementary Planning Statement (Appendix 2 p.4) to further justify the Planning Proposal:

· It will provide services that will enhance choice and serve the needs of people living and/or working in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal prepared by SJB Planning seeks amendment to the KLEP 2015 to rezone the 5,129 square metre site from R2 (Low Density Residential) zoning to B1 (Neighbourhood Centre).

Permissible uses in the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) comprise: Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Business premises; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Health consulting rooms; Home-based child care; Light industries; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Neighbourhood supermarkets; Respite day care centres; Roads; Shop top housing; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

The existing Maximum Building Height of 9.5 metres and maximum FSR of 0.3:1 LEP development standards are proposed to be retained for the site. See Images ahead for details.

Image 3: Proposed zoning of the site to B1 Neighbourhood Centre as submitted by SJB Planning

Image 4: Existing 9.5 metre height development standard on the site.

This standard is proposed to be retained in the Planning Proposal.

Image 5: Existing 0.3:1 FSR development standard on the site.

This standard is proposed to be retained in the Planning Proposal.

It is important to note that the proposed FSR development standard is less on the site than for the adjacent existing Eastern Road shopping centre (to the south). The latter area has a maximum FSR of 0.75:1. See Image 5.

Schedule 1 Amendment

Clause 6.9(2) of KLEP 2015 states that Development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of commercial premises on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre if the development would result in the premises having a gross floor area of more than 1,000 square metres. There is ambiguity in the wording of this clause. To clarify the situation for future development, the applicant has proposed a Schedule 1 amendment to allow commercial premises maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 1,540 square metres on the site.

Supporting Studies

Several supporting studies form attachments to the Planning Proposal. They provide information and further justify the Planning Proposal. They are listed ahead. A copy of Attachment A5-A16 is available:

· Survey Plan prepared by SurDevel

· Supplementary Planning Statement

· Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Report prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council

· Architectural Plans prepared by Tandem Design Studio

· Urban Design Statement prepared by Oculus

· Traffic Report prepared by Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes

· Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Deep End Services

· Arboricultural Impact Statement prepared by Tree IQ

· Landscape Report prepared by Oculus

· Ecological Report prepared by GIS Environmental Consultants

· Combined Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Compaction & Soil Testing Services

· Engagement (Community) Report prepared by Straight Talk

The Architectural Plans and Urban Design Statement included with the Planning Proposal provide an indication of possible type and scale of built outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal. Briefly, it comprises:

· a commercial premises with a GFA of 1,000 square metres to be used as an independent fresh food grocer (The Homestead);

· an adjoining tenancy of 235 square metres to be used as a florist, nursery and café along the Alice Street frontage (Conservatory/ Café Nursery); and

· a separate retail building on the corner of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue of 305 square metres to be used for 1 or 2 specialty shop tenancies (The Barn).

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 this Planning Proposal.

It is important to note that 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. 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/s.

Key Points

If the Planning Proposal proceeds, the overall Eastern Road shopping centre commercial floor area will increase from 2,336 square metres (including 824 square metres for the existing service station and nursery), plus 1,512 square metres (for the existing Eastern Road shops), to approximately 3,052 square metres. The Planning Proposal will result in an overall increase in B1 Neighbourhood Centre Eastern Road land area from 3,684 square metres. to 8,813 square metres.

Information on fifteen (15) areas zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centres in the Ku-Ring-gai local government area has been complied and tabulated. These 15 centres have a total gross floor area of 22,800 square metres (approximate Dekho measurement). The Planning Proposal would result in a potential increase in gross floor area of 716 square metres. This is considered a very small increase of 3.1% in the overall Ku-ring-gai Neighbourhood Centre context.

In its independent review of the economic assessment report, Hill PDA state that the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre will not change in terms of its position in the overall Ku-Ring-Gai Centre Hierarchy as a result of the Planning Proposal. Importantly, the identified strategic need to have a functional hierarchy of centres in Ku-ring-gai is maintained as a result of the Planning Proposal.

Comments

Planning Proposal Assessment

The Planning Proposal has been evaluated by Council’s Urban Design, Development Assessment, Transport, Natural Areas (Strategy and Environment) and Infrastructure teams. See Attachment A2 for detail.

Analysis of the Planning Proposal and its attachments has been conducted, and summarised in the Table of Assessment. See Attachment A1.

Internal Council Responses

The key issues raised in the Council officers’ assessments are as follows:

Natural Areas

The proposed building footprint needs to be designed to further reduce impacts on the remnant Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF). This could potentially be achieved through a reduction of areas of the site which are not considered as ecologically significant (i.e. the orchard in the current proposal), and the provision of greater buffers for the remnant BGHF trees. Additional buffers could be achieved through site specific DCP controls requiring a greater setback from the mapped BGHF located in the south-eastern corner of the site. These issues are addressed via proposed changes to the Planning Proposal, should it proceed to the Gateway, in the Summary section at the end of this report.

The impacts associated with the removal of 5 trees including 2 native species (T30 a young Eucalyptus saligna and T1 a large Melaleaca quinquenervia) through the current proposal is able to be offset onsite with appropriate plantings, which would need to be clearly identified in a vegetation management and replenishment plan.

A detailed survey and tree plan would be required to ensure all retained trees remain viable, with suitable monitoring, vegetation management and replenishment. Again, a better outcome could be achieved by providing a greater buffer to retained trees or through alternative construction methods.

The site is suitable for the proposed uses, and poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the surrounding environment. The issue of contamination will be addressed during the development process, and appropriate management and monitoring put in place if required.

Transport

The Planning Proposal states that approximately 20 employees would be working in the store at any one time. Based on the travel mode characteristics of the travel zone, it is likely that 15 employees would drive to work, 2 would be dropped off, 1 would arrive by train, 1 would walk and 1 would arrive by bus. While it is likely that around half of the employees would originate from the Ku-ring-gai LGA, the site is still likely to be a highly car-dependent site for journeys to work by employees.

It is unlikely that this additional demand for public transport would place significant additional burden on existing services. The existing public transport services would likely have the capacity to accommodate any additional demand. Given the small public transport catchment and unrestricted nature of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, it is likely to be highly car dependent for journeys to work.

As the proposal to rezone the site would increase pedestrian demand across Eastern Road (to/from the western part of the walking catchment), consideration will need to be given (likely at DA stage) to improving crossing opportunities and additional pedestrian facilities on Eastern Road as well as across Tennyson Avenue and The Chase Road (where they meet Eastern Road), to facilitate and promote pedestrian access.

It is unlikely that the additional demand generated by the proposal would create platform capacity issues at Turramurra Station. The number of shoppers/visitors to the site arriving by rail is also expected to be low, based on the mode share characteristics of the travel zone. There is a bus stop directly outside the site and opposite the site. Services provide connectivity to Turramurra railway station.

The estimated traffic generation of the Planning Proposal is derived from the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for supermarkets and specialty shops. The net increase in traffic generation (allowing for the existing use) is estimated at additional 150 vehicle trips per hour (two-way) during the weekday afternoon peak hour and 130 vehicle trips per hour (two-way) during the Saturday peak hour. In terms of impacts to nearby intersections, the Planning Proposal would result in a Level of Service A/B (good operation/acceptable delays and spare capacity) for both the intersection of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue and the intersection of Eastern Road and Alice Street. Council’s Traffic Assessment section concurs with these figures and level of service estimates.

Tennyson Road has a relatively narrow road pavement varying from approximately 7.5m to 10m, and the question of the desirability of carrying additional traffic in Tennyson Avenue, and whether traffic management measures would need to be considered, would be a matter for a future development application.

Any traffic management measures that reduce traffic movements in Tennyson Avenue are likely to result in corresponding increases in traffic movements along The Chase Road. The Chase Road is a collector road and is already operating at around the maximum environmental traffic flows suggested for a collector road (as outlined in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments).

While not a consideration at this stage, the potential for 82 car spaces would be lower than required by the DCP but higher (per square metre) than the parking provided for the existing shops. The slightly-lower-than-DCP provision could be supported though, if a management system was implemented to encourage turnover of the on-site spaces (e.g. electronic parking management system or enforcement by Council’s rangers). There are also 3-4 time-restricted parallel parking directly opposite (on the western side of Eastern Road) which contribute to short stay parking supply for public use.

The Traffic Assessment report that forms part of the Planning Proposal indicates that the existing road infrastructure has capacity to cater for the proposal. Council’s Traffic Assessment section concurs with this conclusion.

