Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 15 June 2021 AT 7:00pm

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

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

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers

The Livestream can be viewed here:

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-meeting-live-stream

Disclaimer: All Ku-ring-gai Council Ordinary Meetings of Council are livestreamed for on-demand viewing on the KMC website. Although Council will do its best to ensure the public is excluded from the livestream, Council cannot guarantee a person’s image and/or voice won’t be broadcast. Accordingly, attendance at Council meetings is considered consent by a person for their image and/or voice to be webcast. Council accepts no liability for any damage that may result from defamatory comments made by persons attending meetings. As per clause 15.21 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, a person must not live stream or use an audio recorder, video camera, mobile phone or any other device to make a recording or photograph of the proceedings of a meeting of the council or a committee of the council without the prior authorisation of the council.

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Documents Circulated to Councillors

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 following confidential report and attachments:

C.1 Lindifeld Village Hub TFNSW Commuter Car Park Funding Deed

In accordance with 10A(2)(a) & 10A(2)(d)(ii):

Attachment 1: LVH – Letter – TfNSW to KRG – Ku-ring-gai Council letter re commuter car
parking at Lindfiel Village Hub April 2021

C.2 Lindfield Village Green Parking Management

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i) & 10A(2)(d)(ii):

Attachment 1: Attachment – Lindfield Village Green – Update to Ku-ring-gai Paid Parking
Strategy – GTA Consultants – May 2021 – 2021/156648

Attachment 2: Wilson Parking – Car Park Management Proposal – LVG

In accordance with 10A(2)(C):

C.3 Land Acquisition for Open Space and Public Roads and Divestment of Surplus Council Land

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.8 Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel – Community Member Recruitment

In accordance with 10A(2)(A):

Attachment 2: Selection Panel Review

Attachment 3: Applicant 1 – Nomination Form and Application

Attachment 4: Applicant 2 – Nomination Form and Application

Attachment 5: Applicant 3 – Nomination Form and Application

Attachment 6: Applicant 4 – Nomination Form and Application

GB.10 RFT6-2021 Design and Construct – Indoor Pool Refurbishment KFAC

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(iii):

Attachment 1: RFT6-2020 List of Submitters

Attachment 2: RFT6-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

GB.11 RFT9-2021 Design and Construct – Stormwater Mitigation and Synthetic Sports Field

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(iii):

Attachment 1: RFT9-2020 List of Submitters

Attachment 2: RFT9-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 13

File: S02131

Meeting held 18 May 2021

Minutes numbered 78 to 98

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

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 Community Engagement Policy 34

File: S02090

To seek endorsement from Council to publically exhibit the draft Community Engagement Policy.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council endorse the draft Community Engagement Policy be placed on public exhibition.

B. The outcome of this exhibition be reported back to Council.

GB.2 Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 - Post Exhibition 48

File: FY00382/13

For Council to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022.

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022 with minor amendments.

GB.3 Post-Exhibition - Ethical Lobbying Policy 69

File: S13114

To consider the submissions received during the public exhibition period and adopt an Ethical Lobbying Policy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Ethical Lobbying Policy as attached to this report with two changes:

(a) The definition of Lobbyist modified as follows:

This definition does not include the following: …

(b) community groups/organisations or other groups of individuals making representations about Council affairs (including matters relating to their own interests including funding), community issues, or other matters of public interest.

(b) The duration after which entries are to be removed from the website be amended to 5 years after the last contact date:

An entry in the Lobbyist Register will be removed from the website 5 years after the last contact date.

GB.4 Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy 89

File: S11705

To present a draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy to take effect on the date Councillors are elected to office in September 2021.

Recommendation:

That the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and should any feedback be received, the matter be reported back to Council after the consultation period.

Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the Policy.

GB.5 Mayor and Councillor Fees - 2021/2022 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination 117

File: S11705

To determine the Mayor and Councillor fees for the 2021/22 financial year.

Recommendation:

That effective 1 July 2021:

A. The annual Councillor fee be set at $26,310; and

B. The annual Mayoral fee be set at $69,900, in addition to the Councillor fee.

GB.6 Enterprise Risk Management Policy 139

File: S08410-2

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the Enterprise Risk Management Policy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Enterprise Risk Management Policy.

GB.7 Investment Report as at 31 May 2021 151

File: FY00623/3

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for May 2021.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for May 2021 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.8 Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Community Member recruitment 158

File: S11736-3

To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Council affirms the recommendations of the General Manager’s Selection Panel and appoints community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 July 2021.

B. Council notifies the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment and all the candidates of its decision.

C. Council authorises the General Manager to review and appoint expert members to the KLPP once the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment.

D. The General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment of his decision regarding the selection of expert members.

GB.9 Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 - Post Exhibition Report 168

File: CY00008/13

To present to Council the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025.

Recommendation:

That the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 be adopted.

GB.10 RFT6-2021 Design and Construct - Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC 173

File: RFT6-2021/R

To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2021 Design and Construct Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

Based on the assessment undertaken, the TEC recommends the following:

RFT6-2021 Design and Construct – Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC - Tender Evaluation Committees recommendation to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

GB.11 RFT9-2021 Design and Construct - Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field 178

File: RFT9-2021/R

To consider the tenders received for RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

Based on the assessment undertaken, the TEC recommends all tenders for RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and a synthetic sports field are rejected as per Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

GB.12 Heritage Reference Committee Meeting Minutes February and April 2021 183

File: CY00413/9

To have Council consider the minutes from previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meetings held on 18 February and 15 April 2021.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the HRC minutes from 18 February and 15 April 2021.

GB.13 Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club - Preliminary Heritage Assessment 193

File: CY00413/9

To have Council consider a preliminary heritage assessment for Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites, Killara.

Recommendation:

A Planning Proposal is prepared for the heritage listing of the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites (Lot 3 DP 817195 and Lot 2 DP 817195 and Lot 11 DP 1083606 and Lot B DP 380305 and Lot 11 DP 1083606) on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015. If in the meantime, there is any threat of imminent harm to either of the sites, it is recommended that Council request that NSW Heritage make an IHO on both properties to enable them to have protection from that harm until a Planning Proposal can be progressed to Gateway Determination.

GB.14 Post exhibition consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal to heritage list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga 229

File: S13065

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item.

Recommendation:

That Council proceed with the Planning Proposal to heritage list the property known as ‘Laverty House’ at 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga with minor changes to the ‘Recommendations’ as set out on the State Heritage Inventory (‘SHI’) form, and resolve to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

GB.15 Planning Proposal for 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield - Removal of Heritage Listing 262

File: S13021

For Council to consider the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

Recommendation:

That Council does not support the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing on 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

GB.16 Consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal and Draft Site Specific DCP - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville 306

File: S12030

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville (Roseville Memorial Club site).

For Council to determine whether to adopt the planning proposal and to determine whether to adopt the draft site specific DCP.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

GB.17 Generic Plans of Management - project update 331

File: S06604/2

To update Council on the preparation of updated Plans of Management (PoMs) for Crown land managed by Council and Council owned land classified as community.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note this report and that Council write to The Department of Industry advising them of a timeframe for completion of the remaining Crown Lands PoMs.

GB.18 Hassall Park Draft Landscape Master Plan - for Exhibition 340

File: S13102

To seek Council’s endorsement to place on exhibition a draft Landscape Masterplan for Hassall Park, St Ives.

Recommendation:

That Council places the Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan on public exhibition for a minimum of 4 weeks and that the amended plan incorporating community comment be reported back to Council for consideration and adoption.

GB.19 Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study - Post Exhibition 353

File: S12657

To report to Council the results of the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study.

Recommendation:

That Council allow staff to make amendments to the draft Broad Character Area statements as recommended in this report and that Council adopt the amended Study as a background document to guide similar and aligned studies in the future.

GB.20 Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 382

File: S12249

To seek Council’s endorsement of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan with the amendments as outlined in this report.

GB.21 St Ives Cultural & Environmental Education Centre 438

File: S10531-3

To update Council on the St Ives Cultural and Environmental Education Centre (CEEC) project.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note updates contained within this report and that Council resolves to progress the project toward Tender Documentation for construction.

GB.22 St Ives Indoor Sports Centre 484

File: S12712-3

To update Council on the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre project.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note updates contained within this report.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Mona Vale Road - cyclist safety 490

File: TM3/13

Notice of Motion from Councillor Greenfield dated 25 May 2021

Recommendation:

The recent cyclist accident on Mona Vale Road causing the rider serious head, neck and facial injury has led to concerns regarding cyclist safety along the stretch of Mona Vale Road from the Pacific Highway to Council’s LGA boundary.

In the last 5 available years of crash history (Oct 2015 – Sep 2020 inclusive), there have been 12 crashes involving cyclists on Mona Vale Road (between Pacific Highway and LGA boundary with Northern Beaches Council). Of these 12 crashes, 2 were fatalities, and the remaining 10 all resulted in injury.

There was a concentration of crashes (4) during 2015-2017 around Douglas Street involving vehicles turning right from Mona Vale Road into Douglas Street, although since early/mid-2020, the median at Douglas Street was closed by TfNSW, so right turns from Mona Vale Rd are no longer permitted. There was also a concentration of crashes (3) around Richmond Avenue, from a mix-of crash types, and between Church St and Highlands Ave (also 3 crashes). The 2 fatalities occurred in this section.

This crash data was compared to crash data for Mona Vale Rd between the LGA boundary and McCarrs Creek Road on the Northern Beaches. During the last 5 available years of crash history (Oct 2015 – Sep 2020 inclusive), there have been only 2 cyclist-related crashes in this section and thankfully no fatalities recorded.

It is, therefore, evident that the 6km stretch of Mona Vale Rd between the Pacific Highway and the Ku-ring-gai Council boundary poses a greater risk to cyclists in comparison to other sections of Mona Vale Road. This sentiment was also shared by Bike North, a non-profit community based Bicycle User Group or BUG, affiliated with Bicycle NSW and Cycling NSW and covering Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Ku-ring-gai, Willoughby, Lane Cove, North Sydney, The Hills, Ryde and parts of Parramatta council areas. I believe a detailed safety study is required along this stretch of road with a view to identify safety issues and the development of a program to improve conditions for cyclists.

I therefore move that:

Council Officers write to Transport for NSW requesting a detailed safety study for cyclists be undertaken for Mona Vale Road between the Pacific Highway and Council’s border with the Northern Beaches Council, consultation be undertaken with Bike North and pending the result of the study, a program be developed to improve safety for cyclist along this section of Mona Vale Road.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

NM.2 Traffic Lights on Mona Vale Road at St Ives Showground Main Entry 492

File: S12710

Notice of Motion from Councillor Smith dated 27 May 2021

Recommendation:

The Mona Vale Road Corridor is an arterial road that functions as a key east-west connection between the strategic centre of Mona Vale and the local centre of Gordon. It also serves as a key corridor to Macquarie Park and Frenchs Forest metropolitan centres. The road supports a variety of lane configurations throughout with speed limits varying between 60 and 90 km/h.

In recent studies undertaken for the Mona Vale road corridor by Transport for NSW (TfNSW), they acknowledge the need for such things as:

· a safe road system for everyone;

· a road corridor can accommodate changes in movement demand, mode share and provides access and connectivity; and

· local centres along the corridor that are highly accessible centres which are walkable, bicycle-friendly and offer public transport interchanges. They play a key role in connecting communities to work, leisure, health and education.

These studies also recognise that upgrades to the St Ives Showground will increase the traffic demand for the St Ives Showground outside of large events.

Many upgrades to the Showground were already in place at the time these studies were carried out, and with the generous assistance of State Government funding to stimulate building and construction during the pandemic, many more initiatives have been completed in the last 12 months.

While many of the elements of TfNSW’s work on the Mona Vale Road corridor are laudable, very little is understood to be proposed for the segment of Mona Vale Road within which the St Ives Showground is located. Coincidently, this is the segment of the road with the highest speed zone being 90 km/h.

When Council adopted the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management recently, that plan included the following high priority action:

Request Transport for NSW to re-consider providing installation of signalised traffic lights for pedestrian and vehicle crossing at St Ives Showground's entrance.

I don’t think this action can wait until the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management is finalised.

Having recently attended the Northern Suburbs Agricultural & Horticultural Society 2021 agricultural show, I was most concerned to watch both pedestrian movements across Mona Vale Road and vehicle movements entering and leaving the site. This location is no longer appropriate for vehicles travelling at 90 km/h and the need for traffic lights is long overdue.

The St Ives Showground is an increasingly activated site, much loved by the communities of both Ku-ring-gai and the Northern Beaches, being “regional” in nature. I believe now is the time to lobby for the safety for our local communities and have Transport for NSW consider reducing the speed limit on Mona Vale Road adjacent the Showground and Wildflower Garden to 70 km/h and to re-consider providing installation of signalised traffic lights for pedestrian and vehicle crossing at St Ives Showground's entrance.

I therefore move that:

The Mayor write to the State Member for Davidson, Jonathan O’Dea MP and the Minister for Transport and Roads, The Hon Andrew Constance MP to have Transport for NSW investigate reducing the speed limit on Mona Vale Road adjacent the Showground and Wildflower Garden to 70 km/h and to re-consider providing installation of signalised traffic lights for pedestrian and vehicle crossing at St Ives Showground's entrance.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 9.3 OF code of meeting practice

Questions With Notice

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 Lindfield Village Hub
TfNSW Commuter Car Park Funding Deed

File: S12165-3-12-3

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(d)(ii), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(ii) because it would confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

Report by Group Lead - Major Projects

C.2 Lindfield Village Green Parking Management

File: S12201

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in sections 10A(2)(d)(i) & 10A(2)(d)(ii), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(i) because it deals with tenders. Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process. Some information provided to Council by tenderers is provided on the basis that Council will treat it as commercial in confidence.

It is not in the public interest to reveal details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(iv) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(v) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(vi) reveal a trade secret.

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(ii) because it would confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

Report by Director Strategy & Environment

C.3 Land Acquisition for open space and public roads and Divestment of surplus Council land

File: S04601/13

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(c), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public in respect of information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

The matter is classified confidential because it deals with the proposed acquisition and/or disposal of property.

It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice Council’s ability to acquire and/or dispose of the property on appropriate terms and conditions.

Report by Director Strategy & Environment

John McKee

General Manager

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 18 May 2021

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward) Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward) Councillor 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) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Michael Wearne) Governance Support Officer/ Minutes Secretary (Rebecca Srbinovska) Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer)

The Meeting commenced at 7:02pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor Ngai declared a non-significant pecuniary interest for Item GB.10 – Request for General Manager Delegation – PEERS 3 Electricity Tender as he is an employee for a company that generates and sells electricity, and he will leave the chamber during consideration of the matter.

General Manager McKee and all Directors declared a conflict of interest for Item C.1 – Facilitation of the General Managers Performance Review. The General Manager, Directors and all other staff will leave the chamber during consideration of the matter.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Memorandums:

GB1 – Marian Street Theatre for Young People – Request for Funding

Memorandum from Director Community dated 6 May 2021.

GB10 – OMC 18 May 2021 – Request for General Manager Delegation – PEERS 3 Electricity Tender

Memorandum from Director Strategy and Environment dated 10 May 2021.

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

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:

C.1 Facilitation of the General Manager’s Performance Review

In accordance with 10A(2)(a) & 10A(2)(d)(i):

Attachment 1: Local Government Management Solutions – Proposal Letter

Attachment 2: Local Government Management Solutions – Response to
Criteria

Attachment 3: McArthur NSW – Proposal Letter

Attachment 4: McArthur NSW – Response to Criteria

Attachment 5: Pinnacle People Solutions – Response to Criteria

Attachment 6: Randstad – Proposal Letter

Attachment 7: Randstad – Response to Criteria

GB.9 RFT7-2021 Supply and Install Suburb and Village Signs

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(iii):

Attachment 1: RFT7-2020 List of Submitters

Attachment 2: RFT7-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

GB.10 Request for General Manager Delegation – PEERS 3 Electricity Tender

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(iii):

Attachment 1: PEERS 3 210330 Council MOU March 2021 FINAL

GB.13 Lindfield Village Living – Project Update

In accordance with 10A(2)(c):

Attachment 1: Valuation Report – Lindfield Village Living

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 27 April 2021

Minutes numbered 54 to 77

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Greenfield)

That Minutes numbered 54 to 77 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

minutes from the Mayor

Cec Morgan - retiring President of the 416 Group

File: CY00455/9

Vide: MM.1

This Mayoral Minute is in recognition of a longstanding community member Cec Morgan, on the occasion of his retirement as President of the 416 Group.

The 416 Group was initially set up over 20 years ago with the aim of protecting West Lindfield and West Killara against inappropriate development.

Since that time the group has widened its aims, becoming involved in a range of local issues such as setting up Community Fire Units which continue to this day. The 416 Group was also active in encouraging membership of local Neighbourhood Watch groups to assist the community in preventing crime.

The following testimonial was presented at the March 416 Group meeting:

Cec Morgan and wife Jenny have been Ku-ring-gai residents since the early 1960s, with the couple being some of the first residents of Albert Drive, Killara. The Morgan children attended the Beaumont Road primary school.

Cec had a successful career in aviation as an aeronautical engineer, but has always displayed a keen interest in the wellbeing of his local community.

For a number of years he was the Secretary of the West Lindfield/West Killara Progress Association, formed to help develop the community centre on the Moore Avenue shops and other facilities servicing the residents of Lindfield and Killara west of Lady Game Drive.

In the 1990s the conservation values of the Lane Cove National Park and its residents were being affected by a range of issues, including the third runway at Sydney airport, the construction of the M2 motorway and the impacts of the 1994 bushfires.

An informal group of residents called The Albert Drive and West Killara Residents Action Group was formed as a result. In 2001 Cec Morgan led the evolution of this group to the next stage with the creation of the 416 Group, its name being derived from the telephone code that was used in the area at that time. The Powerful Owl was chosen as the Group’s logo to signify watching over and preserving the environment.

In his role as President Cec Morgan has been responsible for convening meetings and engaging with residents, leading discussion of ideas and policies, writing and distributing the group’s newsletter and other correspondence and representing the group in meetings with Councillors and local members of Parliament in Ku-ring-gai, Davidson and Ryde.

During his tenure Cec has maintained a good working relationship with the Mayors and Councillors of Ku-ring-gai. I have found him to be a clear thinker, courteous and hard-working and able to represent the interests of residents in an effective manner. His quiet yet inspirational leadership has led to great respect for Cec Morgan within the local community.

Cec Morgan has now lived in and made a sustained contribution to the local community for more than 50 years. Some of the projects he has led or contributed to include:

• Safety measures on Lady Game Drive

• Supporting residents by making formal submissions to Council on inappropriate development applications

• Bushfire hazard reduction and increasing volunteer participation through Community Fire Units

• Increasing community involvement in Neighbourhood Watch

• Initiating a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ryde and Ku-ring-gai Council for the City of Ryde Council to advise West Lindfield/West Killara residents of any development proposals adjacent to Lane Cove National Park that might affect the environment or the residents

• Increasing community input into the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy and the Lindfield Village Hub

• Involving the community in future plans for the CSIRO in Bradfield Road, Lindfield

Cec Morgan is an excellent role model for how community leaders can be effective forces for good and how important residents can be in working with Council to protect the places they love.

On behalf of the Council, I thank him for all his efforts on behalf of the Ku-ring-gai community.

Resolved:

(Moved: Mayor Anderson)

That the:

A. Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. Mayor write to Cec Morgan enclosing a copy of this Mayoral Minute thanking him for all his efforts on behalf of the Ku-ring-gai community.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

Norman Griffiths Oval Sportsground Development

File: S13191

Vide: PT.1

We request that the Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council halts further work on the Synthetic Turf Resurfacing and Works Project planned for Normal Griffiths Oval in West Pymble until further investigation of alternatives is completed along with a review of the current NSROC policies in relation to synthetic sporting field developments. (1,012 signatures)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Draft Community Engagement Policy

File: S02090

Vide: GB.2

For Council to endorse the draft Community Engagement Policy, and for the draft policy be placed on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That:

A. Council endorse the draft Community Engagement Policy.

B. The draft Community Engagement Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, and following the public exhibition period, a report containing comments from the community, be presented to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2020 - 2021 Budget Review - 3rd Quarter ended March 2021

File: S09112/9

Vide: GB.4

To inform Council of the results of the third quarter budget review of 2020/21 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2020 to 31 March 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Clarke)

That the March 2021 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Investment Report as at 30 April 2021

File: FY00623/3

Vide: GB.5

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for April 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That the:

A. Summary of investments and performance for April 2021 be received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 3rd Quarter 2020 to 2021

File: FY00623/3

Vide: GB.6

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 31 March 2021 be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 15 December 2020

File: CY00458/9

Vide: GB.7

To provide Council with a copy of the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 15 December 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That Council receive and note the contents of this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Domestic & Commercial Waste Collection Service

File: S07231

Vide: GB.8

To advise Council of the execution of the Waste Collection Contract commencing 6^th September 2021 and associated changes to the domestic and commercial waste service.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kelly)

That Council receive and note the changes to the waste service as stipulated in this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RFT7-2021 Supply and Install Suburb and Village Signs

File: RFT7-2021

Vide: GB.9

To consider the tenders received for RFT7-2021 Supply and Install Suburb and Village Signs and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Pettett)

That:

A. Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Supply and Install Suburb and Village Signs.

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

C. The Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

D. All tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulation.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Having previously declared a conflict of interest in Item GB.10, Councillor Ngai withdrew during consideration of the matter.

Request for General Manager Delegation - PEERS 3 Electricity Tender

File: S11710

Vide: GB.10

That Council delegates to the General Manager, responsibility for the acceptance of the preferred offer from SSROC’s, PEERS 3 electricity tender (PEERS 3 is the SSROC led, Program for Energy and Environmental Risk Solutions 3).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Szatow)

That Council delegates to the General Manager, responsibility for the acceptance of the preferred offer from SSROC’s, PEERS 3 electricity tender.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Ngai returned to the Chambers after consideration of the matter concluded.

Natural Areas Plan of Management for public exhibition

File: S12817

Vide: GB.11

To have Council endorse the Generic Natural Areas Draft Plan of Management before submitting to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment - Crown Lands for approval prior to public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That:

A. Council note that draft advice has been received from its Native Title Manager in relation to the Generic Natural Areas Draft Plan of Management.

B. Council request approval from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Crown Lands to publicly exhibit the attached Generic Natural Areas Draft Plan of Management.

C. Upon receipt of approval from the Department, Council amend the Generic Natural Areas Draft Plan of Management, as and if required by the Department, and places it on public exhibition as per Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993.

D. A further report be brought back to Council after the exhibition process has been completed.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Ku-ring-gai Flying Fox Reserve Plan of Management for public exhibition

File: S13085

Vide: GB.12

To have Council endorse the draft Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Draft Plan of Management (Draft PoM) for public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Szatow)

That:

A. Council endorse the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Draft Plan of Management for public exhibition.

B. Any feedback received during the public exhibition is considered by Council and a final report be brought back to Council for adoption.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Lindfield Village Living - Project Update

File: S10468/2

Vide: GB.4

To provide a project progress report as at May 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Clarke)

That Council receive and note project updates contained within this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Turramurra Community Hub

File: S11467-3

Vide: NM.3

Notice of Motion from Councillor Spencer dated 30 April 2021

On 19 May 2020 Council resolved that the planning and development of the Turramurra Community Hub be paused for a period of up to 24 months, pending the outcome of Ku-ring-gai Council’s comprehensive Local Environmental Plan.

I propose that the pause on the Turramurra Community Hub project now be removed and that planning work on the project recommence.

At this time no additional funding is required. The unspent funds from 2020/21 and the allocation for 2021/22 is enough to kick start the project again. Once it is up and running, further reports can be provided if additional funding is required.

The planning work in re-commencing the project is likely to include the following tasks:

· Assess opportunities to increase height and density on the site as required to ensure the project is financially viable and is not a burden on ratepayers in the future

· Seek updated advice on market outlook for asset classes (residential/retail/commercial)

· Re-assess the size and standard of all community assets. By reducing the scope of the project, there will be a significant reduction in the cost to build, operate and maintain the assets

· Re-assess the project delivery options

The revitalisation of the Turramurra Town Centre is long overdue and its delivery will require a sustainable new plan that is affordable for our community.

I therefore move:

That Council endorse the recommencement of planning for the Turramurra Community Hub project as outlined in this motion.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Marian Street Theatre for Young People - Request for Funding 2022-2024

File: S10095/8

Vide: GB.1

To advise Councillors of a request from the Marian Street Theatre for Young People for annual Core Funding of $50,000, plus annual Project Funding of $20,000, total $70,000 each year, for the next three years (2022-2024 inclusive).

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Clarke)

That Council approves the request from the Marian Street Theatre for Young People for annual Core Funding of $50,000, plus annual Project Funding of $20,000, total $70,000 each year, for the next three years (2022-2024 inclusive).

AMENDMENT:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/ Kay)

That Council approves the request from the Marian Street Theatre for Young People for annual Core Funding of $50,000, plus annual Project Funding of $20,000, total $70,000 for the next year.

The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED:

For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Greenfield and Spencer.

Against the Amendment: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

The Amendment became the Motion.

The Foreshadowed Amendment became the Amendment:

AMENDMENT:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/ Clarke)

That:

A. Council notes that there has been a history of council supporting the Marian Street Theatre for Young People (MSTYP) by providing the organisation with a home. A recent example of this is the Licence Agreement between Ku-ring-gai Council and MSTYP to provide use of the Marian Street Theatre for a period of 12 months from July 2012 at a rate of $6,000 pa.

B. Council notes that when the Marian Street Theatre was closed in December 2013 as a result of significant non-compliance with Building Code standards, MSTYP lost access to its traditional home and had to find locations for its drama classes, theatre performances, and office rental from other organisations at a higher cost. Recent examples of these costs are as follows:

Year	External Rent/Hire
2017	$46,000
2018	$47,000
2019	$53,000
2020	$95,000

C. Council notes that it has provided financial assistance to MSTYP through Council resolution since 2015 as follows:

Year	Council Financial Assistance
2015	$60,000
2016	$60,000
2017	$54,000
2018	$48,000
2019	$40,000
2020	$40,000
2021	$40,000
Total	$342,000

D. In the absence of an operational Marian Street Theatre, Council will continue to provide financial assistance to MSTYP of $60,000 pa. for the next three years. The intention of this financial assistance is to help MSTYP with funding its operations outside its traditional home. If the rebuild of the Marian Street Theatre is completed prior to the end of this three year period, MSTYP will be able to ‘return home’ and this financial assistance will cease pro-rata.

E. During the three year period, Council Staff should also engage MSTYP on a regular basis to identify potentially more cost-effective locations from which to operate.

The Amendment was put and declared LOST:

For the Amendment: Councillors Ngai, Smith and Szatow.

Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Greenfield, Pettett and Spencer.

The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/ Kay)

That Council approves the request from the Marian Street Theatre for Young People for annual Core Funding of $50,000, plus annual Project Funding of $20,000, total $70,000 for the next year.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Greenfield, Ngai and Spencer.

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

Funding for Major Projects

File: S09112/9

Vide: GB.3

For Council to consider funding for Major Projects.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/ Greenfield)

That:

A. Funds from the eventual sale of the Gordon Bowling Club site be sequestered to fund the reconstruction of the Marian Street Theatre.

B. In the unlikely event that the sale of the Gordon Bowling Club site not be realised in time for construction to proceed smoothly from the tender and detailed design stage, that funding be sought from the NSW Government Low Cost Loan Initiative which assumes principal and interest payments over ten years at 1% and which assumes a 50% interest rate subsidy.

AMENDMENT:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/ Spencer)

That the report be received and noted.

The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED:

For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Greenfield, Ngai, Pettett, Smith and Spencer.

Against the Amendment: Councillor Szatow.

The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/ Spencer)

That the report be received and noted.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Greenfield, Ngai, Pettett, Smith and Spencer.

Against the Resolution: Councillor Szatow.

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club

File: S10066

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 30 April 2021

It has been brought to Council’s attention by members of the Killara community that the level of heritage significance that should be attributed to the Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club might be considerably higher than reflected in its mere inclusion within the Springdale Conservation Area. This is an oversight that needs to be investigated further.

Recreation facilities on the site have been in continuous use since mid-1916, having been established with the assistance of the “Father of Killara” JG Edwards, who subdivided the Springdale Estate.