Urban Design

The Planning Proposal is supported in principle. A site specific DCP is required to provide Council’s detailed requirements. Outcomes of the Planning Proposal include: increased public amenity; better safety and surveillance; as well as an activation of the street front (flexible parking and forecourt to Eastern Road) along the site.

Development Assessment

A DCP is required to guide development on the site, particularly in regard to protecting significant vegetation. See Image 6 ahead.

Image 6 Existing Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping will remain unchanged as a result of the Planning Proposal.

Infrastructure

The imposition of the appropriate Development Contributions would occur at the DA approval stage. Significant vegetation on the site needs to be protected.

Conclusion on Internal Council Responses

There are no internal objections to the Planning Proposal. With the provision of additional information, including more detailed development information becoming available. Most of the issues that have been raised will be addressed at the DA stage/s.

External Response to Deep End Services Economic Justification Analysis

The following table identifies key issues raised in the external review of the economic impact assessment (Attachment A3) submitted as part of the Planning Proposal was undertaken by Hill PDA (engaged by Council). It also identifies where review of the Deep End Services report is needed. This review needs to occur if it is to go to the Gateway for a Determination:

Hill PDA review consideration (Page references are included in brackets).	RESPONSE by Hill PDA -recommended change to Deep End Services report
The Deep End Services Report provides a fair representation of the existing and proposed competitive hierarchy surrounding the site.	Nil
The defined trade areas are considered to be reasonable. However, the likely trade area is considered a little optimistic (p.7).	1. Contract the trade area to the north and south (as suggested in Hill PDA report) and rework the supply and demand assessment; or 2. Leave the trade area as it is (contract slightly to exclude the area south of the railway line) but existing retailers in the PTA must be included in the supply demand forecasting
The population projections and identified socio economic trends in the Deep End Services report are considered reasonable (p.8).	There was a double counting error which needs to be corrected.
The estimated expenditure per capita has been estimated as lower that the Deep End Services report (p.8).	The expected growth in retail sales per capita needs to be adjusted to less than 1% per annum to be more accurate.
The proposed Turramurra Community hub improvements would increase the amount of trade directed away from the site (particularly within the secondary trade areas). This would reduce the estimated capture rates (p.10).	The figures needs to be reviewed to include existing retailers in the PTA in the supply demand modelling and also to revise likely capture rates following the opening of the Turramurra Community Hub.
With the exception of Eastern Road (-9% shift in turnover between 2017 and 2020) and Hornsby Westfield (-4.1%), all centres would experience trade loss impacts as a result of the rezoning of less than 3.5%. It is important to note that the impact on the whole centre will be net positive as total retail sales is expected to increase by more than 80%. Consumers will have a larger and wider retail offer at Eastern Road. It is agreed that this would not change the Centre’s overall status in the Ku-ring-gai’s commercial centre hierarchy.	Nil
Existing retailers on Eastern Road may experience some initial loss (estimated 10-15%) depending on how they adapt, but the total expanded centre as a whole will be positive since the centre will double its retail offering and likely double its turnover. The Deep End Services report doesn’t address the cumulative impacts from both the Planning Proposal and the Turramurra Community Hub) (p.12).	The cumulative impacts of both the planning proposal and the Turramurra Hub on existing retail centres needs to be addressed.
In response to comments expressed in the Deep End Services report, Coles and Woolworths do have supermarkets below 1,500 square metres. The proposed controls would not prevent these operators from introducing smaller format models (p.13).	Nil
The Deep End Services report estimates 50 full time and part time staff in the supermarket. Hill PDA estimates 40 staff, based on major operator figure of 1 worker per 25 square metre. The specialties could employ up to 30 staff. Hill PDA estimates 20 staff, so the overall jobs on site estimate is revised to 70 (p.14).	Nil, however, this could have implications for the number of car parking spaces required in the future at the DA/s stage.

Regional, District and Local strategic merit

The Planning Proposal demonstrates consistency with the relevant strategic local, district and regional principles.

Key points are outlined below with details included in the Attachment A1 Table of Assessment attached to this Report.

1. Greater Sydney Region Plan – “A Metropolis of Three Cities” March 2018

The subject site is located north of the Eastern Economic Corridor and the strategic centre of Macquarie Park, within the Eastern Harbour City, as identified in the Greater Sydney Region Plan – ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Extract from Eastern Harbour City Vision A Metropolis of Three Cities

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad directions of ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ through (Direction = D and Objective = O):

· Encouraging and fostering healthy and socially connected communities by providing additional and improved commercial premises within walking distance of the surrounding residential area (D3, O6, O7 and O8; D6, O14);

· Potential for the enhancement of an existing neighbourhood centre (D3, O6 and O7);

· Facilitating the upgrading and development of land adjacent to an existing neighbourhood centre (D1, O3 and O4; D3, O6 and O7; D7, O22);

· Acknowledgement of the purposes for which the land has been used for decades (D1; D3 O6, O7; D5, O12; D7 O22);

· Rationalisation of use on land which is well serviced by existing infrastructure, including public transport (train and bus) (D1, O3 and O4; D3, O6 and O7);

· Increasing opportunities for employment in the local area (D7, O22);

· Potential provision of a wider range of goods and services on land adjacent to an existing neighbourhood shopping centre (D3, O6 and O7; D7, O22);

· An opportunity to protect local biodiversity that includes an identified Endangered Ecological Community (D5, O13; D8 O27,O30; D10, O36 and O38);

· Preserving and increasing vital urban tree canopy via the retention, protection and embellishment of remnant vegetation on-site (D8, O27 and O30; D10, O36 and O38);

· An opportunity to create improved green spaces and shade on the land that will reduce the impact of increased heat because of climate change (D5, O12; D8, O27, O28 and O30; D10, O36 and 38); and

· The prospect of an enriched local urban outcome, both from within and without the land (D3 O7; D5, O12; D7, O22; D8, O27 and O30; D10, O36 and O38).

Further detail on the Planning Proposal in relation to its consistency with the Directions and Objectives can be found at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the Directions and Objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’.

2. North District Plan

The Ku-ring-gai LGA is located within the North District identified under the District Plans prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission. The North District Plan has been prepared to give effect to A Metropolis of Three Cities, the Region Plan that applies to the five districts that make up the Greater Sydney Region.

The North District Plan has been prepared in accordance with section 3.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. As well as providing a basis for strategic planning, it includes a number of Planning Priorities that are to be considered by planning authorities in making strategic planning decisions. The relevant Planning Priorities to the Planning Proposal are addressed in the Attachment A1 of this Report.

The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following key Planning Priorities of the North District Plan (Planning Priority = N):

· The site is well supported by existing infrastructure and services (N1and N12);

· An increased range of goods and services for the local community, for many within an easy walking distance (N3, N4, N6 and N10);

· Significant vegetation will be conserved, protected and enhanced on the site (N16, N17, N19); and

· Tree canopy will be increased (N23).

3. Our Ku-ring-gai - Community Strategic Plan 2038

Council’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP) 2038 was adopted in June 2018. It reflects the aspirations and priorities of our community into the future. It contains the community’s long term vision for Ku-ring-gai along with long term objectives to achieve that vision.

The Strategic Plan 2038 includes the following six (6) key themes:

1. Community, People and Culture;

2. Natural Environment;

3. Places, Spaces and Infrastructure;

4. Access, Traffic and Transport;

5. Local Economy and Employment; and

6. Leadership and Governance.

The relevant and/or applicable themes/objectives of the Strategic Plan 2038 are discussed in Attachment A1 of this Report.

The Planning Proposal is considered consistent with the Themes and Objectives of the CSP 2038, and, in particular, the following:

· although not required in the early stage, the applicant conducted its own community engagement in March 2018 to determine and discuss issues (positive and negative) (Themes 1 and 6);

· significant vegetation will be conserved, augmented and enhanced (Themes 2 and 3);

· easy access is available via a variety of means, including cycling and walking (Theme 4);

· additional employment opportunities would be provided (Theme 5); and

· there would be strengthening of the local business economy (Theme 5).

4. Our Ku-ring-gai - Community Strategic Plan 2038 Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2018-2019

The Delivery Program outlines what Council intends to do during its term of office, and acts as a point of reference for all principle activities undertaken by Council. The Operational Plan details the specific projects, programs and services for a 12 month period.