Council was unable to consider placing an Interim Heritage Order over the properties due to their inclusion in the Springdale Conservation Area. Consequently, members of the community approached Heritage NSW directly to ascertain if the Minister would in fact place an IHO on the properties. While the Minister declined to make an IHO in this instance, Heritage NSW wrote to Council advising, among other things, that “Heritage NSW has undertaken a preliminary review of the Clubs’ heritage significance and determined that the Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club are not likely to be of state heritage significance, though they may be of local significance.” Heritage NSW further advised that they “….encourage Council to consider reviewing Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club as part of its review of items within the Springdale Road Heritage Conservation Area and engage with Mr Miller and the community in assessing the sites (sic) local heritage.”

I therefore move that:

A. As a matter of urgency staff carry out a preliminary review of the heritage significance of the Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club.

B. A report be brought back to Council’s June meeting outlining the results of the preliminary review of heritage significance with a view to initiating a Planning Proposal to list the properties as heritage items in Council’s Local Environmental Plan if appropriate.

MOTION:

Councillor Spencer departed and returned to Chambers during discussion on the Motion.

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Greenfield)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

AMENDMENT:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/ Kelly)

That:

A. Council acknowledges that in recent years there has been a trend for organisations to propose and consider (but not yet action) consolidating Bowling Club and Tennis sites across the LGA in order to build other assets and deliver other services.

B. As a matter of urgency staff carry out a preliminary review of the heritage significance of the Gordon Bowling Club (4 Pennant Avenue), Roseville Chase Bowling Club (47 Warrane Road), Lindfield Library and Tennis Site (259-271 Pacific Highway), Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club. All of these sites will concurrently undergo preliminary review to assure residents and other affected stakeholders that the same ‘measuring stick’ for heritage value has been used consistently, not just for assets that Council does not own (Killara) but also for assets that Council does own (Gordon, Roseville Chase, and Lindfield).

C. A report be brought back to Council’s August meeting outlining the results of the preliminary review of heritage significance with a view to initiating a Planning Proposal to list the properties as heritage items in Council’s Local Environmental Plan if appropriate.

Procedural Motion:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/ Smith)

That the Amendment be now put.

For the Procedural Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Greenfield, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Against the Procedural Motion: Councillors Ngai, Kay, Kelly and
Pettett.

The Amendment was put and declared LOST:

For the Amendment: Councillors Kelly, Ngai and Pettett.

Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Greenfield, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Debate recommenced on the original Motion.

The Motion was put and declared CARRIED:

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Greenfield)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

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

Against the Resolution: Councillors Kay, Kelly, Ngai, Pettett and Spencer.

The voting being EQUAL, the Mayor exercised her Casting Vote

IN FAVOUR of the Motion.

Marian Street Theatre refurbishment

File: S12062

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 30 April 2021

The draft (April 2021) Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 – a 103 page document - is currently on exhibition.

Key projects proposed for 2021 and 2022 include, among others, the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex and Marian Street Theatre (page 6).

These projects are given special attention in the Council Agenda Documents for the OMC of 27th April (pages 37-39). However, the Marian Street Theatre project is not included in the 2021/22 draft budget exhibition as there is no funding allocated in that financial year.

The Marian Street Theatre Timeline and Funding graph on page 38 of the papers shows funding in 2021 and 2023 but not in 2022.

The community need to be reassured that work on moving the project to construction phase and tender phase will progress continuously so that when funds become available from asset sales or some other form of revenue, that there will be no further delays.

I therefore move:

That funds quarantined for the Marian Street Theatre refurbishment (from general revenue) in the 2022-2023 financial year be moved to the 2021-2022 financial year, along with any unspent funds carried forward from the 2021-2022 year, as indicated on page 38 of the above mentioned Agenda document.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Greenfield, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillors Kelly, Ngai and Pettett.

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan

File: S12249

Vide: QN.1

QUESTION:

Question from Councillor Ngai dated 16 April 2021

The Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan has significant implications to our local centres for the next 10-15 years, and to date I know that some residents have expressed a mixture of both excitement and concern at various aspects of the plan (new parks, outdoor dining, streetscapes, cycleways, etc.).

I think it’s important that all residents who are affected are given the opportunity to consider and respond to the domain plan, however I have spoken to several residents who believe that although they live on an affected street, they have not received a notification letter on this topic. I am also aware that council has extensively reached out to the community via its (cheaper to implement) email mailing lists and social media, however it is not possible to reach all residents through these channels and so this puts some residents at great disadvantage.

The Ku-ring-gai Community Consultation Plan adopted by Council in November 2020 sets out minimum notification requirements when there are proposed development applications or other similar matters connected to our Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) or Development Contribution Plans. The minimum notifications typically require that properties affected by a proposal are contacted via a notification letter.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Planning-and-development/Planning-policies-and-guidelines/Community-Participation-Plan

Similarly, I am aware that council does contact affected residents when there are proposals for changes in local traffic conditions or changes that affect local significant trees.

Given the close connection of the Draft Public Domain Plan to our LSPS and Development Contribution Plans, I feel that the intention of our adopted Community Consultation Plan is that all affected properties should receive a notification letter. Also, given the millions of dollars that are about to be invested in local infrastructure, I would like to know that a few thousand has been spent to ensure that all residents have been made aware and given the opportunity to respond. It is much more cost effective to get the design right in its early stages than to attempt to fix a flawed design post implementation, and I think this is what the public expects us to do.

Can you please confirm whether all households and businesses affected by the Draft Domain Plan have been notified by letter?

And if affected residents and businesses have not yet received a notification letter, can we please consider issuing these letters and extending the consultation due date (currently 19 April) to ensure that all affected residents and businesses have a minimum of 14 or 28 days to respond?

ReSPONSE:

Response from Director Strategy & Environment Andrew Watson

The Community Participation Plan cited in the preamble to the questions above does not apply to the preparation of a public domain plan. The Community Participation Plan details how and when Ku-ring-gai Council will engage with the community and how the Ku-ring-gai community can participate with the following planning functions:

· Development Applications.

· Planning Proposals.

· Development Control Plans.

· Contribution Plans.

· Planning Agreements.

· Local Strategic Planning Statements.

In respect of draft Local Strategic Planning Statements, the Community Participation Plan requires notification for 28 days by way of the following:

“Notification on the Council’s website.

Council may undertake additional consultation during the exhibition period as deemed appropriate.”

The Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan was exhibited from 5 March to 26 April 2021, which is longer than the 28 days required by the Community Participation Plan for a Local Strategic Planning Statement. In addition to notification on Council’s website, the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan was notified by way of E-newsletters (Ku-ring-gai x2 13,500 subscribers), Business E-news (1,500 Subscribers), Suburb specific e-news (Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield). This again significantly exceeds the minimum requirements for a draft a Local Strategic Planning Statement.

It is not possible to extend a notification period which closed several weeks ago on 19 April 2021.

In the same way Council conducted detailed consultation in relation to the St Johns Avenue, Gordon streetscape upgrade, detailed elements of the Public Domain Plan would be subject to more intensive specific consultation at the point Council is contemplating funding and implementing such projects, and when detailed concept plans have been considered and approved by Council. This could include mail outs, onsite events and meeting with businesses, social media, online engagement portal and the like.

Council resolved itself into Closed Meeting
with all Staff, the Press and Public Excluded to deal with the following item
after a Motion moved by Councillors Clarke and Kelly.
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Facilitation of the General Managers Performance Review

File: S11192-1

Vide: C.1

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in sections 10A(2)(a) & 10A(2)(d)(i), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(a) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

Report by Director Corporate dated 19 April 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Kay)

That Council appoint Local Government Management Solutions to facilitate the General Manager’s performance review process over the next 4 year period.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor adverted to the consideration of the matter referred to in the Minute numbered 98 and to the resolution contained in such Minute.

The Meeting closed at 9.26pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 18 May 2021 (Pages 1 - 32) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 15 June 2021.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
L4.1: The community is informed and engaged in decision making processes for community outcomes.	L4.1.1: Innovative and effective community engagement fosters community participation and a better understanding of Council services, programs and facilities.	L4.1.1.1: Finalise a review of the Community Engagement Policy and communicate new requirements to staff.

Controlled Document Information

Authorisation Details

This is a Controlled Document. Before using this document check it is the latest version by referring to Council’s Controlled Document Register. Unless otherwise indicated, printed or downloaded versions of this document are uncontrolled.
Controlled Document Number:	176	TRIM Record No:		2020/364169
Controlled Document Type:	Policy
Controlled Document Name:	Community Engagement Policy
Version Number:	1
Department:	Corporate Communications
Distribution:	Internal and External
Review Period: Max < 4 years	4 years	Next Review Date:		TBD
Document Status:	Draft
Approval Type:	Adopted by Council
Version Start Date:	TBD		Version End Date:

Related Legislation:	Local Government Act (NSW)1993 • Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 • Environment, Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 • Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009 • Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (NSW) 1998	N/A
Related Policies (Council & Internal)	None	N/A
Related Documents - Procedures, Guidelines, Forms, WHS Modules/PCD’s, Risk Assessments, Work Method Statements, etc	International Association for Public Participation (2005) Planning for effective public participation Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan 2020	N/A
Other References	None

Version History

Version Number	Version Start Date	Version End Date	Author	Details and Comments
1	TBD		William Adames	First Version. Note this policy replaces the Community Consultation Policy.

Policy

Purpose and Objectives

The community and stakeholders of Ku-ring-gai have an important role in shaping the Council area. This policy is issued to outline Council’s commitment to engaging with Ku-ring-gai’s diverse community and to ensure that all sectors of the community are offered a range of equitable, accessible and appropriate opportunities to participate in Council engagement activities.

The policy aims to encourage participation in engagement and help support meaningful conversations with our community and stakeholders. This approach underpins Council’s willingness to engage the community of Ku-ring-gai to contribute to accountable and transparent decision-making processes. It also assists Council to better understand the views and expectations of the community in Council activities and decision-making.

The objectives of the policy are to:

• ensure that Council is informed of and able to respond to community needs and aspirations;

• provide all sectors of the community with accessible and appropriate opportunities to participate in decision making on both present and future issues;

• provide credibility and authenticity to community engagement processes by ensuring those who participated are informed of the outcome and where possible how their contribution effected the final decision;

• ensure staff understand and effectively implement the Community Engagement Policy;

Scope

This policy applies to all Ku-ring-gai Councillors, employees of Council and external consultants employed as representatives of Council who organise or convene community engagement activities. Council will apply this policy to all projects and activities where it makes decisions that will potentially interest or impact the community or where a significant policy development or change occurs.

Legislative minimum required standards for community engagement/notification relating to planning matters are outlined in the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan. The CPP covers areas including:

· Development and associated applications

· Planning Proposals

· Development Control Plans

· Contribution Plans

· Planning Agreements

· Local Strategic Planning Statements

Council understands the importance of local planning projects and how they can impact the community. Therefore, where appropriate Council may undertake additional engagement, guided by this policy, above the minimal notification requirements outlined in the CPP, to ensure the community is aware and can contribute to the project.

Responsibilities

The Elected Council is responsible for:

• Giving due consideration to community feedback captured through engagement when deciding on matters that may be of specific interest, or have a significant immediate, short medium or long-term impact on the community

• Supporting - through agreement and approval of budgets - and encouraging the application of best practice community engagement and where appropriate participating in community engagement activities.

General Manager and Directors are responsible for

• Ensuring that this Policy is properly implemented and applied across all departments of Council

Directors/Managers/Supervisors are responsible for:

• Applying this policy to ensure that community engagement is undertaken at a level appropriate with the project impact

• Maintaining an appropriate level of involvement in the engagement process

Project Coordinators/Contractors are responsible for:

• Liaising with the Community and Business Engagement Coordinator to identify and plan appropriate methods/techniques, timing and stakeholder groups

• Maintaining an appropriate level of community involvement in the decision making process

• Ensuring adequate feedback regarding engagement outputs is provided to all participants and where appropriate, to the wider community

• Evaluating engagement processes and outcomes to ensure continuous improvement

• Assisting to maintain the community engagement register

Community and Business Engagement Coordinator is responsible for:

• Providing ongoing support and advice to staff/contractors in planning and undertaking of community engagement

• Ensuring Council’s Community Engagement Policy is regularly reviewed and meets best practice standards in local government

• Identifying training needs and development opportunities for staff in engagement

• Overseeing maintenance of the community engagement register

Manager Corporate Communications is responsible for:

• Ensuring compliance with this policy across all departments of Council

• Ensuring Council’s Community Engagement Policy is regularly reviewed and meets best practice standards in local government

Policy Statement

Benefits of Effective Community Engagement

Effective Community Engagement:

• Enables Council to deliver projects, programs and services to its community more effectively

• Assists Council in accessing the rich and diverse knowledge and opinions of the Ku-ring-gai community to ensure decisions to meet all community stakeholder needs are robust and informed

• Builds positive relationships between the community and Council and enhances the reputation of Council

Effective community engagement is mutually beneficial for both the community and council:

• The community benefits by contributing their local and general knowledge, experience, skills and opinions to project and program development.

• The Council benefits by capturing this information whilst having the opportunity to seek feedback and test concepts and ideas with local people.

Effective engagement also creates opportunities to build, demonstrate and foster mutual respect and trust between Council and the community.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s commitment to effective community engagement recognises the important connection between elected representatives, staff and the community and potential benefits derived by using these to make better decisions. This approach is in line with use of participatory democracy techniques by leading international, Federal, State and local government agencies.

Genuine engagement with the community underpins sustainable decision-making. Sustainable decisions are technically feasible, economically viable (now and in the future), environmentally compatible, and publicly acceptable (within legal and legislative frameworks). A commitment to continuous improvement in this area helps to ensure that decisions reflect the needs and aspirations of both present and future generations.

One of the outcomes of this policy is to build the ’social capital’ of the community. Bringing the community together to jointly share in the responsibilities of decision-making can translate to an increased level of trust and knowledge of public administration and to help clarify Council’s levels of responsibility while improving the overall relationship between the community and Council.

Engagement Principles

In practice, Council is committed to robust and transparent engagement practices, where all affected community stakeholders have an opportunity to participate. Council’s engagement:

· Has clear aims and objectives

· Is adequately resourced (staff, budget and time)

· Is undertaken appropriately for the scope and impact of the project

· Is inclusive and accessible for the community to participate

· Seeks to meet best practice and continuously improve and adapt to changing needs of the community.

These principles align with NSW Social Justice Principles:

• Equity - There is fairness in decision making and prioritising and allocation of resources.

• Access – All people have fair access to services, resources and opportunities to meet their basic needs and improve their quality of life.

• Participation – Everyone has the maximum opportunity to genuinely participate in decisions that affect their lives.

• Rights – Everyone’s rights are recognised and promoted.

International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum

Council’s approach to engagement also seeking to meet the industry standard for community engagement. The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum illustrates that a variety of engagement techniques will reflect the IAP2 spectrum including:

• Inform We will keep you informed.

• Consult We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

• Involve We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

• Collaborate We will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

Engagement Practice

When Council will engage the community

Community engagement will be undertaken when Council considers that a decision or project is likely to have a direct or indirect impact on either whole or part of the community. The extent of engagement will be guided by the:

• Anticipated level of impact, be it positive or adverse

• The extent of existing data to convey community views on the topic

• Community appetite for engagement.

A number of situations will trigger engagement by Council, including:

1. In response to issues raised and/or engagement initiated by the community

2. Where proposed changes are likely to impact on the community, including service and program planning, development, project delivery or policy change

3. In planning the strategic direction of Council, and/or

4. When required by law, policy or agreement with a government agency or statutory body.

Community engagement will not occur in circumstances, which relate to minor operational matters, confidential or commercial in confidence information, or when Council must make emergency or safety related decisions.

Who will Council engage

For each engagement Council will identify the communities or stakeholders who are impacted and seek to engage with them to ensure appropriate feedback is available to guide project or decision making.

This can include anyone who lives, works, plays, visits, studies or has an interest in the Ku-ring-gai local government area.

Engagement timeframes

The community will be involved at appropriate points in the project cycle, which will allow input based on project objectives and potential community impacts. Council will seek to provide the community adequate time to participate and aim where possible to run engagement for a minimum of 28 days (4 weeks). If school holidays occur in these periods, extensions will be considered, if possible.

Council will avoid community engagement during the summer holidays. All engagement projects will conclude prior to ordinary meeting of Council in December or commence after the beginning of the third week in January, unless under exceptional circumstances.

The above timeframes do not apply to matters associated with the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee, which work to different timeframes to align with meeting cycles and to address safety critical issues.

Accessible and Inclusive Engagement

Participants in the community engagement process should be valued, respected and welcome, regardless of gender, age, ability, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and other attributes.

In undertaking any engagement, Council will ensure that our diverse communities can access, understand, and contribute to the process in a way that is appropriate, productive, and respectful.

Engagement will seek to understand and address barriers to participation at every stage of engagement from design, implementation, analysis through to monitoring and evaluation.

Promoting participation opportunities

Council will use a range of communications techniques to encourage participation in engagement projects. Mechanisms employed will be selected based on the target audience, anticipated community impact and interest, and value for money against the scope/scale and importance of the project. Consideration will be given to equity and access, as well as the use of digital and traditional communications mechanisms.

Reporting and Evaluation

Council will aim to inform the community on how its feedback has influenced a decision or project, including reporting on community engagement outcomes.

Where appropriate, access to a summary of engagement, including the communications and engagement methodology, key issues, findings, and where/how these were applied to project decisions will be provided to the community.

Outcomes reports and/or engagement summaries will be written in plain language and available via Councils website.

Council will also evaluate the effectiveness of its engagement processes to aid continuous improvement in its engagement activities. Key project information including lessons learned will recorded in the Community Engagement register which will be used to plan future engagement and ensure the data captured from all engagement projects can be used across all Council operations. The evaluation process will also seek to measure if objectives of the engagement process were met and that the principles of this policy were effectively applied.

Definitions

Term / Abbreviation	Definition
(list any key terms or abbreviations used in the content of the policy)	(define and describe the key terms or abbreviations used in the content of the policy)
e.g. The Act	Local Government Act 1993
Community	Community refers to the people who have a stake and interest in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA) and includes people who: live, work, study, conduct business, visit, use or enjoy the services, facilities and public places located within the LGA.
Community Engagement	The involvement of the community in the decision making process of Council, where the community is encouraged to provide feedback on a range of issues that affect them.
Stakeholders	Individuals or groups who have an interest or are impacted by the decisions of Council, these may include business representatives, professional associations, local community groups, or other levels of Government and Government agencies.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.2 / 69

Item GB.2	FY00382/13
	24 May 2021

Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 - Post Exhibition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022.

background:	On 27 April 2021, Council considered a report on the Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022. At that meeting Council resolved to place the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days and to consider a further report on any submissions following public exhibition.

comments:	The Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, with separate draft Fees and Charges document, were exhibited for a period of 28 days from 29 April to 26 May 2021. Six (6) external and five (5) internal written submissions were received as a result of the exhibition. Following a review of the submissions and other matters, amendments and corrections are proposed to the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Council has a statutory obligation to prepare, exhibit, consider feedback and adopt the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, no later than 30 June 2021.

recommendation:	That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022 with minor amendments.

Purpose of Report

BAckground

On 27 April 2021, Council considered a report (GB.1) on the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2021-2022. Council resolved the following:

A. That the report on Council’s draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, be received and noted.

B. That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022 be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

C. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council to consider any submissions and to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and Operational Plan 2021-2022, including Fees and Charges for 2021-2022.

D. That the consideration of funding for Major Projects, including but not limited to Marian Street Theatre and the East Lindfield Community Centre, be deferred until the May 2021 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

Comments

The Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements of the Local Government Act require Council to have an annual Operational Plan adopted before the beginning of each financial year, including details of Council’s activities to be undertaken that year.

When preparing its Operational Plan, Council is also required to review its adopted Delivery Program. Once endorsed by Council the combined Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback.

The development of the revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan has been informed by the community’s long term objectives contained in the Community Strategic Plan, Council policies and strategies, prioritisation of capital works projects, service delivery standards, income from external sources and fees and charges.

As required by legislation, the Delivery Program and Operational Plan contains the income (revenue), fees and charges and budget for Council over the coming year which supports the various services and projects to be delivered.

Organisational performance will be measured through the progress or delivery of Council’s four year term achievements and one year Operational Plan tasks under each theme. Performance indicators are also included under each theme, to provide both qualitative and quantitative information back to the community through bi-annual reports and an annual report. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan are presented in a single integrated document to facilitate community access to information contained in the plans.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
L1.1 - A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement.	L1.1.1 - The priorities of our community are reflected in the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.	L1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L1.1 - A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement.

L1.1.1 - The priorities of our

community are reflected in the

Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.

L1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy.

Governance Matters

The legislative requirements to prepare and exhibit the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2021-2022 is governed by sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

It is the responsibility of Council to consider all submissions made during the exhibition of the draft program and plan prior to their adoption.

Risk Management

The structure and content of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993. Council has a statutory obligation to prepare, exhibit, consider feedback and adopt the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, no later than 30 June 2021.

Financial Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council is in a sound financial position. The 2021/22 budget provides for an operating surplus of $22.3 million after allowing for the depreciation expense on Council’s $1.553 billion portfolio of largely depreciable assets such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. If capital grants and contributions are excluded, the operating result remains in surplus, with a result of $4.4 million. This is consistent with Council’s long term financial plan which provides a framework to achieve continued operating surpluses.

The Operating Surplus contributes to Council’s capital works program. In 2021/22 the capital works program is $76 million. Details of the capital works program for 2021/22 can be found in the Capital Works Program and Operational Projects 2021/2022 section of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Council’s long term financial plan and budget ensures that Council maintains adequate liquidity. This is demonstrated by the Unrestricted Current Ratio, for which the industry benchmark of greater than 1.5:1 is considered to be ‘Satisfactory’ and greater than 2:1 to be ‘Good’. Council’s budget maintains a ‘Good’ Unrestricted Current Ratio that is slightly greater than the benchmark of 2:1.

The outstanding loan of $34 million is discharged by revenue from general funds provided by the future net revenue generated from leasing out the investment property at 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon and proceeds from asset divestment to fund St Ives Indoor Sports Courts.

Council’s 2021/22 budget also provides for loan capital repayment (interest and principal) of $1.9 million.

Council’s proposed budget assumes that proceeds from asset sales will add $1.9 million to its capital income budget in 2021/22. These funds will be used to fund the infrastructure assets renewal program.

Council collects S7.11 (former S 94) contributions from developers to help pay for new infrastructure and facilities for the growing population of the area. Some of the works to be undertaken in the Contributions plan cater for the existing population and these works require a co-contribution from Council’s general funds. Some contributions will also be derived from development partners for the major local centre projects. The amount of works programmed to be undertaken over the next year are shown below (S7.11 $14.7 million, capital external contribution $937k).

Marian Street Theatre

The capital budget for refurbishment of the Marian Street Theatre is estimated at $15.8 million (mainly phased in 2023) from the following sources: asset sales $14.9 million, general revenue $0.9m (phased in 2022).

The chart below shows the budget phasing and the funding sources proposed. It must be noted that a budget allocation has been approved by Council for the current financial year (2020/21) for commencement of tender documentation and design services. Any unspent funds will be carried forward to 2021/22 at the end of the financial year. General funds of $0.9m have been allocated to 2021/22 and funding of an additional $9.9 million has been deferred to 2022/23 due to delay in asset sales.

St Ives Indoor Sport Complex – Joint use indoor sports facility

The proposed capital budget for the construction of the new indoor sports facility at St Ives High School is estimated at $19.4 million mainly allocated to 2021/22 from a combination of funding sources: grants $3.5 million, general revenue $2.4 million, loan $13.5 million.

Council has resolved to spend significant funds on the design and DA for the facility and to meet the proposed timeframe for construction the planned funding from assets sales is not likely to be available in time. Council resolved in February 2021 to fund the project from increased loan borrowing of $13.5 million. This loan is assumed to be repaid from proposed asset sales.

The chart below shows the budget phasing and the funding sources proposed. It must be noted that a budget allocation ($0.7 million) has been approved by Council for the current financial year (2020/21) for commencement of tender documentation and design services. For 2021/22 a total of $18.7 million is allocated to the project.

The St Ives Indoor Sports Courts is a partnership with the NSW Government.

In March 2021, the NSW Government put the Local Government Amendment Bill 2021 before the Parliament. If adopted into legislation this provides for special rates to be levied for works provided in partnership by councils with other government entities. This may be considered in the future as an alternative to asset sales for the St Ives Indoor Sport Courts facility.

The New South Wales Treasury Corporation (TCorp) has recently approved a loan facility of $13.5 million for Council to fund this project. This approval is subject to terms and conditions specified in the Loan agreement, which will be presented to Council for approval and execution.

Rates Income

Council’s total Rates income is ‘pegged’ by the State Government and approval must be obtained for increases above this amount (known as Special Rates Variations).

In the 2021/22 budget the projected rates income is $70 million. This amount includes the permanent existing Special Rates Variations for Infrastructure and the Environmental Levy.

A summary of Council’s Funding Statement showing the draft budget for 2021/22 and prior years is

provided below:

COVID -19 Pandemic

The Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID 19) continues to impact both communities and businesses across the country and in the local government area. This Pandemic has had a financial impact for Council in the financial year 2019/20 and continues to impact the current financial year, forecasts of which are reported to Council as part of Quarterly Budget Reviews. The Annual Budget 2021/22 was developed on a COVID free assumption, however, due to the changing environment, the financial impacts are uncertain and close monitoring will be required to assess if funding sources identified in the budget will be sufficient. Further information on any implications and the need for amendments to the budget will be the subject of further reports to Council in the new financial year.

Financial Challenges

While Council is in a sound financial position, it faces a number of challenges to achieve long term financial sustainability.

Council is relying on asset recycling (the sale of underutilised property) to fund new major capital projects, co-funding for projects funded from developer contributions and for renewing existing assets. Progress on selling assets has been slower than expected and further, approval for the rezoning of two significant properties earmarked for sale (bowling clubs) at the zoning requested has not been forthcoming. Rather, Council has been advised by the Department of Planning that the rezoning process may only proceed at a zoning which would provide significantly lower financial returns. Future additional asset sales will be required or alternate funding sources identified, else projects will not be able to proceed.

Council is also progressing towards town centre transformation projects such as the Lindfield Village Hub and Lindfield Village Green. These projects are very large compared to usual Council projects and are funded by the contribution of Council land, developer contributions and other funds. Due to the complex nature of the projects and the high value, they necessarily expose Council to a high degree of financial risk.

Managing infrastructure assets is a major challenge for Council, in particular providing enough funds to renew the existing assets in the context of a desire to build new assets. Council’s long term financial plan addresses the renewal of existing assets in terms of the core condition rating, however contemporary expectations are higher than allowed for in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). Examples of this include the desire for footpaths where there are currently none, and community buildings that may be structurally sound but are no longer fit for purpose. These buildings do not meet the functional requirements of modern society due to the design, size, materials and layout. Other existing assets may also require more renewal funding than currently planned, in particular the stormwater drains network.

Rating Structure 2021-2022

Each year the NSW Government approves a maximum percentage increase in the total income a Council can receive from rates, known as the ‘rate-peg’. The rate peg for 2021-22 has been determined by IPART at 2% and this percentage increase has been applied to Council’s rates.

Rates Structure including Rate Pegging increase of 2%

Type	Category	Rate in $	Min/Base Amount ($)	% of Revenue from Base for each rate	Yield $
Ordinary	Residential	0.00064340	$565.00		$33,198,313
Ordinary	Business	0.00334165	$565.00		$4,717,486
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate	0.00029600			$13,187,741
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate		$288.00	49.95%	$13,160,448
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation	0.00003553			$1,582,858
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation		$33.00	48.79%	$1,507,968
Special	Environmental - Special Rate Variation	0.00007235			$3,223,391

The Ordinary General Residential and Business Rates, plus the special ‘Infrastructure – Primary Rate’ together represent the total notional rates income of Council excluding the rates received from the two special rate variations. The above rates structure divides this amount into the Ordinary Rates (59%) and ‘Infrastructure – Primary Rate’ (41%).

Under this rates structure, Council will grant a voluntary pensioner rebate (in addition to the Statutory Rebate) of 8.5% of the total Council rates and charges. This voluntary rebate will apply to pensioners who are eligible for the Statutory Rebate.