Council’s s.7.12 (previously S94A) Plan identifies $300,000 for improvement works to Eastern Road shops (page 31 – works program). There may also be money available in Council’s Capital Works Program. Ideally, these could be coordinated so the work is done at the same time as future development on the site. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

5. Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy July 2011

The site, nor the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, are not specifically discussed in this Strategy. However, the Planning Proposal meets the applicable key objectives of the Strategy, particularly:

· Reducing the need to travel and the length of trips;

· Providing a choice of travel options for people and goods, and promoting sustainable choices;

· Making it safe and easy for people to access goods, services and destinations, particularly by public transport; and

· Increasing the share of trips by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing car dependency

An increase in the size of the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre will result in a greater range of goods and services being offered within the existing catchment. Potentially, this will mean local people can shop more locally more often; reducing the need for numerous “external” car trips. Given the travel distance is reduced, the possibility of walking and/ or cycling safely from home to the neighbourhood centre is also increased. These factors are key net community benefits resulting from the Planning Proposal.

The relevant, applicable themes and objectives of the Strategy, are discussed in detail in Attachment A1.

6. Ku-ring-gai Sustainability Vision 2008-2033

One of the identified key resident findings of the Ku-ring-gai Sustainability Vision was the need to improve infrastructure in neighbourhood shopping centres in the LGA. The Planning Proposal could act as a catalyst for the upgrade of infrastructure in the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. Funds are available for this upgrade in Council’s Development Contributions Plan as discussed earlier in this report.

The four (4) themes that emerged from the consultation process include the themes of social, environmental, economic and governance. The Planning Proposal is compliant with these themes. They are discussed in more detail in Attachment A1 of this report.

7. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), including draft SEPPs.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the following relevant SEPP’s, and draft SEPPs:

· SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land;

· SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007;

· SREP – Hawkesbury- Nepean River; and

· Draft Environment SEPP.

Further detail can be found in Attachment A1 of this Report. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant SEPPs, and draft SEPP.

8. s.9.1 Ministerial Directions

The following relevant Directions have been considered as part of the Planning Proposal:

· Business and Industrial Zones;

· 3.1 Residential Zones;

· 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport;

· 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans;

· 6.3 Site specific Provisions; and

· 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Further detail can be found in Attachment A1 of this Report. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the following relevant s.9.1 Ministerial Directions: 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones; 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport; 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans; 6.3 Site specific Provisions; and 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney.

The Planning Proposal is justifiably inconsistent with Direction 3.1 Residential Zones for a number of reasons:

· the land has never been used for residential purposes;

· it will utilise existing, available infrastructure; and is adjacent to the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre;

· it provides an opportunity for the enhancement of the existing, adjacent centre; as well as significant vegetation on the site: and

· the proposed scale of development is compatible with surrounding residential uses. Importantly, it will better service the goods and services needs of the local community.

9. Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005

In 2005 this Study recommended keeping the Eastern Road neighbourhood centre as a “local” centre i.e. the smallest category in the Study’s hierarchy. It also recommended “containing” retailing (as opposed to dispersing or spreading it) to minimise travel times, improve convenience and improve competition within existing retail centres. The Study also identified a need to increase floor area to meet growth in demand. This increase was to be based on the need to maintain a functional hierarchy of centres and to balance the retail offer, competitiveness and accessibility for consumers.

It recommended Turramurra as a district centre (20,000sq.m). In the retail hierarchy (Attachment A11) it recommended that Turramurra could have an expansion of up to 4,000 square metres. This was incorporated in KLEP (Local Centres) 2012. It was intended that some of this would be for the expansion of the 2 existing supermarkets, which were considered too small for modern supermarkets. At this time, no additional development has occurred in Turramurra following the Local Centres LEP.

In the Hill PDA’s independent review of the Planning Proposal’s economic analysis (Deep End Services report), it is confirmed that Turramurra’s status in the overall Ku-ring-gai commercial hierarchy would be maintained. Although the Planning Proposal would cause some impacts, the overall viability of the nearby Turramurra Community Hub would not be threatened by the Planning Proposal.

The Hill PDA report does state that, post Planning Proposal, the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre would remain in its current place below Turramurra Local Centre.

The Ku-Ring-Gai Retail Centres Study also recommended:

7. Identify site suitable for large scale development, by accommodating more efficient use of land and building within or surrounding existing centres.

Although the Planning Proposal is not “large scale” in terms of overall retail development (just 3.1% increase in neighbourhood centre floor space in the Ku-ring-gai LGA), it will still result in an increase the amount of gross floor area in the existing centre. In line with the Study’s recommendation, it would result in the more efficient use of land adjacent to an existing Centre.

The previous Planning Proposal (2015) provided a total of 3,850 square metres of additional floor area. The new Planning Proposal the subject of this report provides for 1,540 square metres which is significantly less. The maximum size of the neighbourhood supermarket is 1,000 square metres, around half the size of the previous proposal.

The Planning Proposal conforms with the Recommendations of the Study.

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

Although the site is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) it has been used for nursery and service station purposes (commercial) for decades. The R2 zone objectives include:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

· To provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai.

These objectives are not appropriate for or relevant to ongoing commercial land uses on the site.

In contrast, the objective of the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) is:

To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The objective of this zone far more accurately reflects the current and intended future uses of the land. If it proceeds as recommended in this report, the rezoning will better inform all stakeholders of land uses at the site. It will also facilitate greatly increased opportunity for improvement and renewal over time.

There are likely to be multiplier effects for the neighbourhood centre as a whole in the medium and longer term. In the Hill PDA review of the economic assessment in the Planning Proposal, it is stated that the existing retailers in the Eastern Road shops will experience some loss depending on how they adapt or change but the expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive since the centre will double its retail offering and likely double its turnover.

The Planning Proposal would provide significant net benefits to the overall neighbourhood centre, as well as the surrounding community.

It is proposed to retain the existing Maximum Building Height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards that apply to the site. This will ensure that future development will be no higher than that permissible in the adjacent, existing shopping centre. The site has a lesser FSR than the existing shopping centre. As indicated in the development concept plans provided in the Planning Proposal, the urban outcome on the site will not be a traditional strip in style. There will be fewer but larger building footprints, mostly underground vehicle and parking/ loading, a flexible parking/forecourt area at Eastern Road level, and several open space areas.

If constructed in the future, the development concept plan would result in a more contemporary outcome (including mostly underground parking and good pedestrian circulation within the site) than the more traditional strip style shops to the south.

The Planning Proposal demonstrates integration of the objectives of the proposed B1 zone and development standards. The necessity for the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 to allow a maximum 1540 square metres of commercial floor space is discussed ahead in this report.

11. New definitions of neighbourhood shop, neighbourhood supermarket and garden centre in the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) zone.

On 31 August, 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment introduced the following new definitions that are relevant to the Planning Proposal. These definitions are now included in KLEP:

garden centre means a building or place the principal purpose of which is the retail sale of plants and landscaping and gardening supplies and equipment. It may include a restaurant or cafe and the sale of any of the following:

(a) outdoor furniture and furnishings, barbecues, shading and awnings, pools, spas and associated supplies, and items associated with the construction and maintenance of outdoor areas,

(b) pets and pet supplies,

(c) fresh produce.

Note. Garden centres are a type of retail premises—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

(7) Neighbourhood shops If development for the purposes of a neighbourhood shop is permitted under this Plan, the retail floor area must not exceed 100 square metres.

Note: This use has a maximum retail floor area of 100 square metres.

(7AA) Neighbourhood supermarkets If development for the purposes of a neighbourhood supermarket is permitted under this Plan, the gross floor area must not exceed 1,000 square metres.

Note: This use has a maximum gross floor area of 1000 square metres.

The introduction of these new definitions does not have any implications for the Planning Proposal i.e. there is no need to make any changes to it. The new definitions will ensure that any neighbourhood supermarket on the site is limited to a maximum of 1,000 square metres of floor space.

It will result in/ allow the following “possible” outcomes. It is important to note that other land uses and development configurations would be possible under the rezoning:

· a neighbourhood supermarket with a gross floor area of 1,000sq.m. This meets the terms of the new definition;

· a garden centre with an unspecified gross floor area (the planning proposal estimates this use will occupy a gross floor area of 235 square metres).This use meets the terms of the new definition; and

· 1 or 2 specialty shops with a total gross floor area of 305 square metres.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

“Competition” is not a Town Planning Consideration

Often an excessive amount of consideration is given to economic assessment in environmental planning matters involving commercial land use. The following information provides a counter view to this. It is based on previous Land Environment Court cases that have shaped ongoing best practice in the planning profession. The legal approach outlined here has influenced the recommendations of this report.