Other Key Charges

Council levies a domestic waste management charge and a stormwater management charge. The domestic waste management charge varies depending on the service selected, with a base service with green waste being $455 pa. The stormwater management charge is $25 pa for a single residential property and $12.50 pa for a strata residential property.

Annual Budget 2021 - 2022 - Changes to Operational and Capital Budget post exhibition

The following changes are proposed to the final 2021/22 Annual Budget post exhibition:

Capital Budget (Projects):

· Lindfield Village Green:

o A total of $5.4m of the capital expenditure funded by external capital contribution (Transport NSW) has been brought forward to 2020 – 2021. This is a timing budget adjustment with no impact on the project budget. As a result of this adjustment the operating surplus including capital grants and contribution has reduced, however, when grants and contributions are excluded the operating surplus remains at $4.4m.

· Marian Street Theatre:

o Funds of $886k (from general revenue) guaranteed for the Marian Street Theatre refurbishment have been brought forward to 2021 – 2022 financial year, from future years (2022-23). There is no impact on the operating result, as this is a timing budget variation with capital funds being bright forward from internal reserves.

Rates Levied: Minor changes have been made to the rate in the dollar as a result of additional supplementary valuations received after finalising the Draft 2021 - 2022 Annual Budget. The rates levied are listed under section “Rates Structure 2021 -2022 “in this report.

No other changes have been made to the 2021 - 2022 Annual Budget. Minor changes to the budget will be reflected in the September Quarterly Budget Review.

The proposed additional changes to the Annual Budget 2021/22, if adopted, will be updated in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan as part of the Resourcing Strategy.

Changes to Fees & Charges post exhibition

· Statutory fees - Increase to companion animal registration fees in line with CPI

In June of each year, Council is advised of increases to cat and dog lifetime registration fees in line with the Consumer Price Index as required by the Companion Animals Regulation 2018. At the time of writing Council has not yet received this advice. Should the advice be received at a later stage, these changes will be reflected in Council’s Fees and Charges. These fees are listed in the Companion Animals section under Compliance & Regulation in the Fees and Charges 2021 -2022.

Interest on overdue rates has been determined by the Office of Local Government as 6% for the rating year 2021-2022. This is listed under Rates in the Fees and Charges 2021-2022.

· Proposed New Fees

o Parking Charges Lindfield Village Green

The business case for the Lindfield Village Green assumes some income from parking charges in the LVG to contribute to operational costs of running the facility. This is dealt with in detail elsewhere on this agenda.

GTA consultants prepared Council’s draft Ku-ring-gai Parking Management Strategy in 2018 which was subsequently exhibited with discussion around comparative pricing and indicative fees. GTA was commissioned in May 2021 to update elements of the strategy to inform Council’s decision about reasonable fees and charges that encourage turnover of short stay parking, allow long term leasing by residents and adjoining businesses only in the event there is surplus short stay spaces, and to generate sustainable cash flows to allow the project to be cost neutral at least (excluding depreciation).

The following fees and charges are recommended:

0 – 1 hour	Free
1 -2 hours	Free
2-3 hours	$6.00
3-4 hours	$10.00
4-5 hours	$25.00
5+ hours	$45.00

It will be necessary to monitor usage against fees and charges to ensure both optimum usage and income generation over time with a view to amending fees (up or down) accordingly.

o Roseville Park Pavilion – Community and Commercial Hire

The Roseville Park Pavilion has been recently completed and is now available for community use. This is a new multi-use facility that will be available for hire to sporting groups, community groups and residents. The new Roseville Park Pavilion has been classified in the same category as Large Meeting Rooms and the following fees are proposed

Community Hire	Per Hour
· Casual Hire	$35.00
· Permanent Hire	$25.00
Commercial Hire	Per Hour
· Casual Hire	$50.00
· Permanent Hire	$34.00

As the proposed new fees were not part of the exhibited Draft Fees and Charges 2021-22, a further public exhibition process must be undertaken to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 – Section 610F “Public notice of fees”.

The Council must give public notice for at least 28 days of the new fee proposed and take into account any community feedback. A recommendation to this effect is included as part of this report.

Social Considerations

The Delivery Program and Operational Plan include the same six (6) themes and long term objectives as the Community Strategic Plan. This ensures that the program and plan address social justice principles and social issues in an integrated way, along with civic leadership, environmental and economic issues as required by the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Environmental Considerations

The revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, through integration with the Community Strategic Plan, address both natural and built environment issues in a comprehensive manner integrated with civic leadership, social and economic issues as required by the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Community Consultation

The draft Revised Delivery Program 2018–2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 including draft Fees and Charges were publicly exhibited for 28 days from 29 April to 26 May 2021.

Notification of the exhibition was provided on Council’s website homepage with direct links to a dedicated page explaining the exhibition, providing an electronic version of the documents and information on how to make submissions. Information on the exhibition was also included in Council’s various social media and e-news.

In addition, with the reduction of COVID restrictions, hard copies of the exhibition documents were provided at Council’s customer service centre at the Chambers and four libraries.

Amendments to the Local Government Regulations in April 2020 by the Minister for Local Government removed the requirement for council notices to be advertised in newspapers, and instead allowed the relevant notice to be published on Council’s website.

Six (6) external and five (5) internal submissions were received in response to the exhibition of Council’s Integrated Planning & Reporting documents.

Matters raised in the external and internal submissions and responses are summarised in the following tables.

External submissions

Submission/s		Issues raised
Residents (3 separate submissions)		· Request street lighting in Fitzsimmons Lane, including at the junction of the lane with Ridge and Merriwa Streets, to address poor lighting issues, security risks and dangerous conditions for pedestrians and motorists. · One submission also requested a wider footpath in Fitzsimmons Lane.
Response Council’s long-term intention has been to install street lighting in Fitzsimmons Lane at the time Council has acquired all necessary properties in the lane to enable its widening. This includes lights to be installed on the eastern side of the lane adjacent to apartment blocks. While there remains one property to acquire to allow widening, it may be appropriate for the planned lighting to be brought forward to address the issues raised by residents. Subject to Council’s endorsement there is an opportunity for funding for the lighting to be brought forward from future years and included in the 2021-2022 budget. This budget amendment can be incorporated in the 2021 - 2022 September Quarter Budget Review. Once Council has acquired all properties the widening of Fitzsimmons Lane will ultimately also incorporate a widened footpath on the eastern side. Recommendation · That funding for street lighting on the eastern side of Fitzsimmons Lane be brought forward from future years to the 2021-2022 budget. · Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the residents to be advised in terms of the responses above.
Submission/s	Issues raised
Alister Henskens SC MP, on behalf of resident, regarding installation of Street Lights - Fitzsimons Lane, Gordon	· Representations on behalf of a resident of Fitzsimmons Lane, requesting street lighting in Fitzsimmons Lane, including at the junction of the lane with Ridge and Merriwa Streets, to address poor lighting issues, security risks and dangerous conditions for pedestrians and motorists.
Response Council’s long term intention has been to install street lighting in Fitzsimmons Lane at the time Council has acquired all necessary properties in the lane to enable its widening. This includes lights to be installed on the eastern side of the lane adjacent to apartment blocks. While there remains one property to acquire to allow widening, it may be appropriate for the planned lighting to be brought forward to address the issues raised by residents. Subject to Council’s endorsement there is an opportunity for funding for the lighting to be brought forward from future years and included in the 2021-2022 budget. This budget amendment can be incorporated through the 2021-2022 September Quarter Budget Review. Once Council has acquired all properties the widening of Fitzsimmons Lane will ultimately also incorporate a widened footpath on the eastern side. Recommendation · That funding for street lighting on the eastern side of Fitzsimmons Lane be brought forward from future years to the 2021-2022 budget. · Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the Local Member to be advised in terms of the responses above.

Submission/s

Issues raised

Resident

Supports the following projects included within Council’s exhibited plans:

· Lindfield Village Green completion - great for the residents of Lindfield and surrounding areas.

· Creation of a pedestrian eat street and streetscape improvements in Gordon - a great idea.

· New skate park and playground at St Ives Village Green - It’s about time something was done to improve this area for young people.

· Indoor sports centre at St Ives High School - will be a great place for youngsters and teenagers to interact and work out. Suggests it comes with a juice bar.

Response

These are significant projects to be completed or significantly progressed in 2021-2022.

Recommendation

The resident to be thanked for their interest and support of the projects.

Submission/s

Issues raised

Resident

Seeking Council’s consideration of the following:

· Providing discounted parking fees or national park visit charges for residents.

· Providing discounted quarterly council fees for residents who live on a corner block and therefore spend more time and money on keeping a larger area of council’s public land clean.

· Installing garbage bins next to main bus stops in the suburbs and imposing fines on tossers.

· Hosting local free exchange markets to help reduce impacts on the environment and enhance community spirit.

· Regular news on how Council assists those in the community who are more in need, such as the elderly and the single parent families.

Responses

Discounted National Park fees and charges

The NSW NPWS offers a number of discounts to the community for use of parks. These are detailed on the service’s website, and a link will be provided to the resident.

Discounted quarterly Council fees

Council levies quarterly rates and annual waste charges as per the Local Government Act. There are no specific provisions in the Act on providing discounts to individual ratepayers, however Council provides eligible pensioners with a rebate on their rates notice account. If a resident is a pensioner they may be entitled to pensioner rates rebates. Council also provides assistance to residents that are in financial hardship by agreeing to alternative payment plans.

Rates rebate for pensioners

To qualify for the pension rates rebate a resident must own and occupy a property in Ku-ring-gai.

Eligible pensioners can receive a statutory reduction of 50% of the combined rates and domestic waste management charge, to a maximum value of $250. To claim this rebate a resident must be a holder of either:

· A pensioner concession card from Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs

· A Gold Card marked TPI or EDA from Veterans' Affairs

All eligible pensioners are entitled to an 8.5 per cent rebate off their rates and charges. Council contributes these additional funds voluntarily in order to reduce the financial burden on pensioners.

Installation of garbage bins next to main bus stops

Council has not received to date any significant number of representations from the community for this service in urban locations however litter bin upgrades have been made at locations associated with the local centres.

A review of the number of bus shelters without bins can be undertaken and consideration of installations subject to available funding for these services.

Litter fines

Council rangers are able to impose fines on litter offenders, but must see them ‘in the act’ of littering. In the first instance offenders are requested to pick up and dispose of the litter. The NSW Government’s ‘Don’t be a tosser’ campaign is primarily an educational campaign tool for both pedestrians and drivers, focused on the individual’s own responsibility for their litter.

Hosting free exchange markets

There is the regular Rotary market at Gordon and very active online communities who buy/sell/swap items with the Ku-ring-gai local government area and other parts of Sydney. Council has also run a clothing swap and plans to run a toy swap for residents to swap quality items. Crop Swaps for local edible produce are also run regularly.

Net Zero Communities will be Council’s primary program for delivering these events moving forward.

Regular news on how Council assists those in need

Council provides a number of programs, services and events for children, families, young people, older people and people with disabilities etc. More specific information on services and programs including fees is available on Council’s website. There are various forms of communication that Council relies upon to engage with residents including E News, social media, public notices in local newspapers and specific publications promoting specific events.

Fees charged by Ku-ring-gai Council to children, families, young people, older people and people with disabilities etc. are partly subsidised as part of Council’s community services obligations. Special consideration is also provided on a case by case basis for people experiencing financial difficulty in a variety of Council services and programs.

Council also works in partnership with community organisations to provide services to the community that are affordable and targeted to their needs e.g. Meals On wheels, Community Transport, Neighbour Aid etc. Information on these services, and how to access them, is offered through formal presentations during the year, and daily by phone or email.

Regular council-run activities such as outings and seminar/webinars are provided free or low cost. Information is distributed on the range of community groups that involve seniors, are generally volunteer-run and that offer activities free or for a very reasonable charge.

Recommendation

Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the resident to be advised in terms of the response above.

Internal Consultation

The development of the draft revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2021-2022 was undertaken in consultation with all departments across Council.

Refinements to the draft document, as a result of ongoing review by staff during the public exhibition period are proposed for inclusion. Minor typographical and formatting errors identified during the exhibition period have also been corrected along with any updates of statistical data recently received from government agencies.

Other proposed revisions to projects and tasks are summarised below:

Theme 1	Community, people and culture
Reference	Page 39 – Term Achievement C2.1.1 – Ku-ring-gai’s rich cultural diversity and creativity is celebrated through programs and events. Task C2.1.1.4 – Achieve development consent and progress detailed documentation and tender for construction, subject to funding availability, for Marian Street Theatre.
Objective/Action	Change wording of exhibited draft task to: Achieve development consent and progress detailed documentation for the tender of Marian Street Theatre.
Reason	This is consistent with Council’s Resolution dated 18 May 2021 (NM2 Minute 97) that funds quarantined for the Marian Street Theatre refurbishment (from general revenue) in the 2022-2023 financial year be moved to the 2021-2022 financial year, along with any unspent funds carried forward from the 2021-2022 year.
Reference	Page 42 – Term Achievement C7.1.1 – Emergency Management Plans are developed and implemented in partnership with emergency service agencies and key stakeholders.
Objective/Action	Add New task – Review and update Ku-ring-gai’s Bushfire Prone Land Map.
Reason	Council’s bushfire prone land mapping needs to be updated during 2021 – 2022 consistent with relevant sections of the EP&A Act.

Theme 2	Natural environment
Reference	Page 45 – Term Achievement N1.1.2 – Increased community action that benefits the environment. Task N1.1.2.2 – Collate relevant data on CO2e emissions and sustainability and use this to inform Council’s ongoing net zero program. Task N1.1.2.3 - Develop and deliver a program to support the community in reaching net zero emissions by 2040 or earlier.
Objective/Action	Move tasks to Term Achievement N4.1.1 – The community is effectively informed and engaged on climate change impacts and responses.
Reason	The tasks are proposed to be moved to Term Achievement N4.1.1 due to their closer alignment with and contribution to that term achievement.
Reference	Page 45 – Term Achievement N2.1.1 – The condition of bushland and the conservation of native flora and fauna have improved. Task N2.1.1.2 – Implement priority actions in the Biodiversity Policy and implement the biodiversity monitoring program.
Objective/Action	Change wording of exhibited draft task to: Review and update the Biodiversity Policy and implement priority actions including the biodiversity monitoring program.
Reason	The modified task more closely reflects the work that will be undertaken during 2021-2022.
Reference	Page 45 – Term Achievement N2.1.1 – The condition of bushland and the conservation of native flora and fauna have improved. Task N2.1.1.3 – Review and update the Fauna Management Policy and implement the fauna monitoring program.
Objective/Action	Change wording of exhibited draft task to: Review and update the Fauna Management Policy and implement priority actions including the fauna monitoring program.
Reason	The modified task more closely reflects the work that will be undertaken during 2021-2022.

Theme 3	Places, spaces and infrastructure
Reference	Page 53 – Term Achievement P4.1.4 – Secure a development partner for Turramurra Community Hub Page 52 – Task P4.1.4.1 – Examine planning options within feasibility parameters for the Turramurra Community Hub.
Objective/Action	To remove the ‘on hold’ annotation shown in the exhibited plans and recommence planning work on the project.
Reason	This is consistent with Council’s Resolution dated 18 May 2021 (NM3 - Minute 93) that the pause on the project is removed and that planning work on the project recommence.

Summary

The draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2021-2022 have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993, and the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Assessing any impacts of Federal and State Government COVID measures on Council’s 2021 – 2022 programs and services will be ongoing and the subject of further reports to Council as required.

The changes proposed to the exhibited Revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, as discussed in the report, are minor and not considered to have a substantial or material change to the strategic direction and delivery of Council’s services and projects. For this reason it is recommended that Council adopt the revised documents without the need to re-exhibit.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, with recommended changes discussed in this report.

B. An ordinary rate in the dollar of $0.00064340 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential in the Council area be made for the period of 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

C. An ordinary rate in the dollar of $0.00334165 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as business in the Council area be made for the period of 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

D. The minimum ordinary rate for both residential and business be set at $565.00 for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

E. An infrastructure - primary rate in the dollar of $0.00029600 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a $288 base amount be made for the period of 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

F. An infrastructure special rate in the dollar of $0.00003553 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a $33 base amount be made for the period of 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

G. An environmental special rate in the dollar of $0.00007235 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a zero base amount, be made for the period of 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.

H. The voluntary pensioner rebate be granted to all eligible pensioners as a flat percentage of 8.5% of total rates and charges in 2021 - 2022.

I. The proposed additional new fees as provided in this report be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. At the expiration of the public exhibition process, the following action be taken:

1. Should any submissions be received regarding the new fees, a further report be submitted to Council, or

2. Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the new fees.

J. Council write to those people who made submissions in relation to the exhibited draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022.

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Coordinator

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accounant

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.3 / 74

Item GB.3	S13114

Post-Exhibition - Ethical Lobbying Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the submissions received during the public exhibition period and adopt an Ethical Lobbying Policy.

background:	Council, at its meeting held 27 April 2021, resolved to place the draft Ethical Lobbying Policy on public exhibition for 28 days and should any submissions be received they will be addressed in a further report to Council.

comments:	The Draft Ethical Lobbying Policy was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days following the abovementioned resolution. Two submissions were received from members of the public. Two changes were made to the policy adopted for exhibition at the April 27 2021 OMC as a result of the submissions.

recommendation:	That Council adopt the Ethical Lobbying Policy as attached to this report with two changes: (a) The definition of Lobbyist modified as follows: This definition does not include the following: … (b) community groups/organisations or other groups of individuals making representations about Council affairs (including matters relating to their own interests including funding), community issues, or other matters of public interest. (b) The duration after which entries are to be removed from the website be amended to 5 years after the last contact date: An entry in the Lobbyist Register will be removed from the website 5 years after the last contact date.

Purpose of Report

To consider the submissions received during the public exhibition period and adopt an Ethical Lobbying Policy.

Background

At the April 27 2021 OMC, Council resolved as follows:

“A. The draft Ethical Lobbying Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

B. At the expiration of the public exhibition process, the following action be taken:

i) Should any submissions be received regarding the draft Ethical Lobbying Policy, a further report be submitted to Council, or

ii) Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the draft Ethical Lobbying Policy as per Attachment 1 to this report.”

Comments

Public Submissions:

The Draft Ethical Lobbying Policy was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days following the above resolution. Two submissions were received from members of the public.

Submission 1:

The first submission generally supported the draft policy. However, the author expressed the view that “subclause (b) of the definition of “Lobbyist” should be expanded to make it clear that any community organisation or group of individuals should not be treated as a “lobbyist” for making representations in relation to their own funding or to any other item involving them listed on the agenda of a Council Meeting, Committee or Subcommittee”.

The submission is referring to the following definition:

A "Lobbyist" means an individual or body carrying on the business (generally for money or other valuable consideration) of lobbying Council Officials on behalf of another individual or body.

This definition does not include the following: …

(b) community groups or other groups of individuals making representations about Council affairs, community issues or other matters of public interest.

The reference to “community groups or other groups of individuals” in this subclause generally accounts for community organisations. Similarly, with reference to the authors comment on the mentioned organisations/ groups/ individuals “making representations in relation to their own funding or to any item involving them listed on the agenda of a Council Meeting, Committee or Subcommittee”, these fall within the bounds of the subclause which explicitly accounts for such issues via: “Council affairs, community issues or other matters of public interest”.

However, it is agreed that the definition would be clearer if it was modified to address the issue raised in the submission. It is recommended that the subclause (b) of the definition of Lobbyist be amended as follows:

This definition does not include the following:

Submission 2:

The second submission made two comments:

1. Subclause (g) of the definition of “Lobbyist” be expanded to include where a lobbyist has approached a member of a government or government agency prior to the representative approaching the Council.

2. The removal of entries from Lobbyist register on the website should be 5 years after the last contact date

Point 1 refers to the following definition:

A "Lobbyist" means an individual or body carrying on the business (generally for money or other valuable consideration) of lobbying Council Officials on behalf of another individual or body.

This definition does not include the following: …

(g) representatives of other Governments or Government agencies.

As Council is an independent institution responsible for governing its own affairs, any person or body who is considered to be a third party lobbyist by government agencies is likely to be considered a lobbyist under this policy. In order to ensure optimum transparency and a high degree of ethics are applied in decision-making and interactions involving Council officials, Council should include third party lobbyists on its register who approach a member of a government or government agency prior to engaging with Council.

Point two refers to the Lobbyist Register section of the policy on page 8, particularly:

An entry in the Lobbyist Register will be removed from the website after 5 years after the primary contact date.

Council accepts point two and suggests the page 8 of the policy be amended to read:

An entry in the Lobbyist Register will be removed from the website 5 years after the last contact date.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai is well led, managed and supported by ethical organisations which deliver projects and services to the community in listening, advocating and responding to their needs.

Council’s Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes.

Compliance with the requirements of relevant Acts and Regulations.

Governance Matters

The implementation of an Ethical Lobbying Policy will assist Council officials in understanding their role and obligations in interacting with Lobbyists.

Furthermore, the publication of the Register for Lobbyists on Council’s website will increase the accountability and transparency of Ku-ring-gai Council and its Councillors to the public.

Risk Management

Unethical lobbying has the potential to negatively influence Council decision-making could lead to conflicts of interest and unethical behaviour by Council officials in the future.

This Policy has been drafted to limit that risk and make Council officials aware of the standards expected of them when dealing with lobbyists.

Financial Considerations

Nil.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

The draft Ethical Lobbying Policy was placed on public exhibition for 28 days as per the resolution made at Council on 27 April 2021. Two submissions were received.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

In December 2020, Council resolved to have an Ethical Lobbying Policy prepared and reported back to Council. In April 2021, Council resolved to place the draft Ethical Lobbying Policy on public exhibition. This report seeks adoption of the Policy with two amendments to the exhibited version.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Ethical Lobbying Policy as attached to this report with two changes:

(a) The definition of Lobbyist modified as follows:

This definition does not include the following: …

(b) The duration after which entries are to be removed from the website be amended to 5 years after the last contact date:

An entry in the Lobbyist Register will be removed from the website 5 years after the last contact date.

Rebecca Srbinovska

Governance Support Officer

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment 1 - Submissions - Ethical Lobbying Policy	2021/154952
	A2 ⇩	Attachment 2 - DRAFT Ethical Lobbying Policy	2021/009577
	A3 ⇩	Attachment 3 - Lobbyist Registration Form	2021/009578
	A4 ⇩	Attachment 4 - Register for Lobbyists	2021/009579
	A5 ⇩	Attachment 5 - Record of Meeting with Lobbyist Template	2021/009580

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.4 / 95

Item GB.4	S11705

Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present a draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy to take effect on the date Councillors are elected to office in September 2021.

background:	Section 252(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires Council to adopt a Councillor Expenses and Facilities policy within the first 12 months of each term of Council. The policy can also be reviewed at any time.

comments:	Council staff have conducted a pre-election review of the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy and have taken the opportunity to transfer the content of the existing policy over to the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) Better Practice Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy template and to make amendments to the policy as outlined in the body of this report. As these changes are considered substantial, the Local Government Act requires that the Policy to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

recommendation:	That the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and should any feedback be received, the matter be reported back to Council after the consultation period. Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the Policy.

Purpose of Report

To present a draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy to take effect on the date Councillors are elected to office in September 2021.

Background

Section 252(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires Council to adopt a Councillor Expenses and Facilities policy within the first 12 months of each term of Council. The policy can also be reviewed at any time.

Comments

Council staff, when conducting a pre-election review of the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy, identified that it would be an ideal time to transfer the current Policy over to the OLG’s Better Practice Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy template. The OLG policy template is designed to be amended to suit local needs and circumstances.

If adopted, the policy will take effect on the date Councillors are elected to office in September 2021. For practical reasons the current policy will continue to apply for existing Councillors.

In addition to reformatting the content into the OLG’s suggested policy template, the policy has been modified to:

· refine and clarify clauses, and place those provisions under new headings for ease of use;

· fix anomalies identified;

· remove unnecessary prescription in clauses; and

· adjust existing provisions and limits to improve effectiveness and practicality.

The table below highlights the changes made and provides reasoning for each change:

Expense or Facility	Maximum Limit for each Councillor in proposed draft policy	Maximum limit in current policy	Comment
Local travel expenses (excluding travel for professional development covered separately) (Clause 6.2)	$1,000 per year of term	No specific limits provided. Expenses covered by shared budget.	Due to the shared budget, there is currently uncertainty as to how much each Councillor may spend on travel. Accordingly, individual limits are proposed.
Professional development (including training and education, conferences and seminars) (Clause 7.2)	$10,000 in the first year of term and $8,000 per year of term thereafter. Includes registration fees, travel, accommodation, meals, refreshments and incidental expenses. Induction and internally arranged training and workshops for all Councillors are additional and subject to budget.	Shared budget of $59,000 pa for all Councillors. Average $5,900 pa per Councillor.	Due to the shared budget, there is currently uncertainty as to how much each Councillor may spend on professional development. Accordingly, individual limits are proposed and the overall allowance is increased to recognise the importance of professional development. Currently conferences must be approved by Council. It is proposed that the General Manager be authorised to approve professional development including conferences if within limits and otherwise in accordance with this policy.
Functions and events (Clause 9.2)	$1,200 per year of term ($2,400 for the Mayor) Complimentary tickets to all Council functions and events for each Councillor and an accompanying person.	$1,186 pa for Councillors, no limit for the Mayor. Complimentary tickets to all Council functions and events.	A limit has been provided for the Mayor. Entitlement to complimentary tickets for an accompanying person has been explicitly provided.
Accompanying person expenses (Clause 10.2)	$700 per year of term ($1,400 for the Mayor)	$527 per year of term plus LGNSW annual conference dinner $132. Mayor additional allowance for outside the LGA (no limit).	Limit for Councillors consolidated with the amount for the LGNSW annual conference dinner. A limit has been provided for the Mayor.
Home telephone and internet (Clause 11.1)	$200 per month reimbursement	Telephone landline rental and calls $139 per month. No limit provided for broadband connection and service.	Limit adjusted to consolidate home telephone and internet and reflect current market costs.
Mobile Phone (Clause 11.2)	Council provided mobile phone: $2,500 for cost of device, connected to corporate mobile plan for calls, texts and data; or Reimbursement for use of a Councillor’s personal mobile phone for Council business use: $200 per month reimbursement.	Cost of phone not specified. Use of a personal phone for Council business: $278 per month reimbursement.	A limit has been provided for the cost of providing a phone. The reimbursement limit for use of a personal phone has been adjusted to reflect current market costs.
Laptop or tablet (Clause 11.3)	$2,500 for cost of device, connected to corporate data plan.	Cost of devices not specified. Connection to corporate data plan not specified.	A limit has been provided for the cost of providing devices. Added provision to connect devices to corporate data plan.
Multi-function device (Clause 11.4)	$750 for cost of device.	Cost of device not specified.	A limit has been provided.
Home office expenses (Clause 12 [12.1 to 12.4])	Furniture and equipment: $1,400 per Council term. Consumables and incidentals: $500 per year of term. Postage: $500 per year of term Business cards: 500 per year of term (750 for the Mayor).	Furniture and equipment $1,339 pa Consumables – a stationery limit of $135 pa and 5,000 sheets of paper. No limit specified for other consumables such as printer cartridges. Postage – no limit specified Business cards: 500 per year of term (750 for the Mayor).	Provision for consumables has been consolidated under one limit. A limit has been provided for postage.
Carer expenses (Clause 13.4)	$3,000 per year of term.	No limit was specified	A limit has been provided.
Insurance cover (Clause 14)	Public liability and professional indemnity, Personal accident, Travel, Councillors and Officers Insurance.	No change
Legal assistance (Clause 15)	Various provisions for Councillors defending action taken against them.	No change
Access to facilities in a Councillor common room (Clause 16.1)	Furnished to include telephone, photocopier, printer, desks, computers and refreshments.	No change
Access to rooms for meetings (Clause 16.1)	Councillors may use Council meeting rooms for official business at no charge.	No change
Meals and refreshments (Clause 16.1)	Meals and refreshments for Council and Committee meetings, Public Forums, briefings, workshops and official functions.	Meals and refreshments prior to, during or after Council, Forum and Committee meetings.	Entitlement to meals and refreshments for briefings, workshops and official functions has been explicitly provided.
Name badge (Clause 16.1)	Not applicable	No change
Security card for entry to Council’s administration building (Clause 16.1)	Not applicable	No change
Personal protective equipment for site inspections (Clause 16.1)	A raincoat and a pair of protective footwear for site inspections during inclement weather.	No change
Christmas or festive cards (Clause 16.1 & 17.1)	100 per year of term (200 for the Mayor)	No change
Reserved parking space at Council offices (Clauses (16.1 & 17.1)	One space provided for the Mayor and three spaces for Councillors	No change
Car parking permit (Clause 16.1)	Car parking sticker to enable a Councillor to park in any Council car park at any time for an unlimited period when discharging the functions of civic office	No change
Executive Assistant (Clause 16.1 & 17.1)	One staff member provided to support Councillors and one staff member provided to support the Mayor	No change
Mayoral Office (Clause 17.1)	Furnished office, including office equipment, consumables, Mayoral letterhead, postage, light meals and refreshments, Mayoral robes and chain.	A furnished office, computer, printer and peripherals, Mayoral letterhead, Mayoral robes and chain for official, civic and ceremonial use.	Entitlement to postage costs, light meals and refreshments has been explicitly provided.
Council vehicle and fuel card (Clause 17.1)	A similar standard vehicle to that available for the General Manager, for use on official business and incidental private use. Other private use (more than incidental) to be reimbursed to Council at the rate contained in the Local Government (State) Award.	Similar provisions without reference to any private use.	Additional provision to explicitly allow for incidental private use and requiring reimbursement for private use that is more than incidental.