In the assessment of planning matters in any assessment is not about solving economic competition problems between retailers, or undermining the operation of a free market economy. Further, Section 4.15 Evaluation (previously s.79C in relation to DA’s) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 does not include the consideration of loss of trade that might occur by any planned or existing businesses. These matters are more appropriately dealt with via other legislation such as The Trades Practices Act, and market forces (Extracted from a public submission to Australian Consumer and Competition Grocery Inquiry by Urban Taskforce Australia on 11 March 2008 by Urban Taskforce Australia).

This is well established in NSW case law. It is appropriate to include Justice Stephen’s most quoted comment from Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675 at page 687:

“If the shopping facilities presently enjoyed by a community or planned for it in the future are put in jeopardy by some proposed development, whether that jeopardy be due to physical or financial causes, and if the resultant community detriment will not be made good by the proposed development itself, that appears to me to be a consideration proper to be taken into account as a matter of town planning. It does not cease to be so because the profitability of individual existing businesses are at one and the same time also threatened by the new competition afforded by that new development. However, the mere threat of competition to existing businesses if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration.”

The Planning Proposal includes an economic assessment which Council has had independently reviewed. The Hill PDA review of the economic assessment confirms the Planning Proposal’s (Deep End report) findings that, while there will be a negative economic change for some retailers in the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, the expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive since the Centre will double its retail offer and likely double its turnover.

The economic impact of the Planning Proposal on the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre needs to be considered within the context outlined in this section of the report.

Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)

It is recommended that a site specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal. The draft DCP would be prepared by Council in line with current best practice. It needs to include the following controls to maximise positive environmental outcomes for the site:

· Building form and design;

· setbacks;

· scale;

· roof Form;

· building footprint, including separation from tree driplines;

· building envelopes;

· building materials and finishes;

· open space;

· provision of outdoor sun and shade areas to maximise comfort for all stakeholders;

· linkages and internal - external circulation;

· protection and enhancement of identified EEC vegetation, retention of tree canopy and green space;

· vegetation protection buffers;

· Vegetation Management and Replenishment Plan;

· landscaping;

· sustainability, re use and recycling;

· safety and access for all modes;

· activation and multi-use of the Eastern Road forecourt; and

· parking – motor vehicle and bicycle.

Civic Improvement

As previously discussed, Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to Eastern Road shops. There may also be funds available in Council’s capital works program, subject to prioritisation. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consent/s on the site.

ADVICE FROM KU-RING-GAI LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to refer all Planning Proposals prepared after 1 June 2018 to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice, before it is forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Planning Proposal was reported to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting on 18 March 2019. The KLPP supported the Planning Proposal, as they considered the proposed zoning, with the changes outlined ahead in this report, is appropriate for the site. The Panel’s advice was:

a. The Panel endorses the contents of the staff report, including the proposed amendments to the SJB Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

b. That the Deep End Services Economic Assessment report needs to be reviewed in line with the staff report before the Planning Proposal goes to Gateway for a Determination.

c. The Panel recommends to Council that the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, subject to the amendments detailed in the staff report, and any other resultant editorial changes.

d. The Panel recommends to Council that it commence discussions with the proponent in respect to the provision of facilities in the Tennyson Road reserve to create safe pedestrian movement between the existing B1 zone and the planning proposal site. Council should also consider entering into a VPA to facilitate such pedestrian connections.

B. The reasons for the decision: The Panel notes the continual ongoing use of these sites as forming part of the local neighbourhood centre.

C. How community views were taken into account in making the decision: No submissions were received however the Panel considers public interest would be served by consideration at Gateway level.

In relation to the facilitation of safe pedestrian movement between the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre and the Planning Proposal site, and the possibility of a VPA to effect this, is worth exploring.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

On the assumption that the site is to be consolidated into one lot, it is proposed to make some changes to KLEP 2015 not sought via the SJB Planning Proposal. They are discussed below.

It is proposed to remove the existing, applicable subdivision minimum lot size provision of 1unit per 930 square metres. This will make the site consistent with the existing, adjacent Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. See Images 7and 8 ahead for detail.

Image 7 Existing minimum lot size of 930 square metres for the site is consistent with the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zoned neighbourhood.

Image 8 It is proposed to remove the minimum lot size control on the site because of the proposed change in zoning. This is consistent with the B1 zoned Eastern Road Shopping Centre to the south.

Image 9 Proposed B1 zoning extended across Tennyson Avenue to link the proposed and existing Neighbourhood Centre zoning. This zoning approach is consistent with best practice, required and is similar to other comparable situations in Ku-ring-gai.

The proposed SJB Planning amendment to Schedule 1 constrains both the size and the type of development on the site i.e. the maximum gross floor space of “commercial premises” (only) on the land is 1,540 square metres.

The proposed amendment to Schedule 1 is considered inappropriate and unnecessary. Permissible uses on the site do not need to be constrained to commercial premises only. There are many other permissible uses that may be appropriate for the site; if not now, then in the future. To increase flexibility for future land use and development options i.e. to allow a broader range of possible future land uses, it is considered better planning to let the full range of permissible uses under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning apply to the site.

Further, the FSR development standard of 0.3:1 that already applies to the site (and is proposed to be retained), will limit floor space to 1540 square metres. It is therefore unnecessary to replicate this limit via a Schedule 1 amendment.

The DPE introduced new definitions of garden centre, neighbourhood shops, and neighbourhood supermarket (with a maximum gross floor area of 1000 square metres) in August 2018. The garden centre and neighbourhood supermarket uses are proposed to form part of the future development of the site, as per the Planning Proposal presented by SJB Planning. These uses remain permissible uses if there is no change to Schedule 1, as recommended in this report.

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

Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control 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.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. In its consideration of this report Council will determine its position on this Planning Proposal i.e. whether or not to send it to the DPE for a Gateway Determination to proceed to public exhibition.

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 upon a favourable 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 rezone the site to reflect its long term business uses, and to provide an opportunity for urban renewal. This will expand the existing, adjacent Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, and offer local residents a greater range of shops and services close to home. Limits have been placed on the size and scale of future development on the site. It is important to note that the site will have a significantly less FSR than the existing shops to the south. Detailed controls will be introduced via a site specific DCP if the Planning Proposal proceeds to the Gateway and receives a favourable determination.

The provision of sufficient land to provide the services required by the community needs to remain a top priority for Council. The wording of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone objective reflects this appropriately i.e. To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Planning Proposal will also act as a catalyst for enhancing the urban quality and outcomes of a larger Neighbourhood Centre. As previously discussed, Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. There may also be funds available in Council’s capital works program. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contributions levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

Environmental Considerations

All aspects of the proposal with potential environmental impacts have been considered in the preparation of this Local Planning Panel Report. The assessment has included the analysis of the specialist 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/s stage.

Community Consultation

Should the Planning Proposal proceed to the Gateway and be approved for public exhibition, the DPE will issue a list of agencies and stakeholders for consultation during the exhibition period. Further local community consultation would be set out in the Gateway Determination, and in accordance with the legislative requirements.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has taken place for the preparation of this report. Council’s development assessment, urban design, infrastructure, transport and natural areas staff have assessed the Planning Proposal which has been addressed in this Report.

Summary

The existing uses on the site do not represent the most “orderly and economic development on the land” in the current conditions of 2019.

While both existing enterprises provide important goods and services to the local community; they do not contribute aesthetically in a positive way to the site, or the neighbourhood. There is little architectural merit in any of the buildings. The existing vegetation on the site that is identified in the biodiversity mapping layer in KLEP 2015 has significant environmental merit. This vegetation is recommended for conservation and augmentation.

There is a contamination issue based on the historical use of part of the site. Council’s Natural Areas specialist does not have objections to the Planning Proposal on these grounds. It is considered this issue has solutions, either at the Planning Proposal (post Gateway Determination) and/or development application stage. There are no Council specialist objections to the Planning Proposal.

This Planning Proposal presents Council with the opportunity to formalise and rationalise business uses on the land, and to guide future development in a proactive, efficient and positive way. The site is adjacent to the existing, well established and successful Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. The Planning Proposal would result in the expansion of the adjacent neighbourhood centre that is immediately to the south. There would be positive economic benefits for existing and future enterprises, and the centre as a whole. An increased offering of goods and services would have benefits for the local community, including the opportunity to shop close to home in an improved environment. It will also provide a number of jobs, both in the construction and operation phases.

These net community benefits are all in line with State Government and Council’s strategic framework.

It is well established in NSW case law that economic competition issues between retailers is not a town planning issue. The economic analysis of the Planning Proposal (and its independent Hill PDA review commissioned by Council) has concluded that the change in zoning would not alter the neighbourhood centre’s status in the overall Ku-ring-gai retail hierarchy. The Planning Proposal would not affect the overall viability of the Turramurra Community Hub. While existing retailers in the Eastern Road shops may experience some loss following the Planning Proposal, individual outcomes will depend on how they adapt to this local change. The expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive as the neighbourhood centre will double its retail offering, and likely double its turnover.

The rezoning could potentially result in a much improved neighbourhood centre; including better opportunities for a wider, complimentary range of goods and services; greater pedestrian and cyclist links to the surrounding neighbourhood; as well as the community benefits from the preservation of significant vegetation and enhancement of the existing green space orchard area.

The Planning Proposal could also become a catalyst for the provision of civic improvements that have been previously identified by Council and the community. Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. There may also be money available in Council’s capital works program. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

The need for the facilitation of safe pedestrian movement between the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre and the Planning Proposal site, and the possibility of a VPA to effect this has been identified by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel. It is worth exploring this possibility with the proponent.

The table ahead compares the existing and proposed development standards and controls for the site:

KLEP 2015 Zoning, Development Standards and Schedule 1
	KLEP 2015 - Existing	KLEP 2015 - Proposed
Zoning	R2 (Low Density Residential)	B1 (Neighbourhood Centre), B1 zone boundary extended across Tennyson Avenue to be consistent with current best practice. See Image 9 for detail.
Floor Space Ratio	0.3:1	0.3:1
Height of Building	9.5metres	9.5 metres
Minimum Lot Size	940sqm	Removed to be consistent with the existing B1 zoned Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre shops
Biodiversity mapping	Part area has biodiversity significance	No change
Schedule 1	Not applicable	No change

The following points identify the changes that need to be made to the SJB Planning Proposal before it is sent to the DPE for a Gateway Determination, should Council resolve to do so:

1. Continue the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning across the roadway of Tennyson Avenue, Turramurra in line with current best practice of covering the roadway with the adjacent zoning;

2. remove the minimum lot size provision from KLEP 2015 to enable lot consolidation and increase options for flexible and innovative future development;

3. make no changes to Schedule 1 i.e. allow all Neighbourhood Centre zone permissible uses and allow the FSR of 0.3:1 to determine 1540 square metres of GFA;

4. acknowledge that the new definitions introduced by the State government in 2018 to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone create opportunities for uses such as neighbourhood supermarkets and garden centres;

5. confirm that the concept plans in terms of scale, location on the site and uses are indicative, and by no means final. Further, the indicative development plans, and related plans and documentation, need to have the proposed building footprints changed to conserve EEC vegetation on the site. Some consideration needs to be given to providing a suitable distance of buildings from tree driplines. Documentation such as the urban design statement needs to be updated to reflect this;

6. amendment of the following aspects of the Economic Analysis prepared by Deep End Services:

A. contract the trade area to the north and south (as suggested in Hill PDA report) and rework the supply and demand assessment; or, leave the trade area as it is (contract slightly to exclude the area south of the railway line) but existing retailers in the PTA must be included in the supply demand forecasting;

B. there was a double counting error in the population growth which needs to be corrected;

C. the expected growth in retail sales per capita needs to be adjusted to less than 1% per annum to be more accurate;

D. the figures needs to be reviewed to include existing retailers in the PTA in the supply demand modelling, and also to revise likely capture rates following the opening of the Turramurra Community Hub; and

E. the cumulative impacts of both the planning proposal and the Turramurra Hub on existing retail centres needs to be addressed; and

7. Any other editorial or content changes in the SJB Planning Proposal that may arise as a result of the identified changes, or this report.

If Council agrees with the recommendations of this report, and the DPE subsequently issues a favourable Gateway Determination, it will be necessary for a draft DCP to be prepared and processed by Council. This will provide detail, as well as guiding the scale and form of new development, protecting adjacent neighbours and so on. Consideration would need to be given to an improved street presentation, retention of significant vegetation, better integration of the 2 areas currently separated by Tennyson Avenue, safe and efficient circulation for all users, and so on. The local community would be actively engaged to ensure the success of the DCP. Future DA’s would allow opportunity for further community engagement.

The rezoning of the site to a B1 Neighbourhood Business zone would uphold the objects of the EPA Act, particularly in relation to promoting the “social and economic welfare of the community” and the “orderly and economic use and development of land” It also reflects Council’s strategic aspirations for the Ku-ring-gai local government area.

Importantly, the Planning Proposal represents an opportunity to fulfil one of the DPE’ s primary contemporary retail outcomes i.e. to cluster retail services to provide easy, multi purpose and frequent shopping adjacent to an existing Neighbourhood Centre.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the Department of Planning and Environments A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals (August 2016). It is considered that there is sufficient merit to enable the Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

This report recommends that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorses the contents of this report, including the proposed amendments to the SJB Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

B. That the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, subject to the amendments to detailed in this report, and any other resultant editorial changes.

C. That Council requests to be authorised as the local plan-making authority to exercise the functions under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for this Planning Proposal.

D. That, upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

E. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

F. That Council staff to enter into discussions with the applicant in relation to the need for the facilitation of safe pedestrian movement between the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre and the Planning Proposal site.

Lindsey Dey

Urban Planner - Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Table of Assessment		2019/003024
	A2 ⇩	Internal Referral Responses		2019/003059
	A3 ⇩	Hill PDA Review of Economic Assessment		2019/062477
	A4 ⇨	Planning Proposal	Excluded	2019/063563
	A5 ⇨	Attachment 1: Survey Plan prepared by SurDevel	Excluded	2019/077189
	A6 ⇨	Attachment 2: Supplementary Planning Statement	Excluded	2019/063819
	A7 ⇨	Attachment 3: Pre Planning Proposal Meeting Report prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council	Excluded	2019/063817
	A8 ⇨	Attachment 4: Architectural Plans prepared by Tandem Design Studio	Excluded	2019/077203
	A9 ⇨	Attachment 5: Urban Design Statement prepared by Oculus	Excluded	2019/063815
	A10 ⇨	Attachment 6: Traffic Report prepared by Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes	Excluded	2019/063813
	A11 ⇨	Attachment 7: Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Deep End	Excluded	2019/063811
	A12 ⇨	Attachment 8: Arboricultural Impact Statement prepared by Tree IQ	Excluded	2019/063808
	A13 ⇨	Attachment 9: Landscape Report prepared by Oculus	Excluded	2019/077216
	A14 ⇨	Attachment 10: Ecological Report prepared by GIS Environmental Consultants	Excluded	2019/063804
	A15 ⇨	Attachment 11: Combined Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Compaction & Soil Testing Services	Excluded	2019/077259
	A16 ⇨	Attachment 12: Engagement (Community) Report prepared by Straight Talk	Excluded	2019/077263

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.8 / 162

Item GB.8	S07252/10

175 Rosedale Road St Ives - Funding for repairs and maintenance to Old Headmasters Cottage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To brief Council on the present position regarding the Old Headmasters Cottage, 175 Rosedale Road, St Ives and to seek funding for necessary repairs including structural works in order that the premises are made suitable for future use under a commercial lease to be tendered.

background:	The Old Headmasters Cottage has operated as a cafe/restaurant and gallery under a series of commercial retail leases since 1995. The last lease was terminated on 30 June 2018 following a number of defaults by the lessee. At the time of termination, the premises were in need of substantial repairs including structural works which are Council’s responsibility as a Lessor in accordance with the Retail Leases Act 1994.

comments:	The former St Ives Public School and associated buildings including the Old Headmaster’s Cottage are of local heritage significance to the Ku-ring-gai area. The former school precinct is on community classified land and listed as a Heritage Item within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012. The carrying out of the repairs will not only serve to conserve and protect the premises but enable Council staff to conduct a tender process to locate a suitable tenant and achieve a market rental return.

recommendation:	That Council approves of funding being provided to repair the Old Headmasters Cottage as set out in this report and for a tender process to be conducted to ascertain the extent of commercial interest in a new lease over the building.