The revised provisions in the above table have been included in the revised Policy attached to this report (Attachment A1).

It is recommended that the adopted Policy commence once the poll has been declared by the Returning Officer at the upcoming 2021 Local Government Election.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.

Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency.

Comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

Risk Management

This policy establishes the provision of councillor expenses and facilities in a manner that is transparent and accountable.

Financial Considerations

While some maximum expense limits are proposed to increase, the future impact is contingent on the actual usage by Councillors. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed policy is broadly consistent with the draft 2021/22 budget. If required, adjustments could be made in future budget reviews.

Social Considerations

It is considered that Council’s policy adequately reflects the needs of Councillors in carrying out their civic roles.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Section 253 of the Local Government Act 1993 states as follows:

253 Requirements before policy concerning expenses and facilities can be adopted or amended

(1) A council must give public notice of its intention to adopt or amend a policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities allowing at least 28 days for the making of public submissions.

(2) Before adopting or amending the policy, the council must consider any submissions made within the time allowed for submissions and make any appropriate changes to the draft policy or amendment.

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a council need not give public notice of a proposed amendment to its policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities if the council is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not substantial.

(4) (Repealed)

(5) A council must comply with this section when proposing to adopt a policy in accordance with section 252(1) even if the council proposes to adopt a policy that is the same as its existing policy.

As the amendments made to the Policy are considered to be substantial, the policy will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

Council has conducted a review of its Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy and took the opportunity to transfer the content of the current Policy over to the OLG’s Better Practice Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy template and to make amendments to the policy as outlined in the body of this report.

As substantial changes were made, the Policy will be required to be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

The revised policy is provided in (Attachment A1).

Recommendation:

A. That the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

B. At the expiration of the public exhibition process, the following action be taken:

i. Should any submissions be received regarding the draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy, a further report be submitted to Council, or

ii. Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy as per attachment 1 to this report, to commence once the poll has been declared by the Returning Officer at the upcoming 2021 Local Government Election.

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Attachment 1 - DRAFT Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

2021/159364

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.5 / 121

Item GB.5	S11705
	17 December 2020

Mayor and Councillor Fees - 2021/2022 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

+purpose of report:	To determine the Mayor and Councillor fees for the 2021/22 financial year.

background:	Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal determine the minimum and maximum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors of NSW Councils annually. Under Section 248 of the Act, Council must either fix an annual fee in accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, or pay the appropriate minimum fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. In the prior 2020/21 Financial Year, no increase was made to the minimum and maximum fees applicable to each existing category due to the economic and social circumstances of the time.

comments:	The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has released its annual review of the minimum and maximum fees that apply to Mayors and Councillors for 2021/22 [Attachment A1]. The Tribunal has previously determined that Ku-ring-gai Council falls into the “Metropolitan Medium” category. The Tribunal has determined a 2% increase in the minimum and maximum fees applicable to each existing category.

recommendation:	That effective 1 July 2021: A. The annual Councillor fee be set at $26,310; and B. The annual Mayoral fee be set at $69,900, in addition to the Councillor fee.

Purpose of Report

To determine the Mayor and Councillor fees for the 2021/22 financial year.

Background

Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal determine the minimum and maximum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors of NSW Councils annually.

Under Section 248 of the Act, Council must either fix an annual fee in accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, or pay the appropriate minimum fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

While the Tribunal is required to give effect to the Government’s wages policy in the making of this determination, it is open to the Tribunal to determine an increase of up to 2.5 per cent or no increase at all. In the prior 2020/21 Financial Year, no increase was made to the minimum and maximum fees applicable to each existing category due to the economic and social circumstances of the time.

Section 239 of the Local Government Act, requires the Remuneration Tribunal to determine categories for councils and mayoral offices and to place each council and mayoral office into one of the categories it has determined. The determination of these categories is for the purpose of the Remuneration Tribunal to determine the maximum and minimum fee amounts to be paid to mayors and councillors in each of the categories so determined.

An extensive review of the categories was completed by the Tribunal in 2020, therefore Ku-ring-gai Council remains under the classification of “Metropolitan Medium”. Categorisation reviews are only required every three years, so consideration for re-categorisation would be next be given in 2023. The Metropolitan Medium category is describe as follows:

‘Councils categorised as Metropolitan Medium will typically have a minimum residential population of 100,000.

Councils may also be categorised as Metropolitan Medium if their residential population combined with their non-resident working population exceeds 100,000. To satisfy this criteria the non-resident working population must exceed 50,000.

Other features may include:

· total operating revenue exceeding $100M per annum

· services to greater Sydney including, but not limited to, major education, health, retail, sports, other recreation and cultural facilities

· industrial, commercial and residential centres and development corridors

· high population growth.

The sphere of economic influence, the scale of council operations and the extent of regional servicing would be below that of Metropolitan Large councils.’

Comments

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has released its annual review of the minimum and maximum fees that apply to Mayors and Councillors for 2021/22 [Attachment A1].

The Tribunal has determined a 2% increase in the minimum and maximum fees applicable to each existing category.

The minimum and maximum fees for the Ku-ring-gai Council Mayor and Councillors have been determined as follows:

Category	Councillor Annual Fee		Mayor Additional Fee
Category	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
Metropolitan Medium	$14,100	$26,310	$29,950	$69,900

The Remuneration Tribunal in determining the maximum and minimum fees payable in each of the categories is required pursuant to Section 242A(1) of the Local Government Act to give effect to the same policies on increases in remuneration as those of the Industrial Relations Commission. The current policy on wages stipulates public sector wages cannot increase by more than 2.5 per cent and this policy applies to fees payable to mayors and councillors.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.

Council’s governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision making processes.

Compliance with the Local Government Act and Regulations.

Governance Matters

The Report and Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal is made in accordance with sections 239 and 241 of the Act.

Under section 248 of the Act, Council must either fix an annual fee in accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, or pay the appropriate minimum fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Risk Management

Should Council decide not to accept the annual fee payable to the Mayor and Councillors there is some risk that Council’s ability to attract candidates at local government elections could be impeded as a result of remuneration levels being below the maximum amount available as defined in the Report and Determination of the Tribunal.

Financial Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council’s current annual fees are $25,790 for Councillors and an additional $68,530 for the Mayor. These figures are the maximum amounts set by the Tribunal.

An amount of $342,900 has been provided in the 2021/22 draft budget for Mayor and Councillor fees. The amount set aside provided for a possible increase of 2.5% to the current 2020/21 maximum fees. The savings as a result of Tribunal’s determination will be addressed as part of the September Quarterly Budget Review 2021/22.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has released its annual review of the minimum and maximum fees that apply to Mayors and Councillors for 2021/22 [Attachment A1].

The minimum and maximum fees for the Ku-ring-gai Council Mayor and Councillors have been determined as follows:

Category	Councillor Annual Fee		Mayor Additional Fee
Category	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
Metropolitan Medium	$14,100	$26,310	$29,950	$69,900

Recommendation:

That effective 1 July 2021:

A. The annual Councillor fee be set at $26,310; and

B. The annual Mayoral fee be set at $69,900, in addition to the Councillor fee.

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - 2021 Annual Report and Determination

2021/129834

4. Policy Statement

Ku-ring-gai Council will adopt a structured Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework which will ensure the proactive identification and management of all types of risk across Council.

It is expected that risks will be identified and managed during the decision-making process prior to the risk impacting Council’s objectives by completing risk registers and other forms of risk assessments.

Council’s aim is to ensure risk management is embedded in our culture and day-to-day operations by incorporating controls into policies and procedures.

We will be proactive in considering the lessons learnt from incidents and issues and incorporating the learnings to mitigate future occurrences.

Our approach to risk management will include regular review, measurement, reporting and open communication.

5. Approach and Methodology

Ku-ring-gai Council’s risk management approach will follow the principles and practices specified in the Australian Standard AS ISO 31000: 2018 Risk management – Guidelines and the Office of Local Government Guidelines and tailored for Council’s operating environment.

6. Enterprise Risk Management Framework

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Enterprise Risk Management Framework aims to support the achievement of organisational objectives and considers all types of strategic, financial, regulatory, reputation, project and other operational risks.

The ERM Framework provides the foundations and organisational arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving risk management. It consists of:

· Risk Appetite Statement: sets the risk criteria to help guide Council Officials in respect to the parameters of acceptable risk taking and tolerances.

· Enterprise Risk Management Policy (this document): clearly communicates Council’s commitment to maintaining an effective and efficient risk management framework to support the management of enterprise-wide risks and help embed risk management into day-to-day activities.

· Enterprise Risk Management Strategy: provides a plan / roadmap for implementing, resourcing, communicating and improving risk management as well as measuring and reporting risk management performance. The document outlines responsibilities, processes, actions and instructions for identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating and escalating risks to help Council Officials maintain their risk register in a manner that is consistent with Council’s enterprise risk management framework.

· Risk Management Resources and Committees: this will include a dedicated risk management function, Audit Risk and Improvement Committee to provide oversight and clearly defined responsibilities for risk ownership and oversight.

· Training and communication: regular awareness training, workshops and communication to enhance the risk management capabilities of Council Officials.

· Risk Management Records: Risk register(s) and other risk assessment records to formally document the risk evaluation process, well-articulated risk implication statements in Council and Committee reports, risk reports to communicate important risk and control information to stakeholders.

· Other Supporting Policies, Procedures and Arrangements: Other supporting policies, procedures, processes, frameworks and arrangements that complement risk management including policies, procedures, internal audit, insurance arrangements, fraud and corruption plans, business continuity plans, crisis management plans, compliance plans and workplace health and safety management systems.

7. Embedding risk management

All Council Officials will aim to embed risk management into day-to-day activities including decision-making, operational and integrated planning and reporting processes, so that risk management thinking is deeply entrenched into the organisation’s norms and prudent risk taking is aligned to risk appetite. Integration of risk management at Ku-ring-gai Council will follow these principles:

· A transparent and consistent framework that is applied across the organisation;

· Consider enterprise-wide risks in our strategies, plans, reports, decisions, operations, events, activities and business processes.

· A flexible approach to how we identify, respond and control risk to accommodate Council’s range of activities;

· Reinforce accountability at all levels;

· Continually promote a positive risk culture where risk management is seen as an enabler, embraced and valued by Council Officials and stakeholders;

8. Responsibilities

Position

Responsibility

Councillors

· Provide oversight of Council’s enterprise risk management.

· Set the strategic context for ERM across the organisation, representing Council’s objectives and the interests of current and future residents in the local government area.

· Delegate risk management to General Manager.

· Adopt Council’s ERM Policy and Risk Appetite Statement and ensure decision making processes are aligned.

· Consider risk implications statement in reports accordance with the ERM Framework.

General Manager

· Provides risk management leadership and is ultimately responsible and accountable for risk management.

· Supports and drives the implementation of risk management throughout Council.

· Continually advocate and promote Council’s ERM Strategy & Framework

· Drive the implementation of the ERM Strategy & Framework, including the provision of necessary resources to support the framework.

· Monitor Council’s strategic risks and higher-level risks.

· Formulate Council’s risk appetite based on strategic objectives in consultation with Council.

· Review risk outside of risk appetite and inform council where it is determined that risks will be accepted with no further treatment.

· Undertake other risk related activities as required by the Office Of Local Government.

Directors, BU Managers (Risk Owners)

· Have primary responsibilities for the day-to-day management of risks.

· Conduct designated risk management activities and ensure compliance with risk management policies and procedures

· Foster a risk-aware culture through training and communication and set the tone to encourage effective management of risk.

· Implement the ERM Strategy & Framework and associated policies and procedures.

· Proactively identify, assess, monitor and report key risks emanating from their activities.

· Ensure adequate resources allocated to manage risk.

· Ensure adequate internal controls are implemented effectively.

· Escalate issues to the General Manager, Directors, BU Managers on identifying significant changes to the risk and control environment and recommend appropriate action plans.

· Implement action plans to address risk or control issues and ensure completion against agreed timeframe

· Escalate issues, that are critical to strategic decision-making.

· Ensure that any reports/recommendation made to Council or Committees contain a risk implications statement in accordance with the ERM Framework and aligns with the Risk Appetite Statement.

· Develop and implement action plans and recommendations in resolving identified risk issues.

· Ensure staff comply with the relevant risk management policies and procedures and carry out risk management activities accordingly.

· Ensure staff are aware of their responsibilities and duties and they have the competency and resources required to carry them out

Responsible Officers

(Staff below management reporting directly to a Director or BU Manager)

· Foster a risk-aware culture.

· Facilitate the implementation of risk management policies and procedures and their adoption by all staff.

· Ensure key risks emanating from their activities are proactively identified, assessed, monitored and reported in the Council ERM system.

· Ensure adequate internal controls are implemented effectively considering the cost and benefits of implementing such controls.

· Monitor outstanding action plans to address risk or control issues and ensure they are completed on time.

· Escalate issue to respective Directors or/and BU Managers when there are significant changes to the risk and control environment and recommend appropriate action plans to facilitate business-decision making processes. [review]

· Act as the interface between respective Departments and BU’s and report on ERM matters.

Function Specialists

(specialists in WHS, IT, Legal, Environment and Asset Management)

· Develop and review policies, procedures, and methodologies on managing risks in respective operation environment and specialised areas and coordinate their implementation and adoption by Departments and BUs.

· Stay updated on regulation and environment changes that may have implications on risk management in respective specialist areas and install appropriate risk mitigating measures.

· Work closely with the Team Leader, Corporate Risk & Assurance to facilitate the quarterly risk reporting to Senior Management and the ARI Committee in respective specialist areas.

· Provide suitable support, advice, and training in their respective specialist areas as required to manage risk.

· Assist Directors or/and BU Managers on ERM matters.

Team Leader Corporate Risk & Assurance

· Develop, review and maintain the ERM Strategy & Framework, underlying methodology, policies, and procedures and coordinate and monitor their implementation and adoption processes across Council.

· Stay tuned with regulation and environment changes that may affect business strategies, risk profile, and ERM implementation.

· Install appropriate risk mitigating measures for emerging risk events.

· Facilitate ARI Committee meetings and support the Committee in executing its ERM responsibilities.

· Prepare and consolidate quarterly risk report and highlight risk matters to the ARI Committee and Senior Management for informed business decision-making.

· Institute and maintain a communication and training programme to promote a greater level of risk awareness and to increase risk management transparency and competency.

· Work closely with Responsible Officers and other specialists on ERM matters.

· Serve as a communication platform between various Departments, BU’s, Senior Management, Responsible Officers and specialists.

· Maintain and monitor the list of incidents that deviate from compliance requirement or the agreed standards in the ERM Strategy & Framework or its related policies that are approved.

· Record and respond to risk issues highlighted from internal and external audits and develop action plans based on audit recommendations for continuous improvement of ERM.

Staff

· Follow Council’s policies and procedures and always act in a manner which does not place at risk the safety of themselves or any other person in the workplace.

· Proactively identify, assess, monitor and report all key risks emanating from their activities.

· Responsible and accountable for taking practical steps to minimise exposure to risks in so far as is reasonably practicable within their area of activity and responsibility. Staff should report all incidents, risks and issues to their Manager in a timely manner

· Escalate issues to their Managers on identifying significant changes to the risk and control environment and recommend appropriate action plans.

Other Council Officials ^{^[1]}

· Implement and follow the ERM Policy and the ERM Strategy.

· Consider risk in the provision of advice and in decision-making.

· Consider risk implications statement in reports accordance with the ERM Framework.

Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

· Review and advise on ERM framework documents.

· Periodically review risk registers and monitor effective treatment of strategic and higher level operational risks.

· Monitor risks outside of appetite.

· Undertake other risk related activities as required by the Office of Local Government or as set out in the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Charter.

Internal Auditors

· Provide assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of risk management activities and internal control measures carried out by Departments and BUs.

· Provide assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the ERM framework, methodologies, and other related risk systems, policies and procedures.

· Ensure audit resources are directed at those areas most important to the organisation.

External Auditors

· Provide assurance on Council’s statutory Financial Reports.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.7 / 156

Item GB.7	FY00623/3
	27 May 2021

Investment Report as at 31 May 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for May 2021.

background:	Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to end of May 2021 was $3,068,000, against an annual revised budget of $3,097,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $29,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for May 2021 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

Purpose of Report

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for May 2021.

Background

Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Comments

Investment Portfolio Performance Snapshot

The table below provides the investments portfolio performance against targets identified in Council’s Investment Policy as well as other key performance indicators based on industry benchmarks.

Cumulative Investment Returns against Revised Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to the end of May 2021 was $3,068,000 against an annual revised budget of $3,097,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $29,000 as shown in the table below.

A comparison of the cumulative investment returns against year to date revised budget is shown in the Chart below.

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of May 2021 was $200,390,000 compared to $193,043,000 at the end of April 2021, a net cash inflow of $7,347,000 was mainly due to fourth instalment of rates income.

One investment matured during the month of May 2021. Two new investments were made.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmark

Overall during the month of May the investment performance was above the industry benchmark. The benchmark is specific to the type of investment and the details are provided below. AusBond Bank Bill Index is used for all Council’s investments.

Table 1 - Investments Performance against Industry Benchmarks

Table 2 below provides a summary of all investments by type and performance during the month.

Table 2 - Investments Portfolio Summary during May 2021

* Weighted average returns

** Funds in at-call/short term accounts are working funds kept for the purpose of meeting short term cash outflows. At the time of investing interest rates were comparable or more competitive to other equivalent investments. At-call investments portfolio is being monitored on a regular basis to ensure funds are reinvested at higher rates when opportunities arise, whilst also keeping and adequate balance for short-term cash outflows.

*** Market Values as at 31 May 2021 were not available at the time of writing the report

Investment by Credit rating and Maturity Profile

The allocation of Council’s investments by credit rating and the maturity profile are shown below:

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise delivery of services

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Governance Matters

Council’s investments are made in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states:

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

(a) must provide the council with a written report (setting out details of all money that the council has invested under section 625 of the Act) to be presented:

(i) if only one ordinary meeting of the council is held in a month, at that meeting, or

(ii) if more than one such meeting is held in a month, at whichever of those meetings the council by resolution determines, and

(b) must include in the report a certificate as to whether or not the investment has been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the council’s investment policies.

(2) The report must be made up to the last day of the month immediately preceding the meeting.

Risk Management

Council manages the risk associated with investments by diversifying the types of investment, credit quality, counterparty exposure and term to maturity profile.

Council invests its funds in accordance with The Ministerial Investment Order.

All investments are made with consideration of advice from Council’s appointed investment advisor, CPG Research & Advisory.

Financial Considerations

The revised budget for interest on investments for the financial year 2020/2021 is $3,280,700. Of this amount approximately $2,304,100 is restricted for the benefit of future expenditure relating to development contributions, $615,400 transferred to the internally restricted Infrastructure & Facility Reserve, and the remainder of $361,200 is available for operations.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Certification - Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government General Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Summary

As at 31 May 2021:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $200,390,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to May 2021 was $3,068,000 against an annual revised budget of $3,097,000, giving a YTD unfavourable variance of $29,000.

Recommendation:

That the:

A. Summary of investments and performance for May 2021 be received and noted.

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.8 / 161

Item GB.8	S11736-3

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Community Member recruitment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

background:	Changes to legislation in 2017 required all councils in the Greater Sydney Region and Wollongong to have Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs), now known as local planning panels (LPPs). Panel members were appointed for a 3 year period and can be reappointed for another period up to 3 years, totaling a maximum 6 years. Council at its 16 March 2021 meeting resolved to appoint, temporarily, existing Panel members up until 30 June 2021. This was in line with the request by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) to enable them time to recruit experts and chairs for LPPs. To prepare for the new appointments to begin on 1 July 2021, Council sought EOI to be appointed as community representatives on the KLPP. Advertisements were placed in the local newspaper and on Council’s website during April 2021.

comments:	Twenty nominations were received during the advertising period.

recommendation:	That: A. Council Affirms the recommendations of the General Manager’s Selection Panel and appoints community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 July 2021. B. Council notifies the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment and all the candidates of its decision. C. Council authorises the General Manager to review and appoint expert members to the KLPP once the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment. D. The General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment of his decision regarding the selection of expert members.

Purpose of Report

To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

Background

Legislation introduced in 2017 required all councils in the Greater Sydney Region and Wollongong to have Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs), now known as local planning panels (LPPs).

Council at its meeting 29 November 2017, resolved;

A. That Council establishes a standalone IHAP for Ku-ring-gai.

B. That Council affirms the recommendations of the General Manager’s selection panel and appoints community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai IHAP for a term of up to 3 years:

C. That Council notifies the Minister for Planning and Environment and all the candidates of its decision.

D. That Council authorises the General Manager to select the two other IHAP members when the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment in due course.

E. That the General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning and Environment of his decision.

The appointments to the Panel membership were made on 28 February 2018 for a period of 3 years. The term for all members expired on 1 March 2021. Council at its 16 March 2021 meeting resolved to appoint, temporarily, the existing members of the KLPP up until 30 June 2021. This was in line with the request by the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) to enable them time to recruit experts and chairs for local panels.

To prepare for the new appointments to begin from 1 July 2021, Council sought EOI for community representatives on the KLPP from the wider community by public advertisements during April 2021. The selection criteria and recruitment process has followed the model set by the then Department of Planning and Environment at the time of the establishment of IHAPs, as detailed below:

Selection criteria for community representatives

The community representatives should:

 be current residents within the local government area (LGA)

 have knowledge and awareness of the LGA and issues of concern to the local community

 be able to represent and communicate the interests of the local community

 have an understanding of the planning process and assessment issues (but are not expected to be experts)

 commit to attending the IHAP meetings and contributing constructively to the determination of applications

 be willing to adhere to the IHAP code of conduct and operational procedures.

Recruitment of community representatives

Expressions of Interest were sought from the wider community through a public advertisement (Attachment A1) that appeared in a local paper and on Council’s website in April 2021. Twenty nominations were received (Attachment A2).

Selection of community representatives

Following the EOI process, the General Manager established a selection panel to review the applications against the relevant selection criteria and shortlisted suitable candidates as possible community representatives and their alternates. Candidates who nominated as community representatives are listed in the attached confidential report (Attachment A2).

The Department of Planning and Environment at the time recommended that at least two alternate community representatives should be chosen to attend if the appointed representative is unable to attend, for example due to illness or conflict of interest. However, as previously decided in order to better facilitate the rotation of members and ensure efficient panel operation, no alternates are identified, as the community representatives for each KLPP meeting will be drawn from the community member list using a rotating roster, which has been the established practice for the KLPP.

Once the decision is made, the General Manager will advise the Department's Planning Panels Secretariat on who will be appointed as community representatives to the KLPP for 2021-2024 and provide reasons why they will be appointed.

The Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) is currently recruiting for the pool of independent, suitably qualified persons from which the expert members are to be drawn. The Minister for the DPIE will approve the persons in this pool and will also choose the independent, expert chair of each panel. Council’s General Manager is required to choose the other expert members. The fourth panel member is the community representative, to enhance the panel's knowledge of local matters. This person does not have to be an expert in a planning related field.

Membership of a panel is a part-time role. Remuneration and allowances are set by the Minister for the DPIE. Council may remove its community representative on the panel at any time and a written statement of reasons must be made available by the General Manager should this occur.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces & 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

Applications are assessed in accordance with state and local plans

Assessments are of a high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements

Governance Matters

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act) in particular Division 4.2 and Schedule 2 provides for the constitution, functions and operation of Local Planning Panels (LLP) and obligations in respect to councils.

The Act requires that LPP members must disclose any pecuniary interests that arise in relation to a matter referred to the panel, and cannot take part in that decision. A code of conduct for LPP’s has been established by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment. The code sets out the expected standard of behaviour required of panel members, including managing conflicts of interest and relationships and interactions.

Risk Management

There are no risk management considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial considerations associated with the recommendation in this report other than the typical costs associated with the management of a local planning panel.

Social Considerations

There are no social considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Community Consultation

Expressions of Interest were sought from the wider community through a public advertisement that appeared in a local newspaper and on Council’s website in April 2021 (Attachment A1).

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation occurred throughout the selection process.

Summary

Council sought Expressions of Interest for KLPP community representatives and 20 nominations were received. Following the EOI process, a selection panel reviewed the applications against the relevant selection criteria and shortlisted the preferred suitable candidates as possible community representatives. Council to consider the appointment of the community representatives for a period of up to 3 years commencing on 1 July 2021.

Recommendation:

That:

B. Council notifies the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment and all the candidates of its decision.

C. Council authorises the General Manager to review and appoint expert members once the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment.

D. The General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment of his decision.

Shaun Garland

Manager Development Assessment Services

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1⇩	Public Advertisements calling for Expressions of Interest	2021/133108
	A2	Selection Panel Review	Confidential
	A3	Applicant 1 - Nomination form and application	Confidential
	A4	Applicant 2 - Nomination form and application	Confidential
	A5	Applicant 3 - Nomination form and application	Confidential
	A6	Applicant 4 - Nomination form and application	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.9 / 170

Item GB.9	CY00008/13

Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 - Post Exhibition Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present to Council the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025.

background:	In accordance with NSW state guidelines, councils are encouraged to develop individual plans as a guide to the management & services delivery for Companion Animal matters within their locality. This is the fourth plan developed in the series. Council’s inaugural plan was adopted in 2006. The current plan sets out intended actions for the period of 2020-2025.

comments:	Draft plan 2020-2025 was placed on public exhibition from 8 February 2021 to 6 March 2021. Council received 5 submissions/comments during this period.

recommendation:	That the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 be adopted.

Purpose of Report

Background

The Companion Animals Management Plan was developed in response to a recommendation from the NSW Office of Local Government that Council’s develop management plans to facilitate the administration of the requirements of the Companion Animals Act 1998. Ku-ring-gai’s first plan was adopted in March 2006 and was a five-year plan that was subject to annual review. The draft plan 2020-2025 is the fourth such plan.

The three main areas that the plan targets are:

· service and facilities

· education

· compliance

Comments

At the meeting of 30 June 2020 Council resolved to exhibit the Draft Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025. The Draft Plan was placed on exhibition from 8 February 2021 to 6 March 2021 for a period of twenty eight days. The public exhibition was promoted through Council’s social media platforms, local news and media.

A total of five written submissions were received. A summary of submissions, including matters identified and responses are provided in the following table.

Table 1. Summary of submissions to Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025

Matters identified	Response
· There are no measurable targets set for any of the actions in Section 5 or monitoring goals in Section 6	The Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 is a five year plan. Performance Indicators are set out in Section 5 of the Plan, pages 7 to 11 reflect measurable targets in the Plan. This plan is a five year plan and the performance indicators are on-going to cover the five year period.
· It is noted that there is an increase of 28% in cat ownership. · Pressure on wildlife. · Residents should not be able to own cats adjacent to bushland. · There is no enforcement of roaming dogs in parklands which is not off-leash. · Cats need to be managed in line with dogs.	Council acknowledges increase in cat ownership and its impacts on native wildlife. The Companion Animals Act 1998 sets out ownership requirements of Companion Animals. Council rangers do patrol our parks and ovals and take appropriate action if a breach is detected. It was Council’s position in its submission made to the OLG to support cats being managed in line with dogs. There needs to be an amendment by OLG to the Act to reflect the same.
· Restricting ownership to two animals per household. · Improving enforcement by rangers. · Education is essential. · Communicate information about the number of warnings, fines and impounded animals. · Commercial dog walkers need to be reminded of their obligations. · Visual communications must not neglect cats. · The need for professionally designed signage at entrances to parks and off-leash areas	The Companion Animals Act 1998 sets out ownership requirements of Companion Animals. Section 3.2 of the Plan sets out Council’s objectives in relation to education. Section 5.2 of the Plan set outs that Council will biannually promote and host responsible Cat Owner Expo which will target responsible cat ownerships and impacts on native wildlife. Council has two forms of signage “regulatory” and “advisory”. Regulatory signs are required for enforcement. Council has blue advisory signs that are placed in identified areas for extra visual awareness. Council’s regulatory team will review the legality of communicating the number of warnings, fines and impounded animal with OLG and Council’s Corporate Lawyer.
· Supports keeping cats indoors at night. · Supports people having safe dogs. Aggressive breeds should be discouraged. Off leash areas are wonderful.	The Companion Animals Act 1998 sets out the requirements of Companion Animals. It was Council’s position in its submission made to the OLG to support cats being managed in line with dogs. There needs to be an amendment by OLG to the Act to reflect the same. The Companion Animals Act 1998 also regulates restricted breeds of dogs. The Act also has measures in place for Council to deal with aggressive dogs.
· Applauds the draft plan. · Biggest concern is the increasing number of cats in our area and their impacts on wildlife. · Request that all cats to be kept indoors at all times.	Council acknowledges the increase in cat ownership and the impacts on native wildlife. The Companion Animals Act 1998 sets out ownership and movement requirements of Companion Animals. It was Council’s position in its submission made to the OLG to support cats being managed in line with dogs. There needs to be an amendment by OLG to the Act to reflect the same.

Based on the feedback in the public submissions, no amendments are required to the Draft Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025.

integrated planning and reporting

Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C5.1 A community where residents feel safe and enjoy good health.

Companion Animals Management Plan is adopted and implemented.

Implement adopted Plan and undertake annual review.

Governance Matters

Local Government (general) Regulation 2005 – Reg 217(f) requires a detailed annual statement, prepared in accordance with guidelines as issued by the Director-General from time to time. A statement of Council’s activities during the year in relation to enforcing and ensuring compliance with the Companion Animals Act 1998 and Regulation under that Act must be included in Council’s Annual Report.

Risk Management

Council manages risks by the identification, assessment and the implementation of control measures of reasonably foreseeable hazards and risk within its Enterprise Risk Management Program. The adoption of this plan would assist and ensure that risk management decisions are based on a considered approach and that assessments are conducted in a consistent manner that eliminates or reduces risk exposure in regard to companion animal matters.

Financial Considerations

There are no specific financial implications associated with the Draft Management Plan. The annual budget provided for this cost centre is adequate to service the Plan.

Funds for the maintenance and upgrading of off-leash areas are included within Operations Department budget.

Social Considerations

Ku-ring-gai residents and their companion animals are regarded as one of the most interactive communities in Australia. This Plan provides a robust guideline to ensure responsible pet ownership and service delivery on a local level.

Environmental Considerations

There are no specific environmental considerations associated with this report. Council acknowledges the impacts of domestic cats on native wildlife. The Companion Animals Management Plan includes a specific action to manage bushland and environmental protection areas. The Management Plan also includes education programs on responsible cat ownership, with a focus on the impacts of cats on native wildlife.

Community Consultation

The Draft Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 was placed on exhibition from 8 February 2021 to 6 March 2021. The public exhibition was promoted through Council’s social media platforms, local news and media. A total of five written submissions were received. A summary of the submissions, is provided in the above table Summary of submissions to Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025.

Internal Consultation

The plan was drafted in consultation with staff from Strategy and Environment and Operations Departments and Council’s Regulatory group.

Summary

The Companion Animals Management Plan represents Council’s continued commitment to provide services to all sectors of the community. It lays the framework for activities in relation to companion animal management. It assist in the preparation of annual work plans and associated budgets.

Recommendation:

That the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 be adopted by Council.

Vibeke Faurby

Companion Animals Management Officer

Tony McCormack

Team Leader Regulation

Anne Seaton

Manager Compliance & Regulation

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.10 / 175

Item GB.10	RFT6-2021/R

RFT6-2021 Design and Construct - Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2021 Design and Construct Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

background:	Council has received funding through the Federal Government Grants scheme for Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LCRI) to refurbish two (2) indoor pools at the Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre (KFAC) at West Pymble Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 4 May 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021

comments:	Council received three (3) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council. The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to two (2) of the three (3) submissions exceeding the allocated budget and the third submission having inconsistencies in their submission. The result of this does not allow for competiveness for Council to achieve best value for money. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

recommendation:	Based on the assessment undertaken, the TEC recommends the following: RFT6-2021 Design and Construct – Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC - Tender Evaluation Committees recommendation to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Purpose of Report

To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2021 Design and Construct Indoor pool refurbishment KFAC and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Background

Council has received funding through the Federal Government Grants scheme for Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LCRI) to refurbish two (2) indoor pools at the Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre (KFAC) at West Pymble

As the cost of the works was estimated to be over $250,000, Tenders were called using Tenderlink in accordance with the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulation. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 4 May 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021.

Comments

Council received three (3) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council.

The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to two (2) of the three (3) submissions exceeding the allocated budget and the third submission having inconsistencies in their submission. The result of this does not allow for competiveness for Council to achieve best value for money. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

It is anticipated that the negotiation will provide council the flexibility of redesigning the scope of work to suit Council’s budget and deliver the project within the current grant funding deadline.

Confidential attachments to this report include:

· List of tenders received (Attachment 1),

· Tender Evaluation Report and recommendation (Attachment 2)

integrated planning and reporting

P7: Enhancing community buildings and facilities

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement – 3 year

Operational Plan

Task – Year 1

P7.1: Multipurpose community buildings and facilities are available to meet the communities diverse and changing needs

P7.1.1 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

Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 4 May 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021. At the close of tender, three (3) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to assess the three (3) tenders received. The evaluation considered:

· Conformity of submission,

· Total Lump sum fee totalled from the range of services to be provided,

· Resources provided to complete services

· Organisational suitability in providing quality resources

· Risk Management/Environmental and Work Health and Safety

· Performance and Financial Assessment.

Confidential attachments to this report include the list of tenders received and the Tender Evaluation Report and recommendation. The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.

Risk Management

Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed contract:

· That the design and construction be carried out by a contractor with the ability to provide a full range of services with suitably qualified staff.

· Risk Management, Environmental and WHS.

· That Council should not be exposed to financial risk - as part of the evaluation process, tenderers were assessed on providing all information and costs requested within the tender document. Prior to awarding a contract, an independent Performance and Financial Assessment will be carried out on the preferred contractor to ensure that they are trading responsibly and have the financial capacity to undertake the contract as detailed within the tender documents.

Financial Considerations

The design and construction of the indoor pool refurbishment at Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre will be funded by the Federal Government Grants scheme for Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LCRI) Phase 2

Social Considerations

On completion of the refurbishment, the two (2) indoor pools will be a safe and enjoyable leisure facility for the whole community to enjoy which is in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan, Our Ku-ring-gai 2038 and the Plan’s long term directions.

Environmental Considerations

There is no significant environmental impacts due to the works.

Community Consultation

The Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre managers YMCA of NSW have been consulted.

Internal Consultation

All relevant departments were consulted.

Summary

Tender RFT6-2021 Design and construction indoor pool refurbishment KFAC was released through Tenderlink on 4 May 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021. A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from the Operations Department. Council received three (3) tenders. All tenders were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.

Recommendation:

That:

A. As a result of considering the tenders submitted for the proposed RFT6-2021 Design and construction indoor pool refurbishment KFAC contract, and pursuant to Clause 178(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 1995 (“the Regulation”), Council declines to accept any of the tenders.

B. Fresh tenders as referred to in clause 178(3)(b)-(d) of the Regulation not be invited due to the current deadlines for the grant funding.

C. Pursuant to clause 178(3)(e) of the Regulation, the General Manager enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender in terms acceptable to Council’s requirements.

D. The Mayor and the General Manager be delegated authority to execute all documents on Council’s behalf in relation to any contract formed as a result of the above.

E. The Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

F. All tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with clause 178 of the Regulation

Craig Roberts

Project Manager

Mark Shaw

Manager Technical Services

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1	RFT6-2021 List of Submitters		Confidential
	A2	RFT6-2021 Tender Evaluation Report		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.11 / 180

Item GB.11	RFT9-2021/R

RFT9-2021 Design and Construct - Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the tenders received for RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

background:	Tender documents for the design and construction of stormwater mitigation and a synthetic sports field at Norman Griffiths Oval were released through Tenderlink on 20 April 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021.

comments:	Council received two (2) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council. The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to one (1) of the two (2) submissions significantly exceeding the allocated budget and the second submission was deemed as non-compliant. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

recommendation:	Based on the assessment undertaken, the TEC recommends all tenders for RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and a synthetic sports field are rejected as per Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Purpose of Report

To consider the tenders received for RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Background

Northern Suburbs Football Association and West Pymble Football Club have contributed grant funding towards Council’s 7.1.1 developer contribution for the design and construction of a stormwater mitigation system and a synthetic sports field on the Norman Griffiths Oval site at West Pymble.

Comments

Council received two (2) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council.

The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to one (1) of the two (2) submissions significantly exceeding the allocated budget and the second submission was deemed as non-compliant due to the submission documentation not being complete. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Confidential attachments to this report include:

· List of tenders received (Attachment 1),

· Tender Evaluation Report and recommendation (Attachment 2)

integrated planning and reporting

P6: Enhancing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement – 3 year

Operational Plan

Task – Year 1

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the communities diverse and changing needs

P6.1.1 A program is being

implemented to improve existing

recreation, sporting and leisure

facilities and facilitate the

establishment of new facilities.

P6.1.1.1: Deliver Council’s adopted Open Space

Capital Works Program.

Governance Matters

Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 20 April 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021. At the close of tender, two (2) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to assess the two (2) tenders received. The evaluation considered:

· Conformity of submission,

· Total Lump sum fee totalled from the range of services to be provided,

· Resources provided to complete services

· Organisational suitability in providing quality resources

· Risk Management/Environmental and Work Health and Safety

· Performance and Financial Assessment.

Risk Management

Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed contract:

· That the design and construction be carried out by a contractor with the ability to provide a full range of services with suitably qualified staff.

· Risk Management, Environmental and WHS.

Financial Considerations

The design and construction of Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field will be funded by the following:

· West Pymble Football Club contribution and grant funding

· Northern Suburbs Football Association contribution and grant funding

· Council funding 7.1.1 development contribution.

Social Considerations

On completion of the stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field this will provide a valuable sporting facility to the Ku-ring-gai community which is in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan, Our Ku-ring-gai 2038 and the Plan’s long term directions.

Environmental Considerations

An initial Review of Environmental Factors has been undertaken for this project and this will be revised once the design is complete.

Community Consultation

The community was extensively consulted in 2020 and the results were presented to Council at the OMC 20 October 2020 minute No 208. Council resolved to proceed to the Design and Construct Tender process at this location.

Internal Consultation

All relevant departments have been consulted.

Summary

Tender RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field was released through Tenderlink on 20 April 2021 and closed on the 25 May 2021. A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from the Operations Department. Council received two (2) tenders. All tenders were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.

The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to one (1) of the two (2) submissions exceeding the allocated budget and the second submission was deemed as non-compliant due to the submission documentation not being complete. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Recommendation:

That:

A. As a result of considering the tenders submitted for the proposed RFT9-2021 Design and Construct Stormwater mitigation and synthetic sports field contract, and pursuant to Clause 178(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 1995 (“the Regulation”), Council declines to accept any of the tenders.

B. Fresh tenders as referred to in clause 178(3)(b)-(d) of the Regulation not be invited due to the current deadlines for the grant funding.

D. The Mayor and the General Manager be delegated authority to execute all documents on Council’s behalf in relation to any contract formed as a result of the above.

E. The Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

F. All tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with clause 178 of the Regulation

Craig Roberts

Project Manager

Mark Shaw

Manager Technical Services

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1	RFT9-2021 List of Submitters		Confidential
	A2	RFT9-2021 Tender Evaluation Report		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.13 / 197

Item GB.13	CY00413/9

Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club - Preliminary Heritage Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider a preliminary heritage assessment for Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites, Killara.

background:	Following correspondence from NSW Heritage and a resolution Council on 18 May 2021, Council officers have prepared a preliminary heritage assessment for Killara Bowing and Lawn Tennis Clubs.

comments:	The location of the Bowling and Lawn Tennis Clubs within the Springdale Conservation Area, bounded by Arnold Street, Locksley Street and Werona Avenue, does not necessarily adequately protect any potential heritage values of the site. A preliminary heritage assessment for the sites concludes that they have the potential to reach the threshold for inclusion on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 as a local heritage item.

recommendation:	A Planning Proposal is prepared for the heritage listing of the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites (Lot 3 DP 817195 and Lot 2 DP 817195 and Lot 11 DP 1083606 and Lot B DP 380305 and Lot 11 DP 1083606) on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015. If in the meantime, there is any threat of imminent harm to either of the sites, it is recommended that Council request that NSW Heritage make an IHO on both properties to enable them to have protection from that harm until a Planning Proposal can be progressed to Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider a preliminary heritage assessment for Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites, Killara.

Background

The Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis clubs are associated with a number of parcels of land (Lot 3 DP 817195 and Lot 2 DP 817195 and Lot 11 DP 1083606 and Lot B DP 380305 and Lot 11 DP 1083606), which are located adjacent to each other within the Springdale Conservation Area (‘HCA’). The sites are zoned A2 Low Density Residential and are not for sale at the time of writing this report.

On 28 February 2021, Council received correspondence from resident, Mr E.C Miller, requesting that an ‘…[U]rgent Interim Heritage Order to apply to both the Killara Bowling Club Limited and Killara Lawn Tennis Club Limited properties - with frontages to Arnold Street, Locksley Street and Werona Avenue, Killara.’

Council officers advised Mr Miller that Council does not have the delegation to make an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) as the sites are located within the Springdale HCA. It was suggested to Mr Miller that he approach NSW Heritage with the IHO request and seek their feedback and action on the matter. Accordingly, Mr Miller took this action on the advice of Council officers.

On 2 March 2021, NSW Heritage (OEH) requested information from Council in relation to the heritage significance of the Killara Bowling and Killara Tennis Clubs sites in response Mr Miller’s request. Following a telephone conversation with NSW Heritage, Council provided general information about the planning and heritage affectations relating to the sites to NSW Heritage, including the current zoning, permissible uses and heritage inventory information for a number of items within the vicinity.

On 15 March 2021, Council received correspondence from NSW Heritage to Mr Miller, which outlined that they were not proceeding with making an IHO in this instance, as they did not deem the sites to reach the threshold for state significance nor did they consider them under any imminent threat (Attachment A1). NSW Heritage further noted that they would ‘encourage Council to consider reviewing Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club as part of its review of items within the Springdale Road Heritage Conservation Area and engage with Mr Miller and the community in assessing the sites local heritage.’

Following the feedback from NSW Heritage, Council officers began preliminary investigations into the heritage significance of the sites. Despite their location within the Springdale HCA, the significance of this HCA has been previously associated with significant architectural styles and residential allotments. Therefore, the Springdale HCA could not necessarily offer any protection of the Bowling and Tennis Club sites that may be required from a heritage perspective.

At the Tuesday, 18 May 2021 OMC the following resolution was made:

‘That:

A. That as a matter of urgency staff carry out a preliminary review of the heritage significance of the Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club.

B. That a report be brought back to Council’s June meeting outlining the results of the preliminary review of heritage significance with a view to initiating a Planning Proposal to list the properties as heritage items in Council’s Local Environmental Plan if appropriate.’

Council officers prepared a preliminary heritage assessment of the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites and discussed this with the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) on Thursday, 19 May 2021. The HRC agreed with the findings of the heritage assessment and suggested that, with minor refinement, this would be sufficient to support the Planning Proposal to Gateway Determination for the heritage listing of the sites. HRC outlined that this would expedite the process and save resources that would otherwise be expended on an external heritage consultant.

Minor amendments to wording of the assessment were made subsequent to the HRC meeting and the final draft as included at Attachment A2.

Comments

The preliminary heritage assessment for the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Clubs has been undertaken by Council staff and concludes that the sites have the potential to meet the threshold for heritage listing at a local level. The findings of the assessment are outlined below.

Assessment against the NSW Heritage Criteria

Based on a general review of the documentation and information available for both Clubs, as well as a non-exhaustive inspection of the relevant sites, the significance of the Killara Bowling and Tennis Clubs has been preliminary considered against the NSW Heritage criteria as follows:

a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history:

The Killara Bowling and Tennis Clubs have continued to demonstrate strong links to the Australian sporting culture for over a century, since the declaration of JG Edwards in the late nineteenth century of the sites’ suitability for the purpose of park and/or recreation. Both established by JG Edwards, the sites have continued to function for the purposes of a Tennis Club since 1910 and Bowling Club since 1916 and have had an ongoing affiliation with each other, which formally ended in 1919, but has informally continued as a product of their proximity to one another and symbiotic uses.

b) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history:

The sites have strong historical links to their founder, JG Edwards, who resided in the area since the 1850s. Edwards demonstrated the qualities of an early Australian entrepreneur, having acquired, established and subdivided 160 acres known as the Springdale Estate in the late nineteenth century. Often referred to as the ‘King of Killara’, Edwards was known as an instigator in the establishment of the North Shore railway line, including the construction of a station at Killara.

The clubs have provided recreational facilities for the immediate Killara and wider North Shore community for over a century.

The Tennis Club has been associated with notable Australians, including International Tennis players Neale Fraser, Lew Hoad, Fred Stolle and Ken Rosewell.

The Bowling Club has historic links to notable local people such as former President George Gissing who maintained a membership of the club for over 30 years until his death in 1955. The Arnold Street brick fence was later donated in memory of Gissing, by his family.

c) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW:

The sites are visually prominent within the Springdale Conservation Area, maintaining landmark qualities through their recreational and open space characteristics, which provide visual distinction within the highly historic and suburban precinct. The regularity and rectilinear nature of the tennis courts and bowling greens, centrally flanked by the clubhouses, which continue to face their respective sporting precincts, conveys an aesthetically pleasing sense of order to the sites.

The existing tennis clubhouse has the potential to display an aesthetically pleasing and distinctive use of brickwork through its apparent high-quality construction and finer detailing.

d) an item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons:

The clubs have provided recreational facilities for the North Shore community for over a century and have been associated with prominent Australian Tennis players such Neale Fraser, Lew Hoad, Fred Stolle and Ken Rosewell. The location of the clubs, side-by-side, within the suburban precinct has ensured that strong links with the surrounding community have been maintained since their establishment and the residential subdivision in the early twentieth century.

e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history:

Without further research, it is not known whether the site would meet the threshold for this criterion.

f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history:

Whilst the sites are associated with lawn bowls, which has continued to lose popularity as a sport within Australian society, without further research or extensive comparative analysis, it is not known whether the site would meet the threshold for this criterion.

The sites represent an early and possibly rare example of a sporting precinct within an affluent residential setting, whose curtilages have not been affected by the pressure of development.

g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s

- cultural or natural places; or

- cultural or natural environments.

Together, the clubs have the ability to represent the early entrepreneurialism of JG Edwards, who had the ability to envisage and manifest the ongoing use of the site for recreational purposes within a wider residential precinct.

The history of the sites and built fabric that has evolved is somewhat representative of economic fluctuations, changing popularities of sports as well as changes in social values, such as the shifting opinions in relation to women.

Summary Statement of Significance

Individually and combined, the Killara Bowling and Tennis Clubs demonstrate significance at a local level through their ongoing association with the activities of lawn bowls and tennis within the local area and wider North Shore for over a century.

The sites have strong historical links to their founder, JG Edwards, who resided in the area since the 1850s. Referred to as the ‘King of Killara’, Edwards demonstrated the qualities of an early Australian entrepreneur, having acquired, established and subdivided 160 acres known as the Springdale Estate in the late nineteenth century.

The sites have continued to function for the purposes of a Tennis Club since 1910 and Bowling Club since 1916 and have had an ongoing affiliation with each other, which formally ended in 1919, but has informally continued as a product of their proximity to one another and symbiotic uses.

The Tennis Club has been associated with notable Australians, including International Tennis players Neale Fraser, Lew Hoad, Fred Stolle and Ken Rosewell whilst the Bowling Club has strong links to prominent local community members such as former President George Gissing.

Upon brief inspection, the existing tennis Clubhouse has the potential to display an aesthetically distinctive use of brickwork with finer detailing that is of interest.

The historical evolution of the Clubs, including the built fabric that physically represents this, has continued to evolve as a result of economic fluctuations and changes in social values, such as the shifting opinions in relation to women. Together, the clubs have the ability to represent early the entrepreneurialism of JG Edwards, who had the ability to envisage and manifest the ongoing use of the site for recreational purposes within a wider residential precinct.

Summary and Recommendations

This preliminary heritage assessment concludes that the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites, both individually and combined, have high potential to meet the threshold for local listing, based on the standard criteria for listing outlined by the Heritage Council of New South Wales. It is therefore recommended that Council proceed with preparing a planning proposal to list the sites as a local heritage item on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

If in the meantime, there is any threat of imminent harm to either of the sites, it is recommended that Council request that NSW Heritage make an IHO on both properties to enable them to have protection from that harm until a Planning Proposal can be progressed to Gateway Determination.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

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

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

Governance Matters

This report addresses the first stage in obtaining a Gateway Determination for a Planning Proposal which seeks to list an item of local heritage significance under an amendment to Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. If the Planning Proposal is supported by the Department, the Planning Proposal will be placed on exhibition seeking further State agency and stakeholder feedback prior to being reported back to Council to decide if the property should be formally listed.

The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Council will seek the plan-making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk of damaging the reputation of Council if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Ku-ring-gai draft Principal Local Environmental Plan - Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.

Social Considerations

The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s community-valued historic landscape and garden suburbs.

Environmental Considerations

The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places includes the substantial reduction in building demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.

Community Consultation

If the matter proceeds to gateway determination and formal public exhibition, community consultation with be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the gateway determination.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with relevant Departments of Council has taken place in preparing this report, in particular, Development and Regulation.

Council’s Heritage Reference Committee in May 2021 reviewed the proposed heritage item and moved a unanimous decision to support the listing based on the findings of the preliminary heritage assessment.

Summary

A preliminary heritage assessment has concluded that the sites have the potential to meet the threshold for listing as a local heritage item on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council prepare a planning proposal to amend KLEP 2015 to include the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites (Lot 3 DP 817195 and Lot 2 DP 817195 and Lot 11 DP 1083606 and Lot B DP 380305 and Lot 11 DP 1083606) as a proposed heritage item in Schedule 5 and on the Heritage Map.

B. If in the meantime there is any threat of imminent harm to either of the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club sites (Lot 3 DP 817195 and Lot 2 DP 817195 and Lot 11 DP 1083606 and Lot B DP 380305 and Lot 11 DP 1083606), Council request that NSW Heritage make an IHO on both properties to enable the sites to have protection from that harm until a Planning Proposal can be progressed to Gateway Determination.

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Preliminary Heritage Assessment - Killara Bowling and Tennis Club May 2021		2021/136235
	A2⇩	Letter from NSW Heritage - Killara Bowling and Tennis Clubs - Interim Heritage Order		2021/075266

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.14 / 234

Item GB.14	S13065

Post exhibition consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal to heritage list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item.

background:	On 16 February 2021, Council resolved to adopt the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) to include 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga and its interiors as a local heritage item and to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination. A Gateway Determination was received on 30 March 2021.The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 16 April and 30 April 2021. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition and recommends proceeding to list the property as a local heritage item.

comments:	Nine (9) submissions were received. Seven (7) in support of the proposal, one (1) in opposition of the proposal, and one (1) in general support of the listing but with specific concerns raised around the content of the heritage assessment.

recommendation:	That Council proceed with the Planning Proposal to heritage list the property known as ‘Laverty House’ at 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga with minor changes to the ‘Recommendations’ as set out on the State Heritage Inventory (‘SHI’) form, and resolve to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item.

Background

This report provides an overview of the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item. The Planning Proposal and all appendices are included at Attachment A1.

The property located at 207 Eastern Road Wahroonga, known as Laverty House is full-brick construction with the exterior and the interior of the house finished in white-painted dry-pressed bricks and a roof sheeted with corrugated fibre cement roof sheets. The property was the subject of a Council commissioned Heritage Assessment by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd in late 2020. The assessment concluded that the Site meets the threshold for local heritage listing on the grounds of historic, associative, aesthetic, social, research, rarity, and representative values. The assessment concludes that the property demonstrates significance through its connection with the Laverty family and their strong links to the NSW Art movement, as well as its association with renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher, as an intact example of the his work.

In September 2020, a group of architects first brought the subject property to Council’s attention. The group communicated their concern for the property’s vulnerability as an intact example of renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher’s work, which is located on a large allotment that was being advertised for sale. The property is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area (‘HCA’) nor is it within the immediate vicinity of any local or state heritage items.

On 8 September 2020, the potential vulnerability of the property was discussed with the Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’), who agreed that an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) should be applied in this instance. A preliminary heritage assessment was then completed by Council officers on 9 September 2020. This assessment is included as Appendix A of Attachment A1.

Council has delegated authority under s.25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (‘Heritage Act’) to make an IHO on the property. The purpose of an IHO being to provide Council with time to undertake an independent heritage assessment of the property to establish if it warrants formal heritage listing.

On 22 September 2020, the matter was raised at the OMC and Council resolved:

“Council resolve to place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road Wahroonga, Lot B, DP414327, to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim. Once the Interim Heritage Order is in place, that a site inspection for Councillors be arranged as soon as practicable.” (Appendix D of Attachment A1).

On 25 September 2020 the IHO came into effect. The wording of the IHO is as follows:

“This Interim Heritage Order will lapse six months from the date that it is made unless the local Council has passed a resolution before that date; and

(i) in the case of an item which, in the council’s opinion, is of local significance, the resolution seeks to place the item on the heritage schedule of a local environmental plan with appropriate provisions for protecting and managing the item; or

(ii) In the case of an item which, in the Council’s opinion, is of State heritage significance, the resolution requests the Heritage Council to make a recommendation to the Minister for Heritage under section 32(2) of the Heritage Act to include the item on the State Heritage Register.” (Appendix B of Attachment A1).

On 13 October 2020, a Councillor inspection was undertaken with Council staff and Council’s commissioned heritage consultant, Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd. On 22 October 2020, a draft heritage assessment was provided to Council staff for initial review and a final heritage assessment was provided on 29 November 2020. This assessment is included at Appendix C of Attachment A1.

On 17 November 2020, Council resolved to refer to this matter to the KLPP for advice. This resolution is included at Appendix E of Attachment A1.

On 14 December 2020, the KLPP recommended that a Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (‘DPIE’) for a Gateway Determination, subject to the Council considering the proposed curtilage. The wording of this advice can be found at Appendix G of Attachment A1.

On 16 February 2021, Council resolved to adopt the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) to include 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga and its interiors as a local heritage item and to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination. This resolution is included at Appendix H of Attachment A1.

On 2 March 2021, the Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (‘DPIE’) for a Gateway Determination. The Interim Heritage Order lapsed on 25 March 2021.

On 30 March 2021, the DPIE issued a Gateway Determination, authorising Council to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal. The Gateway Determination is included at Attachment A2.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, between 16 April and 30 April 2021.

Comments

Heritage significance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage significance of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga

Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty. Ltd completed a full heritage assessment for Laverty House. Dr Scott Robertson of this firm is a registered architect, who specialises in Post-war and Modern architecture. The final heritage assessment was provided to Council officers on 29 November 2020 and is included at Appendix C of Attachment A1. The assessment found that the property is of at least local heritage significance and should be included as a heritage item on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. The draft amended Heritage Inventory (‘SHI’) form for 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga is included at Attachment A3.

The heritage assessment considers that the property meets the threshold for local heritage listing on the grounds of historic, associative, aesthetic, social, research, rarity and representative values. The assessment concludes that the property demonstrates significance through its connection with the Laverty family and their strong links to the NSW Art movement, as well as its association with renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher, as an intact example of the his work.