Purpose of Report

Background

The former St Ives Public School site, comprising Lot 1 DP 816806, is bounded by Mona Vale Road, Rosedale Road and Porters Lane (refer to site plan - Attachment A1). The precinct represents tangible evidence of the early development of the St Ives suburb and community and the evolution of land use from predominantly rural uses comprising orchards and market gardens to smaller, residential allotments with associated community infrastructure. The Old Headmasters Cottage, designed by architect William Kemp and completed in 1889, is one of the former St Ives School surviving buildings that has notable historic and aesthetic significance. The interior layout of the cottage is essentially intact containing original fabric and detailing inclusive of the original hallway and the four main rooms. The former St Ives Public School and associated buildings are of local heritage significance to the Ku-ring-gai area and the entire site is listed as a Heritage Item within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

Council purchased the former school site in 1990 after the school was formally closed by the NSW Education Department in 1989. The land was re-zoned from Special Uses 5(a) (School) to Special Uses 5(a) (Municipal Purposes) and subsequent approvals were also granted for portions of the precinct to be used for various uses consistent with the then plan of management. On 1 July 1994, the land was automatically classified as community land under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

Following the acquisition of the land by Council, the adaptive reuse of these buildings have allowed for them to remain as assets available to the community for their use and enjoyment. In respect of the Old Headmasters Cottage, the building has been operated since 1995 primarily as a restaurant and gallery under a series of commercial retail leases.

In particular, historic premises such as the Old Headmasters Cottage require ongoing maintenance and investment to ensure their long term conservation. In recent times, Council staff had noted that the building was in need of substantial maintenance including structural works which are Council responsibilities as a Lessor under the Retail Leases Act 1994. As the lease was to expire on 30 November 2017, consideration of the options and manner for the carrying out of the proposed works was held in abeyance as the lessee expressed a desire to continue occupancy for a short period after expiry pursuant to the monthly hold-over tenancy provisions in the lease. Council staff formally notified the lessee that the lease would not be renewed and that any future lease would be put to a public process. Council also foreshadowed that monthly tenancy arrangements would be for a maximum term of 6 to 9 months although either party could terminate earlier with a month’s written notice.

On 30 June 2018, the lease of Old Headmasters Cottage was terminated following a series of defaults by the then lessee. Securing vacant possession also provided Council staff with the opportunity to undertake an assessment of the repairs and maintenance that would be necessary to enable a commercially viable proposal to be put to a tender process.

The current Ku-ring-gai Community Groups Centre and Car Park, St Ives Plan of Management (plan of management) provides for and authorises the following permitted uses within the former school precinct:-

· Car parking (paid and unpaid)

· Commercial activities (e.g. restaurants and gallery)

· Recreation, health and leisure activities (e.g. community groups centre and YMCA)

· Landscaping

· Special Events (including markets)

Council staff consider the most appropriate use for the Old Headmasters Cottage would be a restaurant/cafe and gallery or professional rooms/office. However, the tender process proposed will canvas all commercial uses which are in keeping with the plan of management and community expectations in terms of achieving a market return, the provision of a community amenity and the ongoing maintenance of the premises.

It is also critical that future works to these buildings are done in a sensitive manner using expert advice to ensure that the original design integrity and original fabric is retained and enhanced.

Comments

The present condition of the premises is such that it is considered necessary that essential repairs be carried out before tenders can be called to select a future lessee and secure a market rent.

It is proposed that the repairs and refurbishment be addressed in 2 stages:

Stage 1: Repairs and maintenance of an urgent/essential nature.

Stage 2: Site-specific improvements and works of a specific nature, required by a lessee to facilitate the running of the proposed business operation on the premises. Given the Old Headmasters Cottage is heritage-listed any modifications or alterations would only be entertained after prior consultation and approval by Council’s internal heritage specialists.

It is proposed that the costs of Stage 2 would be borne by the lessee.

In order to determine the extent and cost of the repairs and maintenance, Council engaged the Caldis Cook Group (CCG) to undertake a detailed building condition report to assess the structural and remedial works that are required to enable the premises to be used for commercial use and, in turn, generate a market rent for Council. An extract from the CCG report detailing capital expenditure required for repairs and maintenance is enclosed (Attachment A2). Due to the voluminous nature of the CCG report, the full version has not been included with this report; however, a copy is available for review in Chambers should Councillors wish to sight it.

CCG has advised the estimated cost of repairs, refurbishing and maintenance is in excess of $200,000. Some of the internal works and ongoing maintenance could be expected to be carried out by a future lessee depending on the nature and proposed use of the premises. This report confines itself to urgent structural and maintenance works that ought to be funded by Council (highlighted in yellow colour) which are costed at approximately $173,000. With management costs and contingencies the costs are more likely to be in the vicinity of $200,000. A reduction in the order of $35,000, reflecting the cost of replacing the outdoor deck area, could be achieved if the premises are leased for a compatible purpose other than as a cafe/restaurant. In terms of future preventative maintenance (highlighted in blue) this could reasonably be expected to be funded by the lessee as a condition of the lease or, if to be carried out by Council, recovered from the lessee as part of the outgoings.

Since the Old Headmasters Cottage was vacated, there have been a number of unsolicited approaches expressing an interest in leasing the premises particularly as a cafe/restaurant. Interested parties have been advised by Council staff that any future lease would be the subject of a public process once a determination was made on funding options to carry out repairs and maintenance. During the last year of the lease, the rent was $68,580 (exclusive of GST).

With the repairs and works required to bring Old Headmasters Cottage back to commercial use costed at $200,000 inclusive of contingencies, it would be expected that Council would be able to recoup its capital outlay in less than 3 years. At the same time, this heritage asset would be conserved and thereafter generate ongoing revenue for Council and provide an amenity for the community.

In determining this matter, there are a number of options that Council might consider both in terms of the repairs and maintenance works required and the subsequent tenancy of the premises.

Options to undertake Repairs and Maintenance Works to the Old Headmasters Cottage

In relation to the required repairs and maintenance works, these works could be undertaken by Council or by a lessee through an expression of interest/selective tender process. The following options are considered to be the most feasible in the circumstances.

1. That Council funds the essential repairs, maintenance and refurbishing at a cost of $200,000 and the lessee completes the remaining work according to proposed use that he/she intends for the premises.

Advantages

· The works will be done in close consultation with Council’s Heritage Advisor to ensure that all works are done in a sensitive manner that has regard to the original design integrity and fabric so these aspects are retained and enhanced and the historic integrity of the building is preserved.

· Market rent could be applied immediately with minor concessions for the start-up period, if required and justified commercially.

· Council’s funding of the works will fast-track bringing the operation into commercial use and securing a market return.

· Ongoing preventative maintenance is carried out by the lessee in accordance with a detailed maintenance schedule in the lease or, alternatively Council carries out the maintenance and recovers the costs from the lessee as an outgoing. Regular scheduled maintenance will serve to conserve the asset and reduce Council’s ongoing financial commitment to maintaining the premises.

Disadvantages

· The cost of capital outlay to Council.

2. That Council leases the premises in its present condition and enters into a lease/contractual obligation whereby the lessee undertakes the essential maintenance, repairs and refurbishment.

Advantages

· Council avoids capital outlay.

Disadvantages

• Monitoring that any works done are performed to a standard satisfactory to Council and to avoid unsatisfactory work inconsistent and unsympathetic with the fabric of the building.

· Finding a lessee agreeable to undertake extensive repairs, maintenance and refurbishment in accordance with the heritage constraints pertaining to the building.

· Council would need to provide to the lessee a rent free incentive and/or a long lease term. Under the Retail Leases Act, 1994 a Lessor is prohibited from requiring a lessee to undertake structural works for retail lease premises unless the lease term exceeds 25 years. The level of capital outlay required in respect of Old Headmasters Cottage does not warrant a lease term of this duration.

· Council’s opportunity to secure a market based rent is unnecessarily delayed contrary to Council’s best commercial interests.

On balance, it is considered that option 1 offers the best solution for Council and the community both in the short and long term.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme – Leadership and Governance L2 - Financial capacity and sustainability

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise service delivery

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Ensure the commercial property portfolio provides market returns

Governance Matters

The Old School Building is situated on community classified land and the proposed leasing of the premises is expressly authorised in the plan of management. Testing the market publicly to ascertain the extent of commercial interest in the premises satisfies the statutory provisions of section 47 of the Local Government Act, 1993 and addresses all probity and transparency considerations consistent with Council’s adopted Commercial Leasing Policy.

At the conclusion of the tender exercise, Council staff will report to Council on the outcome of the process and make appropriate recommendations for Council’s consideration in relation to the granting of a lease.

Risk Management

Council’s Building Services staff will oversee the carrying out of repairs and works in conjunction with Council’s heritage experts.

In terms of the tender, strict criteria will apply to the assessment and selection of proposals submitted by proponents including financial capacity, demonstrated experience, management skills, sympathy and compatibility of the proposal given heritage constraints, financial offer and scope of works proposed along with other relevant selection criteria.