The comprehensive Statement of Significance prepared by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty. Ltd. for

207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, expounds this importance. It reads:

“The substantially intact Laverty House is a rare example of an artist’s residence still with its functioning and identifiable artist studio. The way of life of the Laverty Family is still clearly evident in the extant planning and fabric of the house and studio. The design of the house and studio is of exceptional interest when planned expansion of the house is understood in order to cater for young couples of modest financial means in the post-war years, of postwar frugality, and of their increasing wealth and family size through later additions and enlargement of the small house nucleus.

The Laverty House is of local historical significance in demonstrating the post-World War 2 process of suburban infill development in earlier subdivisions. The Laverty House is of local aesthetic significance as its design exhibits the hallmarks of the Modernism with its clean lines, simple form, and walls of glass. The Laverty House is one of a series of houses within the Ku-ring-gai municipality that demonstrate the emergence of modern architecture in New

South Wales, of which the architect Sydney Ancher was a leading proponent.

The Laverty House is of local associative significance because of its strong association with renowned architect, Sydney Ancher and his firm, Ancher, Mortlock & Murray and also because of its association with two prominent Australian artists, Ursula and Peter Laverty, who was Head of the National Art School and later Director of the Art Gallery of NSW. In this regard the house is of historical significance as the site of a meeting that inaugurated the concept of the international art biennale for Sydney. The Laverty House has the potential to yield information about cultural history in NSW, through its association with the artistic world, which is strongly reflected through the extant building fabric, arrangement and composition of elements on the site, including a purpose-built artist studio.

The surviving architectural drawings and the completed Laverty House demonstrate the palette of materials and construction methods employed by the architectural firm of Ancher, Mortlock and Murray that are recognised as forming a regional expression of modern architecture. The Laverty House demonstrates the key characteristics of the domestic work of the firm of Ancher, Mortlock and Murray in the 1940s, 1950s & early 1960s and demonstrates the firm’s use of similar details in houses for young couples of modest means in the economically constrained period after World War II.”

Public Exhibition

As a result of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a total of nine (9) submissions were received. A summary table of the submissions can be found at Attachment A4.

Seven (7) submissions were received in support of the proposal, including a submission made by Heritage NSW which encouraged the identification and listing of a new heritage item, provided that all necessary due diligence, assessments and notifications have been undertaken. The Heritage NSW submission noted that the Heritage Assessment Report commissioned by Council indicates that the proposed item meets the criteria for listing at a local level.

Community submissions in support of the proposal commended the proposal to preserve and protect ‘Laverty House’ for its intrinsic architectural uniqueness, aesthetic integrity and the history it represents as an example of the introduction of modernism in architecture to Wahroonga. The submissions in support of the proposal stated agreeance for the significance attributed to the historical association with architect Sydney Ancher as well as the association with two prominent Australian artists, Ursula and Peter Laverty. The support for the listing and the local historical and local associative significance attributed to the Laverty House in these submissions is noted.

The one (1) submission in opposition of the proposal stated a lack of justification to warrant the heritage listing. The submission did not make any specific reference to the Planning Proposal or its appendices. Part 3 of the Planning Proposal includes the justification of the Planning Proposal on the basis of the assessment conducted by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd which maintains that the property satisfies the NSW Heritage Council’s criteria for listing.

The one (1) submission from the current owners of the property expressed support for Council’s intention to protect the house, and a desire to maintain the house and preserve an integral part of NSW’s history. The submission stated that the preservation and maintenance of the house can only happen if the residents are healthy, living happily and comfortable in the house. In accordance with this, the submission included a request for Council to reconsider the listing of the property in respect to Section 8 and Section 9 of the Independent Heritage Assessment Report (included as Appendix C of Attachment A1).

The current owners’ submission included the following further comments (in summary):

· Permitting modification of the sections of the house constructed in the third stage (1968) as they do not represent post-WW2 development.

· Questioning the local aesthetic significance of the house given that the current façade and half of the current house are from the third stage of construction designed by Judith Ambler and the timber screen placed in front of the main door diminishes visibility of the façade

· Concern with the significance placed on trees, which are undermining the house/ plumbing.

· Including the timber screen around the front courtyard in the ‘unsympathetic elements’ section

· Permitting the removal of the timber screen located in the new courtyard

· Permitting the modification of the current design/volume of the rooms due to modern lifestyle demands, cultural preferences and property market conditions. Objection to assertion that the original and altered room volumes are of exceptional significance and should be retained to preserve the significance of the architecture,

· Agreeance with the exclusion of the vinyl tiles from the list of finishes to be retained

· Disagreement with the inclusion of the floorboards, the ceiling, the roof and other finishes including but not limited to the tiles in the bathroom and the 1968 entry in the list of finishes to be retained, due to potential safety and maintenance cost issues.

Response to owners’ submission

Council recognises that upgrades to the dwelling may be required to suit the changing needs of the occupants. The listing of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item does not preclude future alterations from being undertaken. A qualified architect/heritage professional can provide advice on changes that may be suitable both internally and externally. The owners are also able liaise with Council to discuss sympathetic changes that may be possible. Any proposal for the site will be considered as part of a wider assessment, which balances planning and other considerations with heritage values.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

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

Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.

Governance Matters

The preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Council’s resolution from OMC 20 October 2020 requested that Council 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 to finalise the Planning Proposal. In issuing the Gateway Determination on 30 March 2021, the DPIE considered the nature of the Planning Proposal and conditioned the Gateway Determination for Council to be authorised as the local plan-making authority.

Council can resolve to make the plan in accordance with section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act and liaise with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required Local Environmental Plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal, as well as the Ministers function in making the plan.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council local government area will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk to Council and its reputation if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.

Financial Considerations

The costs associated with this matter are covered by the Strategy and Environment Department, Urban Planning and Heritage budget.

Social Considerations

The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s historic landscape and the garden suburbs that are valued by the community.

Environmental Considerations

Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s local environmental heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist Council in meeting this requirement. The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places include the substantial reduction in building, demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 16 April 2021 to 30 April 2021 in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan. The affected property owners and 34 adjoining property owners were notified of the public exhibition in writing and had the opportunity to provide feedback during the formal exhibition period. The Office of Premier and Cabinet – Heritage NSW was notified in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination. The Planning Proposal and supporting information was made available on Council’s website and was available to be viewed at the customer service desk in accordance with Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan.

As a result of the public exhibition, a total of nine (9) submissions were received. Seven (7) of the submissions were in support of the proposal, one (1) in opposition of the proposal, and one (1) in general support of the listing but with specific concerns raised around the content of the heritage assessment. All persons who made a submission were notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with the relevant internal sections of Council has been undertaken where required for this report.

Summary

On 30 March 2021, the DPIE issued a Gateway Determination, authorising Council to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, between 16 April and 30 April 2021. Nine (9) submissions were received. It is recommend that Council proceeds with the Planning Proposal to heritage list the property known as ‘Laverty House’ at 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga with minor changes to the ‘Recommendations’ as set out on the SHI form (Attachment A3) and resolve to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The Planning Proposal to list the property known as ‘Laverty House’ at 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a local heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 proceed with minor changes to the ‘Recommendations’ as set out on the SHI form.

B. Council proceed to make the plan, using its delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. Those who made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

Angela Smidmore

Assistant Urban Planner

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Planning Proposal to heritage list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga with appendices	Excluded	2021/103966
	A2⇩	Gateway Determination - 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga		2021/103973
	A3⇩	Draft Amended Heritage Inventory Sheet (SHI form) for 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga		2021/143772
	A4⇩	Submission Summary Table		2021/138228

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.15 / 272

Item GB.15	S13021

Planning Proposal for 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield - Removal of Heritage Listing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

background:	The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 20 October 2020. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of additional and revised documentation, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commence on 27 January 2021. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 as follows: · Remove heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

comments:	Council needs to determine whether the Planning Proposal to remove the heritage listing from the subject site should be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, and proceed to public exhibition. An independent heritage assessment has been undertaken by Perumal Murphy Alessi Heritage Consultants, which recommends that the heritage listing remain on 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

recommendation:	That Council does not support the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing on 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

Background

A pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held with the proponents and Council staff on 20 August 2020.

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 20 October 2020. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of amended documentation and payment of fees, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 27 January 2021.

The Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:

· Remove the local heritage listing of 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield – I412.

The Planning Proposal and appendices, including a heritage assessment undertaken by MacCallum Planning and Architecture are included at Attachments A1-A3.

Site Description and Local Context

The site that is the subject of this Planning Proposal is 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield (Lot 1 DP 168629). The site has an area of 1789sqm and is location on the southern side of Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield. Currently existing on the site is a 2 storey residential dwelling, with tennis court and swimming pool.

Image 1: Aerial photo of site and surrounding properties

The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential, the sites adjoining 14 Beaconsfield Parade to the east and south are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, and R4 High Density Residential closer to the Pacific Highway. The properties on the opposite side of Beaconsfield Parade are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Image 2: Excerpt from KLEP 2015 zoning map

The site is located opposite the Frances Street Heritage Conservation Area.

Image 3: Excerpt from KLEP 2015 Heritage Map

Heritage Listing

The site was first identified in the 1987 Ku-ring-gai Heritage Study prepared by Robert Moore, Penelope Pike, Helen Proudfoot, and Lester Tropman and Associates. The 1987 Inventory Sheet is included at Attachment A4.

The reasons for heritage listing the site as identified by the 1987 study included:

· Historic

· Architectural

The 1987 inventory sheet also noted that the building was altered or extended sympathetically at the time of listing.

As a result of this study the site was listed as a local heritage item with the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance on 6 October 1989. When the KLEP 2015 was gazetted, the heritage listing under the KPSO was transferred across into the KLEP 2015.

In March 2019 Council staff prepared heritage database research (Attachment A5) preliminary to a state heritage inventory form, which was prepared in draft in July 2020 (Attachment A6).

Comments

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the strategic and site specific merit of the proposed amendments to the Local Environmental Plan.

Heritage Assessment

As the planning proposal is seeking to remove the heritage listing from the property, the main consideration in the assessment of the Planning Proposal is whether the site meets the NSW Heritage Assessment Criterion for local significance. The Planning Proposal (Attachment A1) is supported by a heritage assessment undertaken by MacCallum Planning and Architecture (Attachment A2).

As part of the assessment of the Planning Proposal, Council engaged Perumal Murphy Alessi (PMA) to undertake an independent heritage assessment of the property to determine whether it should continue to be identified as a local heritage item. The report is discussed in further detail below and is included at Attachment A7.

An initial inspection of the property by Council staff was undertaken on 16 February 2021. A further inspection by the heritage consultant from PMA and Council staff was undertaken on 12 March 2021. The current property owner facilitated both inspections.

The NSW Heritage Assessment Criterion

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

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

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

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

E. Technical/Research significance – an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the local area’s scientific, cultural or natural history;

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

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

The PMA Report provides an assessment of the significance of the property against each of the NSW Heritage Criterion noted above. This assessment is included below.

Criterion (a) – An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

The site and building are of local historic significance as part of a late 19th century (1881) subdivision and Federation period of development of the local area.

Constructed in c. 1903-1904 the building is a good and largely intact example of a brick, two storey Federation period, detached dwelling that remains as an early dwelling in the immediate area.

The various changes to the building and site represent the growth and development of the area, changing trends, standards of living and occupant requirements.

The property meets the threshold for this criterion at a local level.

Criterion (b) - An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

The site, like the surrounding area is associated with a number of local land owners and speculators.

The site and dwelling are associated with members of the Hickson family. The site was part of a larger lot purchased by Sophia Hickson, wife of Robert Rowan Purdon Hickson, a chief engineer of the NSW Public Works and later Chairman and President of the Sydney Harbour Trust. Hickson resided at No. 16 Beaconsfield Parade. The subject house, No. 14 was constructed on a subdivided portion of the original allotment for one of their sons, Rowan Purdon Hickson, a solicitor who appears to have lived in “Coningsby” until c. 1914. The house was probably designed and appears to be an early design by another son, Robert Newburgh Hickson who after working with architectural firm Joseland and Vernon (who together and individually designed a number of listed dwellings in Ku-ring-gai) established and maintained an architectural practice in Armidale. A number RN Hickson designed buildings in Armidale and Guyra have been listed as local items.

The property meets the threshold for this criterion at a local level.

Criterion (c) - An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

The building is of local aesthetic significance as a good and largely intact example of a Federation period, detached two storey brick dwelling that despite some modifications, alterations and additions including painting of the brick facades, the dwelling retains a strong sense of its early form, character and details including the face stone base, two storey brick facades, north and eastern projecting bays, one and two storey south-western rear wing, main gabled and hipped roof form and terracotta roof cladding, rendered brick chimneys, roughcast rendered and timber shingled details, open front wrap-around verandah, open front balcony and associated details and original timber framed windows and doors.

The dwelling also retains its original internal layout with main rooms located about a central hall and landings, spatial character and internal fabric and details including rendered and set walls, plaster ceilings, ceiling roses and profiled cornices, a pressed metal ceiling and timber joinery including a timber stair and balustrade, skirtings and architraves. Also fireplaces with marble and timber surrounds typical of the period.

The dwelling also retains its early (1906) boundaries, brick front fence and a front and side garden setting with garden trees and plantings which overall makes a positive visual contribution to the Beaconsfield Parade streetscape. The building setting is also enhanced by a landscaped garden area and swimming pool on the western side, garden and plantings to the south-east and an open tennis court at the rear (south) of the buildings.

The building occupies an elevated site and is a highly visible element particularly when travelling east along Beaconsfield Parade. The open areas around the building, eastern driveway, tennis court and western garden also enhances its setting and curtilage of the building.

The property meets the threshold for this criterion at a local level.

Criterion (d) - An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons

The site and buildings have no particular association with a particular community or cultural group for social or cultural reasons and is of limited social significance as part of the early 20th century residential development of the local area.

The property does not meet the threshold for this criterion.

Criterion (e) - An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

The house retains early fabric and details, however, generally incorporates standard construction materials and techniques and parts including the shingled claddings and internal linings, have been renewed and replaced.

The building appears to be the first to be constructed on the site, however, the archaeological potential is considered to be low with any early resources likely to have been disturbed by the residential subdivision of the area, construction of the building and additions also addition of the driveway, garage, pool, tennis court and landscaping around the site.

The property does not meet the threshold for this criterion.

Criterion (f) - An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

The building is a representative example of a two storey, brick Federation period dwelling in Ku-ring-gai. However, the dwelling is one of a small group of listed, two storey Federation period dwellings in Lindfield. The building retains original features and details that responded to the site, however, these are not uncommon or rare in the local and wider context.

The dwelling is now one of three listed Federation period dwellings that remain in Beaconsfield Parade. The other two, however, are single storey and vary in building form, fabric and details. The street and nearby Frances Street is largely characterised by later, Inter-war residential buildings with some late 20th and early 21st residential developments also now located in the immediate area.

The property does not meet the threshold for this criterion.

Criterion (g) - An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s

· cultural or natural places; or

· cultural or natural environments (or a class of the local area’s cultural or natural places; or

· cultural or natural environments)

The building is a largely intact, representative example of a two storey, brick Federation period dwelling with a garden setting.

The property meets the threshold for this criterion at a local level.

Statement of Significance

The PMA Report provides the following statement of significance:

No. 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield, “Coningsby” is of local historic, associative and aesthetic significance as a good and largely intact representative example of two storey brick dwelling constructed in c. 1903-1904. The building is associated with the family of RRP Hickson, prominent engineer and president of the Sydney Harbour Trust who resided on the neighbouring site and is an early work of architect RN Hickson and remains from the early development of the street and represents the Federation period of development of the local area.

Despite alterations and additions, the building retains its two storey scale and a strong sense of its early form, character and details that responded to the elevation and aspect of the site including the face stone base, two storey brick facades, north and eastern projecting bays, one and two storey south western rear wing, main gabled and hipped roof form and terracotta roof cladding, rendered brick chimneys, roughcast rendered and timber shingled details, open front wrap-around verandah, open front balcony and associated timber details and original timber framed windows and doors.

The dwelling also retains its original internal layout and spatial character and internal fabric and details including rendered and set walls, plaster ceilings, ceiling roses and profiled cornices, a pressed metal ceiling and timber joinery including a timber stair and balustrade, skirtings and architraves. Also fireplaces with marble and timber surrounds.

The building is sited relatively close to the street frontage and retains a front and side garden setting that has several mature trees that overall makes a positive visual contribution to the Beaconsfield Parade streetscape. The dwelling is partially screened by the site and street trees, however, due to its elevation, garden and open setback to the east and west of the dwelling and setback of the neighbouring buildings is a visually prominent element in the street particularly when travelling east along Beaconsfield Parade. The building is also enhanced by the front brick fence, larger site and open tennis court.

The building is one of a few remaining Federation period dwellings in the eastern end of the street and is one of a small group of two storey, Federation period dwellings in Lindfield listed under the KLEP 2015.

The existing dwelling and garage incorporate standard materials, construction techniques, typical layout and has undergone some alterations, however, these are largely complementary and sympathetic. The western verandah, side and rear landscaping, pool and tennis court emphasise the larger site area and enhance the use and curtilage of the building.

In summary, the PMA heritage assessment finds that the property is of local heritage significance and should continue to be included as a Heritage Item on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015.

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice

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 Local Planning Panel for advice, before Council considered whether or not to forward the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination under section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) on 17 May 2021 for advice. The applicant engaged Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning to prepare a submission (dated 13 May 2021 and included at Attachment A8) and to address the KLPP.

The Weir Phillips submission and address to the KLPP make the following points with regards to the heritage listing of 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield:

Weir Philips Comment

· the site does not have any direct association with the prominent engineer Robert Hickson who lived at 16 Beaconsfield Parade. 14 Beaconsfield Parade was built for and occupied by this son Rowan. 16 Beaconsfield Parade has been approved for demolition and Council did not oppose the demolition. There is also no evidence that Rowan’s brother, architect R.N.Hickson or Joseland and Veron to whom he was articled to in c.1904, had any input into the design of the dwelling.

Council Response

· The property at 16 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield was not listed as a heritage item. It is likely that the property was never picked up in the 1987 heritage study, or subsequent heritage studies due to its location on a battle axe lot and being obscured by the prominent building at 14 Beaconsfield Parade.

· The Council Heritage Referral for the Development Application for the approved townhouse development on 9B Gladstone, 16 & 18 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield noted: The house (being 16 Beaconsfield Parade) is considered to have sufficient heritage value to reach a local level of historic and aesthetic significance and if it had been assessed before rezoning may have been listed as a heritage item.

· The demolition of 16 Beaconsfield Parade is not justification for the delisting (and demolition) of 14 Beaconsfield Parade.

· Heritage significance of 14 Beaconsfield Parade is a sum of many parts, beyond associational significance. Despite not being his primary dwelling, 14 Beaconsfield Parade, the PMA report concludes that it is associated with Hickson and Hickson family.

Weir Philips Comment

· the period and style of dwelling (federation) is not rare within Ku-ring-gai, and therefore a high level of integrity should be required if the listing is to be maintained. Questions raised as to the integrity of the verandah detailing and the extent to which the dwelling can truly be considered an example of federation style.

Council Response

· The heritage item is a representative example of two-storey Federation development and its hybrid style is of interest and unique in Lindfield. Overall the building makes a positive contribution to the character of Beaconsfield Parade, assisted by its visually prominent location on the topography alongside a clear access handle.

Weir Philips Comment

· extensive changes have occurred to the immediate setting of the item within the last 10years.

Council Response

· 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield has been listed as a heritage item since 1989, and all planning considerations (both strategic rezoning and development applications) since this time have sought to manage and retain the heritage significance of 14 Beaconsfield Parade. The application of the R3 medium density residential zoning on adjoining sites (12 and 16 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield) was purposely applied as an interface between the 5 storey high density developments further to the east and the heritage item.

· The approved developments on the adjoining sites were required to give consideration to the heritage item 14 Beaconsfield Parade as follows:

- 12 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield – DA0633/16 – demolition of existing structures and construction of multi dwelling housing comprising 13 townhouses and basement parking required increased setbacks and amendments to the materials and façade treatment in order to be sympathetic to the adjoining heritage item, 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield. The Heritage Impact Statement submitted with the development application was prepared by Weir Phillips who concluded that the development at 12 Beaconsfield Parade would not have any impact on the significance or setting of 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield.

- 9B Gladstone, 16 & 18 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield – DA0540/16 and DA0398/16 – staged development comprising a total of 42 townhouses and 2 dwelling houses and private road. The tennis court and rear landscape area of 14 Beaconsfield Parade provides a buffer from the proposed townhouse development, and the townhouses are to be set substantially lower than 14 Beaconsfield Parade due to the topography of the sites, and accordingly will be minimally visible from 14 Beaconsfield Parade. It was required that the driveway be moved closer to the western boundary away from 14 Beaconsfield Parade in order to allow for screen planting to provide landscape amenity to the item.

Weir Philips Comment

· there is precedence for removing a listing based on change to the item and its surroundings, with Council supporting the removal of a heritage listing of 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra on the basis that the dwelling had been altered, and the setting altered by the construction of medium and high density development within its immediate vicinity.

Council Response

· The heritage listing from 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra was removed on 10 August 2018, and the OMC 22 November 2016 Council report noted:

the property is considered to be listed in error after extensive modifications had occurred in 1986, 1993 and 2000 including the subdivision of the rear of the property in 1970. The property is recommended to be removed due to modifications to the building altering its level of intactness as an extant example of this style of housing. Changes to the building have enlarged its size and scale of the building from its original ‘modest’ form. Modifications include a first floor addition to the rear of the property which is visible from the street, construction of non-original bay windows, bathroom renovations and the addition of a swimming pool. Also the house is not situated in a HCA, therefore the streetscape character is not considered to be highly significant to Council. Substantial development to surrounding dwellings has occurred in the immediate areas, further minimising the aesthetic and historical significance of the streetscape character and the dwellings contribution within it.

· The key differences between the removal of the heritage listing from 14 Warrangi Street, Turramurra and the proposed removal of the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield are:

- 14 Warrangi Street was a first identified as a potential heritage item in 2005, however the listing did not come into effect until 2 April 2015 some 10 years later. In this regard it is a relatively new listing – unlike 14 Beaconsfield Parade which has been listed and managed as an item since 1989.

- In the ten years between 14 Warrangi Street first being identified as a potential heritage item and actually being heritage listed, substantial development to the immediate area surrounding 14 Warrangi Street occurred. As this was prior to the site being heritage listed, the developments would not have taken into consideration any impaction to the heritage significance of this property. Unlike 14 Beaconsfield Parade, where all development on the surrounding properties had to take into consideration the heritage significance of 14 Beaconsfield Parade, and amendments were made to ensure there would be no adverse impacts to the item or its setting.

Weir Philips Comment

· should the sites immediately surrounding 14 Beaconsfield Parade be developed, the site will be surrounded on three sides by three to five storey residential flat buildings.

Council Comment

· The site is not adjoined by R4 High Density Residential zoning or 5 storey residential flat buildings. The site is adjoined by:

- 12 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield to the east, which is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, with 3 storey townhouse development approved and currently under construction.

- 18 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield to the south, which is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, with 3 storey townhouse development approved and under construction.

- Access handle to the west which is zoned part R2 Low Density Residential and part R3 Medium Density Residential. The access handle provides vehicle access to the approved development on 9B Gladstone, 16 & 18 Beaconsfield Parade. No buildings or built form are approved or could be constructed on this access handle.

- Properties on the opposite side of Beaconsfield Parade to the north, are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and are located within a Heritage Conservation Area.

Image 4: Excerpt from KLEP 2015 Zoning Map showing surrounding zoning

and approved building footprints on adjoining sites.

The KLPP advised:

The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel unanimously recommended that the Planning Proposal for the removal of the heritage listing of 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield does not proceed to Gateway Determination.

Assessment of Merits – Strategic and Site Specific

The Planning Proposal to remove the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield does not demonstrate strategic merit, specifically it is inconsistent with the following:

· Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities – the planning proposal seeking to remove the heritage listing is inconsistent with Objective 13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced.

· North District Plan – the Planning Proposal seeking to remove the heritage listing is inconsistent with Planning Priority N6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage. The North District Plan outlines that heritage is an important component of local identity, and that a variety of local heritage items and streetscapes form part of the character throughout the District.

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement – the Planning Proposal seeking the removal of the heritage listing is inconsistent with Local Planning Priority K13: Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage

The Planning Proposal does not adequately address or demonstrate site specific merit which would support the removal of the heritage listing. The justifications in the Planning Proposal for the delisting are based on the heritage merits of the property. In this regard, it is noted that the site has been identified and managed as a heritage item since 6 October 1989, and the Council commissioned independent heritage assessment has concluded that the site meets the threshold for local heritage against the NSW Heritage Criterion a), b), c) and g) and that it should continue to be retained as a heritage item.

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

P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

P5.1 Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed

P5.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets

P5.1.1 Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy consistent with the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

Governance Matters

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

If Council fails to make a decision within 90 ddays (from the commencement of the assessment of the planning proposal) or if Council makes a decision to not support the planning proposal, the proponent can request the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a rezoning review.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council need to determine its position on the matter as to whether the planning proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, and proceed to public exhibition.

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner. Additionally there is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai LGA will be protected.

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee of $14,000 under Council’s Fees and Charges 2020-2021. The cost of the review and independent heritage assessment undertaken by Perumal Murphy Alessi is covered by this fee.

Advertising costs are separate to the application fee, and will be requested should the Planning Proposal receive a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning Industry and Environment.

Social Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s local cultural heritage. The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s community valued historic landscape and garden suburbs.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations arising from this Planning Proposal.

Community Consultation

At this stage, no community consultation has been undertaken. In the event that the Planning Proposal is granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on a statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

This report and assessment of the Planning Proposal has included input from Councils heritage and planning staff.

An independent heritage assessment of the subject site was undertaken by Perumal Murphy Alessi Heritage Consultants, which has been considered by the members of the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee.

The Planning Proposal was considered by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 17 May 2021 The KLPP unanimously agreed that the Planning Proposal to de-listing the property should not proceed to Gateway Determination.

The matter was also raised at the HRC meeting held on 20 May 2021 and the HRC agreed with the recommendations of the KLPP that the heritage listing should remain on the property.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield that seeks to remove the local heritage listing from the site. An independent heritage assessment of the site has been undertaken which recommends that the heritage listing remain.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council does not support the planning proposal for the removal of the heritage listing from 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield, and the Planning Proposal will not be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

B. The proponent be notified of Councils decision.

Alexandra Plumb

Acting Senior Urban Planner

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Planning Proposal 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield	Excluded	2021/014818
	A2	Planning Proposal - Appendix A - Heritage Assessment by MacCallum Planning & Architecture	Excluded	2021/014822
	A3⇩	Planning Proposal - Appendix B Ku-ring-gai Council Citation Sheet		2021/014825
	A4⇩	14 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield - SHI heritage inventory sheet data form - Moore and Pike 1987		2014/111685
	A5⇩	14 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield - Heritage database research		2021/119628
	A6 ⇩	14 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield - DRAFT SHI heritage inventory form		2021/119627
	A7	Heritage Assessment - No. 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield - Perumal Murphy Alessi - 2021	Excluded	2021/119964
	A8 ⇩	Weir Phillips, Heritage Planning - Submission to KLPP - 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield		2021/139922

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.16 / 317

Item GB.16	S12030

Consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal and Draft Site Specific DCP - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville (Roseville Memorial Club site). For Council to determine whether to adopt the planning proposal and to determine whether to adopt the draft site specific DCP.

background:	The planning proposal for the subject site seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP Local Centres 2012: · Increase the maximum height of buildings from part 20.5m and part 14.5m to 26.5m; · Increase the floor space ratio from part 2:1 and part 2.8:1 to 3:1 to enable a 7 storey building on the site; · Rezone a small part of the site (garden bed approx. 9sqm) from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre; · Amendment to schedule 1 additional permitted uses to allow a residential flat building on the site to be located wholly above a ground floor registered club.

comments:	The planning proposal and draft site specific DCP where placed on public exhibition from 26 March – 23 April 2021. 12 submissions were received.

recommendation:	That Council adopt the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

Purpose of Report

For Council to determine whether to adopt the planning proposal and to determine whether to adopt the draft site specific DCP.

Background

Planning proposal and process

The sites the subject of this planning proposal are part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville. The site comprises the Roseville Memorial Club (64-66 Pacific Highway), and part Council owned land (part 62 Pacific Highway) being land adjacent to Larkin Lane that is currently utilised for public parking and a garden bed extending from the Memorial Park.

Image 1: subject site and surrounding context

The planning proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012:

· Rezone part of 62 Pacific Highway Roseville (part Lot 2 DP 202148) (being part of the garden bed approx. 9sqm) from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre.

· Increase the maximum height of buildings across the site to 26.5m

· Increase the floor space ratio across the site to 3:1

· Amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to allow a residential flat building on the site to be located wholly above aground floor registered club.

	Existing	Proposed
Zoning	part B2 Local Centre part RE1 Public Recreation	B2 Local Centre *
Height of Buildings	part 14.5m (N) part 20.5m (Q) part no mapped height	26.5m (T)
Floor Space Ratio	part 2:1(T) part 2.8:1 (U2)	3:1 (V)

Table 1: comparison of existing LEP development standards and proposed amendments

*Note: zoning amendment for part 62 Pacific Highway from RE1 to B2 Local Centre has already been adopted by Council on 17 March 2020 as part of Consolidating LEPs Planning Proposal

The planning proposal was submitted to Council on 19 July 2018, however the application was incomplete. Following the submission of additional information, the assessment of planning proposal formally commenced on 9 January 2019.

The planning proposal was reported to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) on 18 March 2019. The KLPP resolution recommended that Council submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway Determination. ‘

The planning proposal was reported to OMC 9 April 2019 where Council resolved to submit the planning proposal (subject to amendments) to DPIE for a Gateway Determination which would enable the planning proposal to be placed on public exhibition.

Gateway Determination

The planning proposal was submitted to DPIE for a Gateway Determination on 6 August 2019. A Gateway Determination was received on 2 June 2020. The Gateway Determination includes conditions which required some minor amendments to the planning proposal document prior to public exhibition.

The amended planning proposal documentation (as required by the Gateway Determination) was submitted to DPIE on 27 November 2020 for review and approval for public exhibition. DPIE provided pre-exhibition endorsement of the amended documents on 10 March 2021.

Draft site specific DCP

As part of Council’s resolution from OMC 9 April 2019, it resolved that should a Gateway Determination be issued then site specific amendments to the DCP should be prepared and publically exhibited with the planning proposal.

A draft site specific DCP was prepared by Council staff to support the amendments sought by the planning proposal, and to provide greater assurance of development outcomes on the site. The draft site specific DCP includes objectives and controls relating to future character.

At the OMC 16 February 2021 Council endorsed the draft site specific DCP for public exhibition.

Concurrent Planning Actions on the subject site

The site is subject to a number of planning actions, including a Development Application (DA) and Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) concurrently proceeding alongside the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP.

The assessment of this planning proposal and supporting draft site specific DCP is an independent process to the assessment of the DA and VPA.

It should also be noted that this is a planning proposal, which only considers proposed amendments to the LEP and assesses the strategic and site specific merits of those amendments. A planning proposal does not give approval to any development or sale/use of Council land. The proposed amendments to the LEP need to be acceptable as a future development outcome on the site. Should the planning proposal (and draft site specific DCP) be supported and the amendments gazetted in the LEP, then a development application could be lodged seeking consent in accordance with the new provisions. The Department of Planning’s A Guide to Preparing Local Environment Plans notes ‘While a variation may be pursued to secure a particular development outcome for a site, that outcome itself will be subject to a separate assessment process via the Development Application process’.

Comments

1. Public exhibition

The planning proposal and draft site specific DCP were placed on public exhibition from 26 March – 23 April 2021 in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan. A copy of the exhibited planning proposal and appendices is included at Attachments A1-A9.

2. Submissions – planning proposal and draft site specific DCP

A total of 12 submissions were received during the public exhibition. A submission summary table is included at Attachment A10 which provides a summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, Council’s response and any recommended amendments to be made to the planning proposal or site specific DCP.

The following are some of the most common matters raised in the submissions.

· Impact of heritage value of the area.

Comment: The subject site and the wider Roseville Local Centre along the Pacific Highway are not identified as a Heritage Conservation Area. There is one heritage item, 1 Maclaurin Parade located to the west of the subject site on the opposite side of Larkin Lane. The draft site-specific DCP includes detailed controls regarding the built form and considerations of views to and from the item to ensure that future development respects and conserves the heritage item and its setting. The site specific DCP also contains provisions to ensure any future development on the site fits sensitively into the streetscape and is of high quality form and design.

· Oppose increase in height and floorspace. Impacts of bulk and scale and lead to overdevelopment of site. Will be most visually prominent building. Roseville is not a main hub like Chatswood or Gordon. Highest building in vicinity is only 3 stories. Out of character with surrounding area. Residential component of development should be limited to 3 storeys. Set a precent for rest of Roseville.

Comment: It is acknowledged that the existing built form in the centre is predominantly 2 storey development, however the existing planning controls within the Roseville Local Centre permit buildings to a height of 3-4 storeys, and 6 storeys on the Memorial Club site. The suggestions that the residential component of future development on the site be limited to 3 storeys is lower than the current permitted height. The planning proposal seeks to amend the height of buildings development standard to 26.5m across the site which equates to a 7 storey mixed-use building. The proposed increase in floor space ratio to a consistent 3:1 across the site is commensurate with the proposed increase in height. The existing local centres DCP and draft site-specific DCP identify this site as being suitable for a landmark building, being located at the gateway to the Roseville Local Centre. Greater height than that provided for the remainder of the local centre is therefore considered appropriate, and the transition between the 4 storeys permitted on the adjoining sites, and the proposed 7 storeys on this site is not considered to be excessive. Additionally, given the sites strategic location within the Roseville Local Centre, on the highway and adjacent to the train station, it is an area appropriate for higher density and height in accordance with the planning priorities outlined in the North District Plan.

The draft site specific DCP includes a number of objectives and controls to ensure future development has appropriate articulation, and massing through the provision of a three storey street wall height and setbacks to the upper levels to ensure appropriate development outcomes are achieved on the site. The suggestion that the increase in height would result in Roseville Local Centre being a main hub like Chatswood is not comparable, noting that Chatswood is identified as a Strategic Centre in the North District Plan and permits buildings with heights ranging from 34m-246m in the area around the station and Pacific Highway. The increase in height and floor space will not set a precedent, noting that the site is identified as being suitable for a landmark building, and should other planning proposals be lodged for other sites in Ku-ring-gai seeking amendments to heights and floorspace, these proposals would be assessed on their strategic and site specific merits.

· Support for proposal, facility such as club serves the broader interests of the community and provides social benefits.

Comment: The amendments sought in the planning proposal seek to ensure the future viability and continued provision of the club in this location.

· Not enough parking.

Comment: Any development application would be required to provide car parking for the ground floor use and residential component in accordance with the controls in the site specific DCP. As an indication, for a ground floor use (based on recent Development Applications) approximately 35-40 car parking spaces would be required. For a ground floor retail use, approximately 21-27 car parking spaces would be required, and for a ground floor business/office use approximately 16-21 car parking spaces would be required. How these car parking spaces are delivered would be subject to the details in a future development application.

· Add to traffic congestion on Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade.

Comment: The planning proposal was supported by a Traffic and Transport study which notes that the proposed uplift on the site would generate a low increase in traffic generation, and would not have any noticeable effect on the operation of the surrounding road network. Council has requested TfNSW consider installing Do Not Queue Across Intersection signed on the Pacific Highway on both approaches to Maclaurin Parade to improve driver discipline, so that queued vehicles on the Pacific Highway leave the intersection clear to improve opportunities for vehicles from Maclaurin Parade to enter the intersection.

· Opposition to public park being rezoned and Council land being sold. Sale of community land will deprive community of public parking spaces.

Comment: The planning proposal does not result in the sale of Council land, which is separate process under the draft VPA and Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy. There appears to be a misconception that the whole of the Roseville Memorial Park and/or Larkin Lane carpark is to be rezoned or divested. The area the subject of the rezoning is a small area of unpaved, garden bed, within the bitumen strip of car parking behind the Memorial Club (see image below). The line of the RE1 zone in this location is an anomaly, and the planning proposal seeks to amend the zone boundary to ensure that the B2/RE1 zone boundary aligns with the lot boundary of 64 Pacific Highway, Roseville. It should also be noted that this anomaly was picked up in the Consolidated LEPs Planning Proposal and Council resolved to adopt this rezoning on 17 March 2020 with the adoption of the Consolidating LEPs Planning Proposal.

Image 2: “Garden Bed” small area to the right of the informal parking spaces – Area to be rezoned from RE1 to B2 Local Centre (approx. 9sqm). The rezoning of this area to B2 Local Centre is consistent with the zoning of the adjoining informal carparking spaces, and will ensure the boundary of B2/RE1 zones aligns with the southern boundary of 64 Pacific Highway.

Image 3: Existing and Proposed zoning amendment. Amendment will ensure boundary

of RE1/B2 Local Centre zones is aligned with lot boundary of 64 Pacific Highway.

The planning proposal will not remove any public parking from the Larkin Lane carpark. The area subject to the separate draft Planning Agreement is the small bitumen area behind the Memorial Club which provides approximately 5 informal parking spaces. This land has been identified since 2012 in the Local Centres DCP and Public Domain Plan as part of a future pedestrian footpath connecting The Rifleway and the Memorial Park. The use of this land for informal parking is temporary, and it does not matter who owns this land, the use will cease to be parking and become available to pedestrians.

· Opposition to proposed amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to permit registered club on ground floor of residential flat building.

Comment: The planning proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the LEP to include a site specific additional permitted use to permit a residential flat building above a ground floor registered club on the site. The development outcome of this additional permitted use would be the same as shoptop housing, which is already permitted within the B2 Local Centre zone, with the only difference being that the ground floor could be wholly used for a registered club instead of ground floor retail or business premises. The site could not be wholly used for residential development. The amendment to Schedule 1 is supported as it is a site specific amendment, and would not apply to other sites across Ku-ring-gai, as the site has a longstanding land use as a registered club and the proposed amendment will enable this use to continue into the future as part of redevelopment of the site.

· Submissions attached previous submissions made in response to Development Application and Draft Planning Agreement.

Comment: The subject site has been subject to concurrent planning actions, including a Development Application and subsequent Land and Environment Court appeal, draft Planning Agreement and this Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP. The Development Application was assessed by an external independent planner, and approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 9 September 2020, and was the subject of a LEC appeal which was finalised on 27 April 2021. The draft Planning Agreement was dealt with by Council at OMC 27 April 2021. The assessment of this Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP are an independent process to the Development Application and draft Planning Agreement. Any future redevelopment of the site under the proposed revised development standards would be subject to a separate development application.

3. State Agency Consultation

The conditions of the Gateway Determination required consultation with the following state agencies and public authorities under section 3.34(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

· Transport for NSW

· Transport for NSW (Roads and Maritime Branch)

· Sydney Water

· Endeavour Energy (note: Endeavour Energy is the provider to Western Sydney. Ausgrid is the provider within Ku-ring-gai, and accordingly the planning proposal was referred to Ausgrid for comment).

· NSW Environment, Energy and Science (EES)

The State agencies and public authorities were provided a copy of the planning proposal on 21 April 2021 and 21 days to provide comment as per the conditions of the Gateway Determination.

Responses were received from Ausgrid, Sydney Water, TfNSW and EES.

A State agency submission summary table outlining the key issues raised by each agency and Council’s response is included at Attachment A11. Copies of the State Agency submissions are included at Attachment A13.

4. Overview – planning proposal merit

As detailed in the report to OMC 9 April 2019, it is considered that the amendments sought by the planning proposal to the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 have strategic and site specific merit and should proceed. A brief overview of the merits of the planning proposal is provided below:

· Strategic merit

o Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities – The planning proposal is consistent with the broad directions and objectives as follows:

§ Direction – Infrastructure supporting new developments

§ Objective 6 – Services and infrastructure meet communities changing needs

§ Objective 7 – Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

§ Direction – Giving people housing choices

§ Objective 10- Greater housing supply

§ Direction – Developing a more accessible city

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

The planning proposal will enable future mixed-use development on the site within the existing Roseville Local Centre providing residential accommodation in a location that is highly accessible to public transport, shops and services. The planning proposal will also enable the continued provision of the club in this location within the centre, which has the potential to provide for social gathering and connection with the wider community.

o North District Plan – The planning proposal is consistent with the following Planning Priorities:

§ Planning Priority N4 – Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

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

§ Planning Priority N6 – Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the districts heritage

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

The planning proposal will deliver integrated land use and transport planning, with the provision of a mixed-use development on the site adjacent to the Roseville train station, providing high frequency public transport to key strategic centres of Chatswood, St Leonards, North Sydney, Sydney CBD and Frenchs Forest consistent with the aims of a 30min city. The planning proposal will provide for housing close to transport, enabling access to jobs and services.

o Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement – The planning proposal is consistent with the following Local Planning Priorities:

§ Local Planning Priority K3 – Providing housing close to transport, services and facilities to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community

§ Local Planning Priority K6 – Revitalising and growing a network of centres that offer unique character and lifestyle for local residents

§ Local Planning Priority K7 – Facilitating mixed use developments within the centres that achieve urban design excellence

§ Local Planning Priority K12 – Managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

§ Local Planning Priority K14 – Providing a range of cultural, community and leisure facilities to foster a healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected Ku-ring-gai.

§ Local Planning Priority K21 – Prioritising new development and housing in locations that enable 30minute access to key strategic centres

The planning proposal will enable redevelopment of the site, facilitating the revitalisation of the Roseville Local Centre and the delivery of improved public domain outcomes, such as pedestrian linkages to the Memorial Park and wider local centre. The sites location is consistent with the priorities to provide new development and housing in a location that enables 30min access to key strategic centres, as well as accessibility to services and facilities provided by the Roseville Local Centre. The site has been identified as suitable for providing a landmark building and site specific DCP controls have been prepared to ensure future development on the site is of a high quality form and design.

o Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan 2038 – the planning proposal is consistent with the following objectives:

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

§ Long Term Objective P4.1 Our centres offer a broad range of shops, services and contain lively urban village spaces and places where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

The planning proposal will enable the redevelopment of the subject site, contributing to the creation of a lively urban village within the Roseville Local Centre, as well as providing residential accommodation and the potential for the club to be retained on the site, providing social benefits for the community.

o State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions

§ The planning proposal is not inconsistent with the SEPPs applicable to the site.

§ The planning proposal is consistent with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones – the planning proposal does not reduce the area or location zoned for business uses, and does not reduce the total potential floor space area for employment uses. The objective of the planning proposal is to enable the retention of the registered club use on the site as part of mixed-use redevelopment comprising residential accommodation above.

§ The planning proposal is consistent with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 2.3 Heritage Conservation – the planning proposal does not propose to create, alter or delete any heritage listing applicable to the subject site. Detailed controls have been incorporated into the site specific DCP to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the heritage significance or setting of the heritage item 1 Mclaurin Parade and 3.4 Integrated Land Use and Transport – the planning proposal seeks to increase the height and floorspace on a site within the existing B2 Local Centre zone and located with high levels of accessibility and proximity to public transport with the Roseville train station. This results in more efficient use of land and encourages viable and more sustainable transport modes other than private car, such as walking, cycling and public transport.

§ The planning proposal is justifiably inconsistent with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 6.3 Site Specific Provisions – the objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. The planning proposal seeks to add a site specific additional permitted use under Schedule 1 of the LEP. The additional permitted use sought on the site is for a residential flat building, subject to the entire ground floor to be wholly used for the purpose of a registered club. The development outcome of this additional permitted use would be the same as shoptop housing, which is already permitted within the B2 Local Centre zone, with the only difference being that the ground floor could be wholly used for a registered club instead of ground floor retail or business premises. The site could not be wholly used for residential development. The amendment to Schedule 1 is supported as it is a site specific amendment, and would not apply to other sites across Ku-ring-gai, as the site has a longstanding land use as a registered club and the proposed amendment will enable this use to continue into the future as part of redevelopment of the site.

· Site specific merit

o Land use: The site has a longstanding land use for a registered club, being the Roseville Memorial Club. The amendments sought by the planning proposal seek to ensure the continued provision of the club in this location, through ensuring permissibility via the amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses.

o Location: The subject sites location on the Pacific Highway and adjacent to the Roseville train station, and within the Roseville local centre. This proximity to public transport and shops, services and facilities is an appropriate area for higher height and density. The sites location on the crest of the ridgeline and adjoining the Roseville Memorial Park makes it suitable for a landmark building. The planning proposal will enable redevelopment of the site, facilitating the revitalisation of the centre and delivery of improved public domain outcomes.

o Built form: The planning proposal seeks to amend the height of buildings development standard to 26.5m across the site which equates to a 7 storey mixed use building. The proposed increase in floor space ratio to a consistent 3:1 across the site is commensurate with the proposed increase in height. The existing local centres DCP and draft site-specific DCP identify this site as being suitable for a landmark building, being located at the gateway to the Roseville Local Centre. Greater height than that provided for the remainder of the local centre is therefore considered appropriate, and the transition between the 4 storeys permitted on the adjoining sites, and the proposed 7 storeys on this site is not considered to be excessive. Additionally, given the sites strategic location within the Roseville Local Centre, on the highway and adjacent to the train station, it is an area appropriate for higher density and height in accordance with the planning priorities outlined in the North District Plan.

o Social: The amendments sought in the planning proposal seek to ensure the future viability and continued provision of the Roseville Memorial Club in this location, a land use which has the potential to provide for social gathering and engagement and connection with the wider community.

o Environmental: The site is not subject to environmental constraints such as contamination. The site adjoins the Roseville Memorial Park and controls have been included in the site specific DCP to ensure the retention and protection of the existing trees.

o Infrastructure: The site is already used for urban purposes and located within a local centre with access to infrastructure such as water and electricity. Sydney Water and Ausgrid have not objected to the planning proposal. The site is a highly accessible location in terms of public transport infrastructure.

5. Draft Site Specific DCP

At OMC 9 April 2019 Council resolved to submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination. As part of the resolution, Council also resolved to prepare a site specific DCP. At OMC 16 February 2021 Council endorsed the draft site specific DCP for public exhibition.

The draft site specific DCP contains controls and objectives which have been prepared to guide all future development outcomes on the site.

It is recommended that a post-exhibition amendment be made to the site specific DCP to provide further clarification at Part 14G.2 Pedestrian and Vehicle Access Control 3 to add a note below the table which specifically states that the parking for any residential component is to be as per Part 8B.2 Car Parking Provision for Mixed Use Development.

Note: the car parking rate for residential component is to be as per Part 8B.2 Car Parking Provision for Mixed Use Development .

A copy of the amended draft site specific DCP is included at Attachment A12.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 – 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

P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

P2.1.1.1 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

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.

The site specific DCP controls are required to be consistent with the proposed LEP provisions contained in the planning proposal. Under Section 4.43(5)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979, a provision of a development control plan has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent or incompatible with a provision of the LEP applying to the land. Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 sets out that after considering submissions on a draft DCP, Council may:

· approve the plan in the form in which it was publically exhibited; or

· approve the plan with such alterations as the council thinks fit; or

· not proceed with the plan

Council must publish notice of its decision on the draft DCP on its website within 28 days of the decision being made. The DCP comes into effect on the date that the notice is published on Council’s website, or on a later date specified in the notice. It is recommended that the DCP is to come into effect on the same date as the planning proposal.

Risk Management

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

Financial Considerations

This is a privately initiated planning proposal and was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges. The planning proposal was also subject to a further fee following the issue of the Gateway Determination for the advertisement of the planning proposal.

The costs associated with the preparation of the draft site specific DCP have been paid by the applicant in accordance with Councils Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Social Considerations

The planning proposal is not anticipated to result in any adverse social impacts. The amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to enable residential accommodation above a ground floor registered club will enable the continued provision of the Roseville Memorial Club at this location which provides social benefits to the wider community.

Environmental Considerations

A Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation has been undertaken for the site and submitted as part of the planning proposal, which concludes that the site is unlikely to contain widespread unacceptable contamination from previous and current activities within the site and its surrounds. The investigation concludes that the site is suitable, from a contamination perspective, for the proposed rezoning from RE1 to B2 and subsequent residential land use above a ground floor commercial use with no access to site soils.

Community Consultation

The planning proposal and draft site specific DCP were publically exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

The planning proposal and draft site specific DCP were on exhibition from 26 March – 23 April 2021. Notification letters were sent to properties within the surrounding vicinity and the exhibition material was made available on Council’s website and in hard copy at Council’s Customer Service.

12 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition. All persons who made a submission were notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the planning proposal, drafting of the site specific DCP and consideration of submissions received in response to the public exhibition involved internal consultation with Council officers with specialisation in traffic and transport, planning, urban design, public domain and heritage.

Summary

The planning proposal and draft site specific DCP for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville were placed on public exhibition from 26 March – 23 April 2021.

A total of 12 submissions were received, both in support and opposition to the planning proposal and draft site specific DCP.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council adopt the planning proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville to:

- Increase the maximum height of buildings from part 20.5m and part 14.5m to 26.5m;

- Increase the floor space ratio from part 2:1 and part 2.8:1 to 3:1

- Rezone a small part of the site (garden bed approx. 9sqm) from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre;

- Amendment to schedule 1 additional permitted uses to allow a residential flat building on the site to be located wholly above a ground floor registered club.

B. The planning proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in accordance with section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment be requested to make the plan.

C. Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan amendment associated with the planning proposal. The Development Control Plan is to come into effect on the same date as the associated amendments to Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 come into effect.

D. Those persons who made submissions be notified of Councils decision.

Alexandra Plumb

Acting Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Planning Proposal - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville	Excluded	2020/346940
	A2	Appendix 1 - Urban Design Report - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076945
	A3	Appendix 2 - Traffic Report - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076938
	A4	Appendix 3 - Heritage Impact Statement - Part 62, 64-6 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076926
	A5	Appendix 4 - Statement from Roseville Memorial Club - planning proposal Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076966
	A6	Appendix 5 - Survey - planning proposal part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076973
	A7	Appendix 6 - Existing Development Survey - planning proposal part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076980
	A8	Appendix 7 - Community Consultation Report - planning proposal part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/076993
	A9	Appendix 8 - Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation - planning proposal part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/077004
	A10	Submission Summary Table - Public Exhibition - Planning Proposal for ~ 66 Pacific Highway Roseville	Excluded	2021/152093
	A11	State Agency Submission Summary Table - Planning Proposal Roseville Memorial Club Site	Excluded	2021/129840
	A12	Draft site specific DCP - Part 14G - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville - Amended Post Exhibition	Excluded	2021/152361
	A13 ⇩	Combined State Agency Comments - Planning Proposal and site specific DCP for part 62, 64-6 Pacific Hwy Roseville		2021/158890

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.17 / 333

Item GB.17	S06604/2

Generic Plans of Management - project update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the preparation of updated Plans of Management (PoMs) for Crown land managed by Council and Council owned land classified as community.

background:	All Crown Land managed by Council must have a plan of management prepared in accordance with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act) and adopted by the Minister administering the CLM Act. All land owned by Council, and classified as community land, must have plans of management prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 - Section 36. Under both Acts land is to be categorised as one or more of the following: a) a natural area; b) a sportsground; c) a park; d) an area of cultural significance; and e) general community use.

comments:	Council currently has twenty-four (24) PoMs comprising seven (7) generic plans and seventeen (17) site-specific plans of management. The majority of the plans are more than 10 years old with only one plan less than five years old and the oldest dating back to 1996. The majority of these plans are no longer consistent with the legislative requirements, which changed in 2018, and are in need of review. Four (4) plans are currently under review namely the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands PoM, the Sports Facilities PoM, Ku-ring-gai Flying fox Reserve PoM and Bushland Reserves PoM.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note this report and that Council write to The Department of Industry advising them of a timeframe for completion of the remaining Crown Lands PoMs.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the preparation of updated Plans of Management (PoMs) for Crown land managed by Council and Council owned land classified as community.

Background

All Crown Land managed by Council must have a plan of management prepared in accordance with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act) and adopted by the minister administering the CLM Act.

All land owned by Council, and classified as community land, must have plans of management prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 - Section 36.

Under both Acts land is to be categorised as one or more of the following:

a) Natural area;

b) Sportsground;

c) Park;

d) Area of cultural significance; and

e) General community use.

Comments

Council currently has twenty-four (24) PoMs comprising seven (7) generic plans and seventeen (17) site-specific plans of management. The majority of the plans are more than 10 years old with only one plan less than five years old and the oldest dating back to 1996. The majority of these plans are no longer consistent with the legislative requirements and are in need of review.

Four (4) PoMs are currently under review namely the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands, Sports Facilities, Ku-ring-gai Flying fox Reserve, and Bushland Reserves.

Under the Local Government Act, 1993, Council has the discretion in most cases to prepare a specific POM for the area or a generic plan that applies to more than one piece of land. Generic plans will be entirely appropriate in many cases, for example in dealing with children’s playgrounds or other pieces of land that contain similar facilities with similar management issues. However, generic POMs cannot be made for land:

· declared as critical habitat or directly affected by a threat abatement plan or a recovery plan under threatened species laws (sections 36A(2) and 36B(3));

· declared by Council to contain significant natural features (section 36C(2)); or

· declared by Council to be of cultural significance (section 36D(2)).

These types of land require site-specific PoMs – for example, a sportsground with a heritage grandstand of state historical significance; or a reserve where the use of the land is complex with multiple categories or where the land has special considerations. In addition, when land in other categories (such as parks and sportsgrounds) under the Council’s care is identified as requiring a more detailed management process than is afforded by a generic PoM to address, the Council will seek to address these requirements through the development of site-specific management plans.

Generic Plans of Management

Council currently has seven (7) generic plans of management: two PoMs are currently under review namely the Natural Areas PoM and the Sports Facilities PoM; the former is well advanced and reported to Council at OMC 18 May 2021; the latter is in early draft form and is yet to be reported to Council.

Listed below are Council’s current PoMs (Table-1). The CLM Act and the LG Act no longer recognises the categorisations previously used by Council, requiring Council to reduce the number of POMs from seven (7) to four (4). The recommendation is to incorporate the Car Parks, Children's Services, Community Halls and Meeting Rooms and Miscellaneous Land POMs into one POM titled General Community Use.

Existing PoMs	Last Updated	Comments	Recommendations
Bushland Reserves	2013	Currently under review	Complete review of PoM
Car Parks	2009	Categorisation no longer recognised under the relevant Acts	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM (where applicable)
Children's Services	2002		Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
Community Halls and Meeting Rooms	2013		Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
Miscellaneous Land	2009		Incorporate into General Community Use PoM (where applicable)
Parks	2005	Current plan 15 years old and requires review	Review and update existing PoM
Sports Facilities	2015	Currently under review	Complete review of existing PoM

Table 1 – Existing Plans of Management

The NSW Government provides templates to guide the preparation of PoMs. Council has been advised that Template 2 — Generic plan of management for community land, structured by category (including council owned community land and council managed Crown reserves) is the most appropriate for the Ku-ring-gai context. This PoM template is a ‘generic PoM’ to cover reserves by category under section 36 of the LG Act. Each category of land is considered separately namely parks, sportsgrounds, natural areas and general community use. Unfortunately, these templates were only provided in February 2021.

Site-Specific Plans of Management

Council currently has seventeen (17) site-specific PoMs; two of these are currently under review. The draft St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands PoM, reported to Council as a draft for exhibition on 27 April 2021; and the draft Ku-ring-gai Flying fox Reserve PoM, reported to Council 18 May 2021.

Listed below are Council’s current site specific POMs (Table-2). A number of these PoMs no longer meet the requirements set out in the Developing Plans Of Management for Community Land Crown Reserves - Guideline For Council Crown Land Managers, 2020 prepared by the NSW Government. In a number of other cases the land is classified Operational and does not require a PoM. It is likely that, moving forward, more than half of these PoMs will be incorporated into new Generic PoMs. A final listing of Site-Specific PoMs will be the subject of a future report.