In accordance with Council internal processes and protocols, a Tender Evaluation Committee will be formed to assess tenders and to report back to Council on the proposal.

Financial Considerations

Despite its poor condition, Council was achieving a rent of $68,580 (exclusive of GST) from the premises at the time the lease was terminated. Leaving the premises vacant will result in Council forfeiting significant ongoing rental income as well as incurring additional expenses associated with security, vandalism and maintenance of the property and curtilage.

As the proposal will facilitate a revenue generating asset, it is proposed that the budget for the renewal works on Old Headmasters Cottage costed at $200,000 will be transferred from the Building Services Capital Program which is funded from the Infrastructure & Facilities reserve. Based on the likely market rent the premises will achieve after repairs and improvements are carried out, it is reasonable to expect Council’s capital outlay would be recouped in a period of 3 years or less.

The lease will also impose obligations on the lessees to maintain the premises or, alternatively, reimburse Council for scheduled maintenance costs through the payment of outgoings. This will help to reduce Council’s recurrent works budget and enable diversion of such funds to other Council projects.

Social Considerations

Theme 5 of the Community Strategic Plan 2038 provides for the creation of economic employment opportunities through vital, attractive centres, business innovation and technology.

The continuing occupancy of the premises contributes towards this community theme.

Environmental Considerations

The lease and DA consent conditions will place stringent conditions on the operations of the premises including the permitted use, trading hours and noise mitigation measures to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

Community Consultation

The Old Headmasters Cottage is situated on community classified land. The plan of management, which was the subject of public exhibition and consultation, expressly authorises the leasing of the premises for the purposes set out in the plan.

Any lease to be granted for a term in excess of 5 years must be publicly advertised in accordance with section 47 of the Local Government Act, 1993. Ultimately, should Council decide to grant a lease following the tender process, Council’s intention to do so must also be notified publicly pursuant to section 47 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

Internal Consultation

There have been internal discussions between Council’s Strategy and Environment, Operations and Corporate Departments and expert heritage staff.

Summary

The Old Headmasters Cottage has operated as a cafe/restaurant and gallery under a series of commercial retail leases since 1995. The last lease was terminated on 30 June 2018 following a number of defaults by the lessee. At the time of termination, the premises were in need of substantial repairs including structural works which are Council’s responsibility as a Lessor in accordance with the Retail Leases Act 1994.

On securing vacant possession, Council engaged the Caldis Cook Group (CCG) to undertake a detailed building condition report to assess the structural and remedial works that would be required to enable the premises to be used for commercial use and, in turn, generate a market rent for Council. With management costs and contingencies a budget of $200,000 is proposed to carry out the works identified by CCG. Some of the remaining works could reasonably be expected to be carried out by a future lessee depending on the nature and proposed use of the premises. A decision on whether Council will be required to fund the replacement of the outdoor deck area (costed at $35,000) can be made once it is determined if the premises will continue to be operated as a cafe/restaurant.

As the proposal will facilitate a revenue generating asset, the budget for the renewal works on the Old Headmasters Cottage will be transferred from the Building Services Capital Program which is funded from the Infrastructure & Facilities reserve. Based on the likely market rent the premises will achieve after repairs and improvements are carried out, it is reasonable to expect Council’s capital outlay would be recouped in a period of 3 years or less.

Since the Old Headmasters Cottage has been vacated, there have been a number of unsolicited approaches expressing an interest in leasing the premises particularly as a cafe/restaurant. Interested parties have been advised by Council staff that any future lease would be the subject of a public process once a determination was made on funding options to carry out repairs and maintenance. The implementation of this business initiative will not only serve to conserve this important heritage asset but thereafter will generate ongoing revenue for Council and provide an amenity for the community and visitors to St Ives.

It is recommended that Council endorses the funding of the Old Headmasters Cottage as set out in this report and approves of a tender process being conducted to gauge the level of commercial interest in the operation of the premises under a lease for a purpose that is consistent with the plan of management. At the close of tenders, Council staff will report to Council on the outcome of the tender process and make an appropriate recommendation for Council’s consideration.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorses the funding of repairs and maintenance to Old Headmasters Cottage as set out in this report. The budget for the repairs will be from the Building Services Capital Program which is funded from the Infrastructure & Facilities reserve.

B. That Council approves of tenders being called for the future lease of the building once works commence. The tender documentation will confirm the scope of Council’s works and the requirements of proponents to complete the remaining works and fit-out.

C. That Council notes a further report will be prepared for Council’s consideration on the outcome of the tender process and the selection of a preferred proponent.

Vince Rago

Property Program Co-ordinator

Deborah Silva

Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Plan of former St Ives School Site		2019/042950
	A2⇩	Caldis Cook Group Schedule of Works		2019/066532

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.9 / 174

Item GB.9	S12037

Implementing The North District Plan -
Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the implementation of the North District Plan.

background:	Under the Greater Sydney Region Plan, the North District Plan (March 2018) is a 20 year plan to manage growth in our region.

comments:	A Local Strategic Planning Statement is now being prepared as a core strategic planning document to set out the 20-year vision for land-use in Ku-ring-gai, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

recommendation:	That Council receives and notes this report and allocates funds towards the preparation of the Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the implementation of the North District Plan.

Background

The North District Plan provides a 20-year plan to manage growth and achieve the 40-year vision, while enhancing Greater Sydney’s liveability, productivity and sustainability into the future. It is a guide for implementing A Metropolis of Three Cities - the Greater Sydney Region Plan at a District level and is a bridge between regional and local planning.

The Greater Sydney Commission has provided advice to Council regarding the next stages of the program, namely the preparation of a vision for Ku-ring-gai – referred to as a draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and subsequent LEP update.

Comments

The LSPS will be a core strategic planning document for Ku-ring-gai and will set out the 20-year vision for land-use in Ku-ring-gai, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

The LSPS will include:

· a vision in the context of the North District, which addresses the vision for a metropolis of three cities and each of the 10 Directions of the Region and District Plan including the key priorities for Council; and

· a structure plan or plans showing key productivity, liveability and sustainability features that provides greater detail on the Structure Plan on page 7 of the North.

The statement will implement actions in the regional and district plan, and the council’s own priorities in the Community Strategic Plan it prepares under local government legislation.

The statement will shape how the development controls in the local environmental plan (LEP) evolve over time to meet the community's needs, with the LEP the main tool to deliver the council and community’s plan.

Commencement

Greater Sydney Councils are required to exhibit their draft local strategic planning statement by 1 July 2019 with the final version in place by 1 December 2019.

Information was provided at the Councillors’ workshop in February 2019 on the overall program. A copy of the overall program is provided at Attachment A2.

The next key step for Council is the preparation of a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) to help guide the update of Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The LSPS will develop a vision for the next 20 years and determine how we manage our land. The draft LSPS will be prepared by 1 July 2019.

At different stages in the preparation of the LSPS and associated plans, Council will be consulting the community and other stakeholders.

Studies as Part of the Program

On 30 April 2018 Council received an offer to apply for funding to review and update our Local Environmental Plan

On 12 June 2018 Council considered funding for the implementation of the North District Plan the matter and resolved:

That Council applies for funding from the Department of Planning and Environment to accelerate the development of its housing strategy and review of the local environment plans to give effect to the North District Plan.

On 25 June 2018 Council lodged a formal application seeking funding of $2.5m from the Department of Planning & Environment to accelerate the development of its housing strategy and a review of the Ku-ring-gai LEP to give effect to the North District Plan. Council staff were advised verbally by the Department in late October 2018 that it was not successful in our claim for the LEP funding.

On 30 October, 2018 Council submitted its LEP Review which identfied how Council will give affect to the North District Plan. On 21 December 2018 Council was advised that we have complied with the requirements of Action 83 of the North District Plan and was congratulated by the GSC on an excellent submission.

On 21 December 2018 and 6 February 2019 the Mayor wrote to the Minister for Planning seeking funding of $450,000 to assist Council in preparing key studies associated with the delivery of the North District Plan but we were unsuccessful in gaining any State funding.

The following request for funds were considered at Council’s December Quarter Budget review:

· Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy- staged funding allocated;

· Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy- funding allocated; and

· Employment Lands Study- staged funding allocated

Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy

The development of an LGA-wide Housing Strategy would provide a long term strategy for the delivery of housing to meet the needs of the growing and changing population to meet the requirements for implementing the North District Plan (2018). The strategy would investigate such matters as demographic projections, type and location of future housing and housing affordability.

The project will be prepared in-house and where relevant seek specialist demographic and research analysis and survey work (housing needs analysis) from external consultants.

Retail Commercial Centres Strategy

Integral to the development of an evidence base to inform the Local Strategic Planning Statement and future amendments to the LEP in order to give effect to the North District Plan, is the preparation of a Retail / Commercial Centres Strategy for the Ku-ring-gai local government area.

The Retail Centres / Commercial Study would include analysis of the existing centres hierarchy, quantum/location of floorspace, vacancy rates, changes in retail and business and employment types and population growth. This will assist Council in implementing the Greater Sydney Commission/ Department of Planning & Environment - North District Plan 2018.

Employment Lands Study

Employment Lands Study – including analysis of current floorspace, jobs and contribution of local economy, loss of commercial floorspace for residential take-up, requirements for future floorspace based on population growth and changing technology and work trends. The study will include a specific consideration of the future of Pymble Business Park.

This study will form part the key evidence base, and will underpin the additional strategies and studies required to deliver longer term priorities.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

Council is required prepare a local strategic planning statement (LSPS) which will set out the 20-year vision for land-use for Ku-ring-gai , the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

The statement will implement actions in the regional and district plans, and the council’s own priorities in the community strategic plan it prepares under local government legislation.

The LSPS will include:

· A vision in the context of the North District, that addresses the vision for a metropolis of three cities and each of the 10 Directions of the Region and District Plan including the three to five key priorities for Council; and

· a structure plan or plans showing key productivity, liveability and sustainability features that provides greater detail on the Structure Plan on page 7 of the North District Plan.

The LSPS will implement actions in the regional and district plan, and Council’s own priorities in the community strategic plan it prepares under local government legislation. The LSPS will also shape how the development controls in the local environmental plan (LEP) evolve over time to meet the community's needs.

The draft LSPS will initially be based around key existing land use planning policies of Council and Council’s Community Strategic Plan (adopted June 2018), as this is the long term strategic plan for the future of Ku-ring-gai to 2038. It reflects the aspirations, vision and long term objectives of the Ku-ring-gai community. It is informed by key local plans and policies as well as government policy. It also identifies who will have a role to play in delivering the plan.

The cost for the preparation Draft LSPS is estimated to be $90,000. This would cover specialist consultant advice, community engagement and desktop publishing.

Progress and feedback from Greater Sydney Commission & Department of Planning & Environment.

Assurance Phase 1

On 21 December 2018 Council received a reply from the Greater Sydney Commission on the review of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The LEP Review provides an important foundation for the next phase of Council’s program to give effect to the North District Plan and the Greater Sydney Region Plan (GSRP). The Greater Sydney Commission has considered our LEP Review as part of the Phase 1 Assurance and has confirmed that Ku-ring-gai Council has complied with the requirements as set out in Action 83 of the North District Plan. The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) has congratulated Ku-ring-gai Council on an excellent submission. (See Attachment A1)

The GSC has also provided advice regarding the next stages of the program, namely the preparation of a vision for Ku-ring-gai in the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and subsequent LEP update.

Assurance Phase 2

To assist Council to prepare its LSP with the legislated time frames, the GSC has provided an opportunity for Council to obtain feedback on the Draft LSPS whilst it is a working document. As part of this process Council will provide an outline of the Draft LSPS, the Draft Self-assessment and any supporting documentation. At the time of writing this report the Draft LSPS technical heath check workshop for Ku-ring-gai Council staff with the GSC was set for 25 March 2019, further updates will be provided to Council where possible prior to this matter going before Council.

Key Dates for the Draft LSPS:

· 25 March – 12 April 2019: Draft LSPS Technical Health Checks with GSC/DPE

· June 2019: Draft LSPS to be considered by Council on 11 June 2019 for public exhibition

· June2019 – July 2019: Public exhibition of Draft LSPS

· August 2019: Post submission draft LSPS check-in (optional)

· October 2019: Phase 3 LSPS Assurance Panels

· 1 December 2019 Final LSPS Made

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact new development.

Respond to State Government Planning initiatives and reforms- including the new planning legislation.

Governance Matters

The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act recognizes the critical role of Council in strategic planning for our LGA. Council is required to prepare a local strategic planning statement (LSPS) which will set out the 20-year vision for land-use the LGA, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

The statement will implement actions in the regional and district plans, and the council’s own priorities in the community strategic plan it prepares under local government legislation.

Under Section 3.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203, the Greater Sydney Commission (the Commission) is required to support a LSPS before it can be made. To provide the councils with feedback on progress of the draft LSPS and its alignment with the priorities and actions of the District Plan, Technical Health Checks will assist council prior to public exhibition.

Risk Management

The funds and staff resources are required for a series of key baseline studies to support a sound evidence planning response to the Community and Government on the future urban planning for Ku-ring-gai.

State Government intervention in local planning is a potential risk of a local authority not meeting the mandated timeframes for LEP review.

Financial Considerations

The costs of the broader key studies to underpin the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement are covered by the Urban Planning and Heritage Budget.

An additional sum of $90,000 is required for the preparation of the Draft LSPS document and the funding would cover specialised research, engagement/consultation and preparation of final documentation.

This request was considered by Council’s GMD group on 8 February 2019 and approved.

A key input to the LSPS which is as yet unfunded and which is yet to be fully scoped or costed is a built form study/structure plan for Gordon. This will be the subject of separate reports to GMD and Council.

Social Considerations

The North District Plan sets out a range of liveability priorities and actions to cater for the demographic changes facing the North District including housing, employment and social infrastructure, Council’s plans to address these considerations will be provided in the Draft LSPS.

Environmental Considerations

The North District Plan sets out a range of sustainability priorities and actions that acknowledge the natural attributes of the North District - Council’s plans to address these considerations will be provided in the Draft LSPS.

Community Consultation

The Draft LSPS will initially be based around existing key land use planning policies of Council and Council’s Community Strategic Plan (Adopted June 2018), as this is the long term strategic plan for the future of Ku-ring-gai to 2038 .

The EP&A regulation requires that the draft LSPS and supporting material is to be placed on public exhibition by 1 July 2019 for a minimum of 28 days

A draft LSPS will be reported to Council in June 2019 including an outline of proposed Community Consultation.

Internal Consultation

On 26 September, 2018 Councillors were provided a briefing by the Greater Sydney Commission and the Department of Planning on the North District Plan. Further information was provided at the Councillors workshop in February 2019 and Councillors have been provided with updates on the LEP Health Check and the GSC assurance review Phase 1. In late 2018 the Greater Sydney Commission in association with the University of Technology Sydney held short courses on LSPSs with a Council staff education program and a session for Councillors.

Council staff will also hold series of further Councillor Briefings throughout the preparation of the draft LSPS.

Where relevant, other sections of Council have been engaged in the preparation of this report including Strategy & Environment and Community Department.

Summary

A series of key baseline studies are being prepared to support a sound evidence planning response to the Community and Government on the future urban planning for Ku-ring-gai.

A Local Strategic Planning Statement is now being prepared, as a core strategic planning document to set out the 20-year vision for land-use in Ku-ring-gai, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

The Greater Sydney Commission, Department of Planning and Environment and Council have had two assurance processes to date.

Greater Sydney Councils are required to exhibit their draft local strategic planning statements by 1 July 2019 with the final version in place by 1 December 2019.

A draft LSPS is now being prepared for Council’s consideration in June 2019.

Recommendation:

A. That Council receives and notes this report.

B. That allocates $90,000 towards the preparation of the Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement, from sources to be identified in the March Quarterly Budget Review.

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Phase 1 Ku-ring-gai LEP Review Assurance Letter and Attachments		2019/034671
	A2⇩	LEP Review Timeline		2019/074763

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	MM.1 / 13

Item MM.1	CY00455/7

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.1 / 24

Item GB.1	FY00623
	14 March 2019

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.2 / 33

Item GB.2	RFT31-2018/R

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.4 / 51

Item GB.4	S04840

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.6 / 74

Item GB.6	RFT1-2019

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward) Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward) Councillors S Ngai (Roseville Ward) Councillors C Kay & 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) Director Operations (George Bounassif) Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson) Acting Director Community (Virginia Leafe) Manager Records and Governance (Amber Moloney) Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer) Senior Governance Officer (Stephen Kwok)

Attachments:	A1	RFT1-2019 SISG Regional Playground - List of Tenderers received	Confidential
	A2	GO GARDENING PTY LTD Standard Financial Assessment (Procurement)	Confidential
	A3	Tender and EOI - Weighted Evaluation - RFT1-2019 SISG Regional Playground - Signed	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 March 2019	GB.10 / 208

Item GB.10	S09972