Current Site Specific PoM	Last Updated	Comments	Recommendation
Bicentennial Park	2011	Well used district/regional park with complex mix of uses and a portion heritage listed.	Retain site specific PoM
Canoon Road Recreation Area	2017	Heavily used sports fields with complex parking and traffic considerations. Recently prepared PoM with extensive consultation undertaken.	Retain site specific PoM
Council Chambers	2009	Land classified operational and therefore does not require a PoM under the LG Act.	PoM not required
Echo Point Park	2004	Heritage Listed park with cultural significance.	Retain Site Specific PoM
Firs Estate Cottage	2013	Heritage Listed building in park with cultural significance.	Retain site specific PoM
Gordon Golf Course	2009	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into Sports Grounds PoM
Ku-ring-gai Art Centre	2009	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
Ku-ring-gai Community Groups Centre and Car Park, St Ives	2015	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
Ku-ring-gai Library	2003	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
Lindfield Library	2014	Land is classified operational and therefore does not require a PoM under the LG Act	NA
Marian Street Theatre	2002	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM
North Turramurra Recreation Area	2009	Does not meet criteria for site-specific PoM.	Incorporate into Sports Grounds PoM
Performing Arts Resource Centre	2001	Council has resolved to commence the process of reclassifying the land to operational land.	Incorporate into General Community Use PoM in the interim until reclassified
St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands	2021	Currently being reviewed. Draft adopted by Council for exhibition	Retain Site-Specific PoM
St Ives Village Green	2011	Primarily sports fields and sporting infrastructure with supplementary community facilities and park functions	Incorporate into Sports Grounds, Parks and General Community Use PoMs
Swain Gardens	1996	Heritage listed garden with cultural significance	Retain Site-Specific PoM
Ku-ring-gai Flying fox Reserve	2021	Currently being reviewed. Draft adopted by Council for exhibition	Retain Site-Specific PoM

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

P6.1.1: A program is being implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.

P6.1.1.7: Progressively review and update Community Plans of Management.

Governance Matters

The Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act) was enacted on 1 July 2018. Section 3.23(6) & (7) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW councils to categorise and adopt plans of management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new plans of management must meet both the requirements of the CLM Act and the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act).The requirements are such that many of Council’s existing plan of managements that include Crown land do not comply with the CLM Act.

This report indicates a number of current PoMs will be revoked. In relation to revocation and cessation of plans of management, Section 42 of the LG Act states:

(1) A plan of management for community land may be revoked by a plan of management adopted under this Division by the council.

(2) A plan of management ceases to apply to land if

a) the land is reclassified as operational land, or

b) in the case of land that is not owned by the council-the land ceases to be controlled by the council.

Risk Management

Ensuring the lawful use and occupation of Crown Land is an essential part of Councils’ role as the manager of Crown land.

The Department of Industry, as the administrator of the Crown Lands Act, has set a deadline for plans of management under new legislation. The CLM Act requires that Council prepare a compliant POM for all Crown land that they manage as community land within three years of the commencement of Part 3 of the CLM Act (that is, by 30 June 2021). Notwithstanding this statutory timeframe, templates for PoMs were only released by the Department in February 2021.

Most Crown Land in the Ku-ring-gai LGA falls under the Natural Areas category and within the St Ives Showground Precinct. Council is well progressed with these PoMs.

Crown Land also comprises other parcels of land that include sports grounds, parks and general community use categories. The Generic PoMs for these lands will not be finished by the June deadline, due in part to the local government elections and it is recommended that Council write to the Department of Infrastructure advising them of a timeline for completion of these PoMs. Council understands that many councils are in the same position as Ku-ring-gai.

The Department of Industry has advised Council that their timeframe for review of draft PoMs, prior to exhibition, will be in the order of 6 months.

Financial Considerations

No additional funding has been provided for this time limited PoM review. Existing budgets have to date covered the cost of reviewing the generic and site-specific plans of management, limiting outputs.

Social Considerations

Public use and enjoyment of a reserve is consistent with the purpose of most reserves managed by CLMs. The plan of management should outline:

· what activities are and are not allowed on the reserve;

· what facilities are required now and within the timeframe of the plan of management to provide for those activities; and

· disabled access requirements and other special services (if required) should be addressed.

Where activities are additional to the purpose for which the land was set aside, it needs to be clear that the plan of management is authorising an additional purpose or purposes to permit those activities.

Environmental Considerations

The plan of management should indicate the environmental values that need to be protected and how this will be achieved.

Common issues to address include management of bushfire risk, weeds, feral animals, threatened species, heritage structures, Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The plan of management should also address sustainable use of resources, for example recycling programs and water conservation.

Community Consultation

Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires:

· public notice of a draft plan of management;

· public exhibition of the draft plan for a minimum of 28 days; and

· the public notice must also specify a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft plan is placed on public exhibition during which submissions may be made to the council.

Section 40A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires a Public hearing in relation to proposed plans of management (including a plan of management that amends another plan of management) if the proposed plan would have the effect of categorising, or altering the categorisation of, community land. The categories are:

· a natural area;

· a sportsground;

· a park;

· an area of cultural significance; and

· general community use.

Internal Consultation

A working group has been established comprising key staff from the Strategy and Environment and Community Departments.

The Working Group has established a set of draft mapping principles to guide the preparation of the Generic PoMs:

1. All Crown land managed by Council is to be included in a PoM;

2. Crown land not currently managed by Council, but it is Council’s intent to manage in the future, is to be included in a POM;

3. land that is not in Council’s ownership or care is not in a PoM, this includes land owned by Sydney Water, TFNSW and DPIE among others.

4. Council owned land classified Operational is not to be included in a PoM;

5. Council owned lands such as drainage reserves, access ways, roads and unformed roads, that do not have a Lot and DP are not included in a PoM. This rule does not apply to Crown land that Council manages;

6. where land is currently classified Operational but is intended to be Community it is included in a PoM with a recommendation to reclassify;

7. LMUs are to match land use zone boundary wherever possible;

8. sports club buildings (including car park areas and access to site) associated with sports fields, with the potential for non-sport related use, are to be categorised as General Community Use. The rule is not applied to smaller buildings and structures including amenities and storage;

9. playgrounds associated with sports fields are considered an ancillary use and categorised as Sports Facilities;

10. tennis courts in parks are considered an ancillary use to park uses and categorised as park;

11. community buildings (including car park areas and access to site) in parks, where the building is currently leased to a non-park related use, are categorised General Community Use;

12. scouts and guide halls (including car park areas and access to site) are categorised as General Community Use and align with either current lease areas, future proposed permissible use areas and/or zoning where possible; and

13. the categorisation of bio-banking sites has not changed as part of this review

Summary

Council currently has twenty-four (24) PoMs and the majority of these plans are no longer consistent with the legislative requirements, and are in need of review. Four (4) plans are currently under review namely the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands PoM, the Sports Facilities PoM, Ku-ring-gai Flying fox Reserve PoM and Natural Areas PoM.

This report recommends that Council undertake a review of all its Generic POMs over the next 6 months, this will involve consolidating the existing plans into four new Generic PoMs, namely:

a. Sportsgrounds;

b. Parks;

c. General Community Use; and

d. Natural Areas (draft adopted by Council).

An internal working party has undertaken a comprehensive review of Council’s Land Management Units and has developed a set of 16 principles to guide the development of the new PoMs and categorisation of land.

This report also discusses Council’s current site-specific PoMs, of which there are seventeen (17), and explains that a number of these PoMs are either outdated and longer required or are applicable to Operational land. A final listing of Site-Specific PoMs will be the subject of a future report to Council.

The Department of Industry has set a deadline of 30 June 2021 for completion of a review of plans of management applying to Crown Lands under new legislation. The report notes that Generic PoMs for sports grounds, parks and general community use categories will not be finished by the June deadline, due in part to Council elections, and it is recommended that Council write to the Department of Infrastructure advising them of the delay.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Receive and note this report; and

B. Write to the Department of Industry advising them of a time frame for completion of Crown Lands PoMs.

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.18 / 346

Item GB.18	S13102

Hassall Park Draft Landscape Master Plan - for Exhibition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council’s endorsement to place on exhibition a draft Landscape Masterplan for Hassall Park, St Ives.

background:	The Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan is the tenth district park masterplan to be undertaken by Council since Council resolved in 2006 to prepare masterplans for all its fifteen district parks. The draft Landscape Masterplan does not involve extensively developing the park, but rather enhancing it by introducing additional facilities to improve amenity, improve access and increase user comfort.

comments:	The Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan provides a vision for the embellishment of the park based on community feedback and careful analysis of context and site conditions. It will allow Council to carry out staged improvements to park amenity and infrastructure by prioritising the allocation of available funds.

recommendation:	That Council places the Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan on public exhibition for a minimum of 4 weeks and that the amended plan incorporating community comment be reported back to Council for consideration and adoption.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s endorsement to place on exhibition a draft Landscape Masterplan for Hassall Park, St Ives.

Background

To date Ku-ring-gai Council has prepared and adopted Landscape Masterplans for:

· Golden Jubilee Field;

· Roseville Park;

· Sir David Martin Reserve;

· Swain Gardens;

· St Ives Village Green;

· Turramurra Memorial Park and Karuah Park;

· Wahroonga Park Precinct;

· Gordon Recreation Ground; and

· Robert Pymble Park.

Landscape Masterplans will be prepared for the remaining parks over the next few years:

· Queen Elizabeth Reserve (2022);

· The Glade (2023); and

· Killara Park (Bert Oldfield Oval) (2024);

Comments

The Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan is the tenth district park master plan to be undertaken by Council since Council resolved in 2006 to prepare masterplans for all of its fifteen district parks.

A draft Landscape Masterplan for Hassall Park has been developed which will prioritise works over the next 10 years. The draft landscape masterplan does not involve extensive changes to develop the park, but rather enhances it by introducing additional facilities to improve amenity, improve access and increase user comfort.

Hassall Park is classified as a District Park because of its size and location; large areas of public recreation space; and its unique landscape character and heritage. The Greener Places Design Guide (Government Architect New South Wales) outlines that a District Park is defined by the following determinants;

· is distributed to allow for a 2km catchment of most houses;

· serves several neighbourhoods;

· users will be willing to drive up to 30 minutes to access the park;

· has 50% road frontage to support visibility and accessibility;

· has extensive recreation space, and often operates as a sporting facility;

· contains local and destination play space opportunities, including large active spaces for youth;

· picnic and gathering spaces for large groups; and

· exercise equipment stations are considered desirable at this scale.

Figure 1. Location Plan

The Landscape Masterplan aims to conserve, protect and enhance the landscape character of Hassall Park while improving the amenity and aesthetics of the park.

The Landscape Masterplan gives consideration to:

· upholding good stewardship of the parkland;

· improving access to the park for all users and community groups;

· improving opportunities for community recreation, leisure and enjoyment;

· preserving and retaining the distinctive landscape character that acknowledges heritage and history;

· maintaining, improving and embellishing existing park facilities and buildings whilst balancing the demands on the facilities;

· integrating sustainable and environmental principles into park design;

· implementation of a risk assessment and crime prevention through environmental design;

· on-going maintenance of the park and long-term viability;

· providing an implementation program for the development of the park including resource implications, estimated costs and priorities;

· focusing Council resources to the areas that will deliver the greatest benefit to our residents, and;

· providing a holistic approach to design that allows for improvements to occur in stages as funding becomes available.

The Landscape Masterplan is a long-range document identifying priorities for improvements over the next 10 years. It will be monitored on an annual basis and reviewed as required.

Vision

The vision for Hassall Park is that it will maintain its character as a high quality sports field whilst protecting the natural bushland surrounds. Improvements to active and passive recreation and opportunities for socialisation will bring the park up to the level required for a District Park.

Landscape Character

Hassall Park is strongly characterised by its use as a sports field. The majority of the park is open grass at a level higher than its surroundings. The park is fringed by natural bushland with the north-western and south-western corners containing vegetation belonging to the Duffys Forest Endangered Ecological Community.

The park is regularly shaped, with residential properties bounding two sides along Hassell Street and Palm Street. The main access to the Park is from a small parking area located off Hassell Street. This is on the lowest side of the park, and a ramp and stairs lead up to the club house/amenities building. The building has a generous hardstand to three sides and is located to capitalise on views across the playing fields.

Given the park’s predominant dedication to sports facilities, other functions or amenities are punctuated around the edges of the park. The play space is located in the corner between Palm Street and Mona Vale Road, set amongst trees and grass. There is little understorey, with a generous kick-about area between the play space and the adjacent bushland. Other key pieces of infrastructure are the two sets of cricket practice nets, one located on the corner of Mona Vale Road and Mawson Street, and the other located south of the clubhouse adjacent the bushland on the Mawson Street and Hassell Street corner.

The sporting field is bounded by a low chain mesh fence to preclude errant balls from running down the surrounding embankments. The ground accommodates a senior size cricket field in the summer and a senior and a junior sized rugby pitch (side-by-side) in the winter. The grassed embankments lead down to the interface with the bushland on the north and south peripheries. Informal tracks provide access through the bushland for walkers. The bushland edge to the park has several gated and informal entry points for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles. Aside from these, the edges are typically non-trafficable with no footpath provision.

Opportunities

Hassall Park presents an excellent framework for an improved district level park. Its location and established presence will continue to attract users from across the LGA. No substantial changes are proposed for the overall fabric of the park, however significant infrastructure upgrades will contribute to making the park more accessible, functional and desirable as a destination.

Clubhouse from the field

Play space

Cricket practice nets (Mawson St)

Draft masterplan

Figure 2. Draft Landscape Masterplan Plan

Proposed key features to be included in the draft masterplan park upgrade are outlined below:

· The playground is to be upgraded to meet district level play space standards. The upgrade will include new equipment and surfacing, furniture and planting to create an enlivened space which will appeal to a broader range of users.

· An upgraded path network including perimeter path and universal access. An accessible path/ ramp will be provided from the car park beside the amenities building onto the field. The new perimeter path will be installed in conjunction with the replacement and realignment of existing fencing.

· New entry nodes to park periphery including more generous thresholds, new planting and mulching, and signage.

· Opportunities for additional parking.

· Upgrade existing cricket practice nets, exploring opportunities for a consolidated location

· Improved field lighting - replacement of halide flood light fittings with energy efficient LED lights, ensuring consistency of illumination.

· New furniture throughout the park including seats, picnic settings, bins, drinking fountains, shelters and BBQ.

· Investigations into feasibility of stormwater harvesting for reuse as field irrigation.

· Retention and improvement of existing field condition to maintain capacity for winter and summer sports.

· Retention and protection of areas of existing Duffys Forest Endangered Ecological Community vegetation.

· Exercise stations along the perimeter pathway with fitness equipment.

· Amenities building improvements including change facilities and universal access

The Hassall Park Draft Landscape Masterplan is provided at Attachment A1.

integrated planning and reporting

THEME 3, Issue P6: Enhancing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

P6.1.1: A program is being implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.

P6.1.1.2: District park landscape masterplans are prepared to inform the forward Open Space Capital Works Program.

Governance Matters

Plans of Management

There are three Plans of Management which govern the activities and management of Hassall Park including;

Parks Plan of Management (2006),

Sports Facilities Plan of Management (2015), and

Bushland Reserves Plan of Management (2017).

Council are currently updating these Plans of Management in line with the State Government requirements for Crown Lands wherein Plans of Management applicable to the park will change. The masterplan will be updated as required to reflect this.

Council’s Access and Disability Inclusion Plan 2020-2024 outlines its obligations under relevant disability inclusion legislation and its commitment to equitable access. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Council must provide ‘equitable and dignified access’ as part of a new facility. The landscape masterplan addresses these obligations by proposing the staged implementation of new accessible pathways including providing a perimeter path around the park, linking different activity areas within the park, investigating new accessible toilet facilities and an upgrade to the playground to provide an accessible and inclusive play space.

A primary objective of the landscape masterplan is to ensure the park is as accessible and inclusive as possible. This will be achieved by supporting the equality of access to the proposed facilities and by encouraging community inclusion through the creation of recreation opportunities for users of varying age, ability and background.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental approval for proposed works identified in the Landscape Masterplan will entail preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors, including an environmental assessment under Part V of the EP&A act, the EPBC act and any other relevant legislation to be prepared and approved prior to tender. This will include a review by Council’s Heritage Planner.

The park’s playground and its surrounding facilities and support infrastructure will be designed and constructed in accordance with relevant Australian Playground Standards, and in line with the ‘Everyone Can Play’ guideline.

Risk Management

The draft Hassall Park Landscape Masterplan will assist Council to reduce risk. Current risks are exacerbated by the degraded condition of infrastructure, facilities and assets that also may not give equitable access to park users, such as the clubhouse.

Degraded facilities can foster vandalism and lack of ownership by the community. The risk of vandalism is the high cost of repairs or replacement, damaged facilities presenting a hazard to park users, and the nuisance and inconvenience whilst repairs are undertaken. Reducing vandalism reduces Council’s risk. Improving a facility increases ownership, vigilance, use and interest from the community and assists to reduce vandalism.

In developing detailed designs for the park, the existing trees on the site have been assessed by an independent arboricultural consultant for tree health and safety and these reports have been reviewed by Council’s Tree Management Coordinator to ensure any risk and safety issues related to trees can be addressed as part of the project design.

Financial Considerations

Council’s District Park Landscape Masterplans are used in the preparation of the Parks Development Program in Council’s Delivery Program and annual Operational Plan. Each master plan is staged to be implemented over a number of years.

The primary source of funding for the proposed works is the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 Works Programmes: Local parks, Local sporting facilities – Existing Open Space Embellishment that provides funding for the upgrade of Hassall Park to improve amenity. Currently there is approximately $650,000 available for the project including design and project management.

Some works identified in the master plan are of an operational nature and may be completed within existing recurrent budgets. Additional funding from grants may also be used to supplement the budget, subject to award

Potential funding sources from grants include:

· Everyone Can Play

· Community Building Partnerships

· Crown Reserves Improvement Fund Grant

· Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation

· Grants offered by NSW Office of Sport (varies)

· Grants for sustainable initiative including LED lighting and rainwater harvesting

Social Considerations

The Hassall Park Landscape Masterplan provides additional leisure and passive recreation facilities and amenities for a wider range of users than exists currently, and will cater for a growing population.

The proposed new facilities are designed to encourage social interaction, community inclusion and enjoyment of the outdoors. The improvements to the park will provide additional opportunities for healthy outdoor pursuits for residents living nearby.

The park and playground design provides overlapping territories for each age/ability group to encourage social inclusion. The new playground layout will provide graduated challenges and opportunities to self-initiate and learn through practice, aiming to empower children to develop the bodily competence it takes to master the equipment or activity and feel independence and a sense of achievement. The play space design will contain facilities for carers/parents to actively supervise and be involved in the play activities of their charges, to promote social interaction that can increase trust and shared values between generations.

The assets and facilities improvements proposed in the landscape masterplan will encourage community inclusion through increased recreational and play opportunities. By creating visitor experiences and recreational value, residents will be drawn to the park where a diverse mix of open space opportunities will help meet increasing demand for open space from a growing population

Environmental Considerations

Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council has a responsibility to consider the likely environmental impact of any proposed activity.

Preliminary environmental site analysis has been carried out at the site with staff from Strategy and Environment and Operations Departments to determine site constraints early in the design process and to ensure any new park embellishments have minimal or positive impacts on the environment.

An arboricultural consultant was commissioned by Council in April 2021 to prepare a preliminary report to review the condition and significance of the approximately 120 trees within or adjacent to Hassall Park. Several of the large trees within the park are remnants of the original vegetation community that existed prior to the development of the area. These trees are characteristic of the Duffys Forest, which is identified as an endangered ecological community in the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW). A large proportion of the trees were found to be in good condition and of high landscape significance. Trees nominated for removal on the landscape masterplan are typically classified as being of ‘low’ to ‘very low’ retention value.

Positive environmental impacts of the Landscape Masterplan proposals include:

· increasing tree protection areas around existing trees;

· improving maintenance boundaries to prevent negative impacts from mowing;

· improving the energy and water use of the existing lighting and clubhouse through asset upgrades;

· feasibility study into improvements in the capture of stormwater runoff and re-use; and

· the proposed planting of replacement canopy trees.

The embellishment works proposed in the Landscape Masterplan are listed as exempt development under SEPP – Infrastructure, Clause 66 (1) (a) (i), (iv). Council’s environmental assessment processes will be followed as determined by site requirements and an environmental assessment will address all relevant environmental impact issues. The environmental assessment will be prepared by Council’s Natural Areas Officers and approved by Director Strategy and Environment and Director Operations, prior to tender.

Community Consultation

Community consultation and engagement for this project is being delivered as a two-phase process. Phase 1, delivered in March 2021 was designed to gather community opinions about the park. Outputs of this phase have been used to inform development of the draft Landscape Masterplan.

Phase 2 engagement (public exhibition) will seek feedback on the draft Landscape Masterplan to help ensure the final document meets the needs and expectations of the local community.

Phase 1 Engagement

In March 2021, Council undertook the first phase of community engagement. This consisted of an online survey designed to gather feedback about how residents currently use Hassall Park and what facilities they would like to see in the future.

The online survey was hosted on Council’s community engagement platform and the printed survey was mailed to 840 residents who live within 500 metres of the park.

A total of 232 responses were received. A summary of the survey responses is provided in Attachment A2.

Residents appreciate the open, green and natural aspects of Hassall Park. They generally feel that there is a balance between the sports utilisation and the ability to use the park for unstructured recreation. The park provides good opportunities to socialise, and people appreciate the bushland setting. The playground is also a drawcard for local residents.

Parking was one of the key concerns raised in relation to the park, with most people agreeing that there was insufficient parking, particularly for weekend sport. There was a good deal of commentary of the traffic situation in the vicinity of the park and the needs for improvements.

The sporting user groups are overall very happy with the park. The field condition is generally very good and the clubhouse provides valuable amenity. The users noted there are however a number of upgrades that would improve the experience for users including an upgrade of the cricket net facilities, separate female change room facilities, and improved universal access.

Respondents would like to see the following upgrades:

· additional seating;

· tables and picnic settings;

· shelters;

· access to the toilet facilities;

· improvements to the clubhouse;

· children’s playground; and

· improved park entrances to improve accessibility and inclusivity.

There was also interest in the addition of BBQ facilities and adult exercise equipment. Respondents also suggested a bike path /jogging track around the perimeter of the park to improve pedestrian safety and provide a safe area for children to practice riding bikes and scooters.

Overall as a district park, Hassall Park rated 6.28/10 with residents surveyed. The park is generally well loved, but responses indicated that there are areas for improvement. That said many respondents do not feel it is necessary to make changes to the park suggesting it be left as it is, and money be diverted to other Council priorities such as traffic concerns.

The results of the questionnaire, along with additional comments offered, provide valuable input for the preparation of the draft Landscape Masterplan.

Phase 2 Engagement - Exhibition of draft Landscape Masterplan

Using outputs from Phase 1 engagement, the draft Landscape Masterplan has been prepared for Hassall Park. It is proposed that the draft Landscape Masterplan be publicly exhibited throughout the month of July 2021.

A small community event will be held on site to complement the public exhibition. The event will be designed to encourage community engagement and give visitors the opportunity to ask questions about the proposal and complete surveys in person. Council’s Urban Design team and Community Engagement officers would be on hand to answer any questions and provide advice. The event will be held in the park on a Saturday during the exhibition period.

In addition the community will be able to provide feedback on the draft Landscape Masterplan via:

· online survey - hosted on Council’s online engagement platform oursay.org;

· paper survey (provided on request and available at Community information event);

· online discussion forum – hosted on Council’s online engagement platform oursay.org; and

· written submissions.

The event and exhibition will be promoted via:

· Council’s website;

· North Shore Times;

· Council’s social media channels;

· E-newsletters;

· direct contact with Phase 1 engagement participants;

· letter box drop to notify local residents within a 500m radius of the park; and

· signage and information in the park.

All of the community feedback received will help to guide the preparation of the amended landscape masterplan and, whilst it is not possible to implement all of the community’s ideas, the amended landscape masterplan will seek to provide a balanced solution considering the many and varied opinions expressed during consultation with available funds.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken in the process of preparing the landscape masterplan with relevant staff in Community, Strategy and Environment, and Operations.

An internal stakeholder meeting was held on 18 May 2021 with feedback on the masterplan having been incorporated into the design.

Council’s Open Space Operations maintenance staff and supervisors have been consulted to determine maintenance issues and asset condition. The arboricultural report has been reviewed by Council’s Tree Management and Natural Areas staff.

Internal consultation is supportive of the Landscape Masterplan.

A Councillor briefing on the Draft Masterplan was also provided on 25 May 2021.

Summary

The preparation of the draft landscape masterplan to date has developed in response to initial community consultation, incorporating elements identified as priorities for upgrade as part of this process. This initial community consultation was conducted in March 2021, and highlighted the need for an improved playground, accessibility in and around the park, an upgrade to amenities, and improvements to existing cricket net facilities. The draft concept plan has also been subject to rigorous internal stakeholder consultation and review through ongoing liaison and formal meetings. This has been supported by the procurement of specialist advice relating to existing trees in the form of a preliminary arboricultural report.

The draft landscape masterplan is now at a stage where it is ready to be presented to the community as part of public exhibition. The proposed strategy for public exhibition includes traditional online and hardcopy correspondence, supported by an activation event in the park.

It is recommended that it be placed on public exhibition in July 2021 in order to seek further community input.

Results of this community consultation feedback will then guide the progression of the Landscape Masterplan document, enabling its finalisation for Council endorsement and adoption.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council adopt the Hassall Park draft Landscape Masterplan for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.

B. Following exhibition an amended Landscape Masterplan incorporating community comment be reported back to Council.

Fleur Rees

Senior Landscape Architect

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Hassall Park Draft Landscape Masterplan	Excluded	2021/142198
	A2	Hassall Park Landscape Masterplan Survey Responses and Analysis	Excluded	2021/149013

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.19 / 359

Item GB.19	S12657

Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study - Post Exhibition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report to Council the results of the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study.

background:	At its meeting of 8 December 2020, Council resolved that: A. Council adopt the draft Local Character Study for exhibition. B. Council undertake further community engagement including workshops with residents to discuss and develop desired future character statements for the Broad Character Areas. C. The final Study, incorporating community input, be reported back to Council before end of June 2021.

comments:	The draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study was placed on public exhibition from 15 March to 26 April, 2021 inclusive. Council received six (6) written submissions and 26 completed online surveys.

recommendation:	That Council allow staff to make amendments to the draft Broad Character Area statements as recommended in this report and that Council adopt the amended Study as a background document to guide similar and aligned studies in the future.

Purpose of Report

To report to Council the results of the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study.

background

A long-term objective of the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan is the preservation of the unique visual character of the Ku-ring-gai LGA. To date there has been no practical means to implement this objective in planning and statutory documents.

The Local Character Background Study (The Study) is the first step in preparing policy, relating to character, that could be integrated into land use planning. Character refers to the complex interaction between landscape, buildings and culture. Previous studies have primarily considered built heritage.

The Study responds directly to the Local Character and Place Guideline, published by the NSW Government in February 2019. The Guidelines provide a framework for defining character and gives Council an opportunity to have a local character overlay in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (KLEP). This opportunity has not been available to Council previously.

Work commenced in June 2020, with the intent of preparing a Local Character Mapping Overlay and Local Character Statements for inclusion in Council’s LEP and DCP (subject to approval by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment). However, in October 2020 Council adopted a Housing Strategy that does not consider any LEP amendments to accommodate additional housing. This decision changed the context within which the Local Character Study was to be prepared.

While Council has foregone the opportunity for a Local Character Overlay in the KLEP, the Study constitutes a solid baseline, which, if adopted, will be a valuable reference source for future Council studies.

This report responds to the Council resolutions from its meeting of 8 December 2020.

Council resolved that:

A. Council adopt the draft Local Character Study for exhibition.

B. Council undertake further community engagement including workshops with residents to discuss and develop desired future character statements for the Broad Character Areas.

C. The final Study, incorporating community input, be reported back to Council before end of June 2021.

comments

Public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study and Local Character Methodology Report was from 15 March to 26 April 2021 inclusive. Council received six (6) written submissions and twenty-six (26) completed online surveys.

The exhibited documents are attached to this report:

· Attachment A1 – Local Character Background Study report; and

· Attachment A2 – Local Character Methodology Report.

Written Submissions

Council received six (6) written submissions during the public exhibition period. A detailed discussion of the issues raised in the submissions is set out in Attachment 3 – Written Submissions Summary Table.

Below is a summary of key issues and a staff response.

Validity of the Study

A number of submissions raised concerns about the validity/strength of the proposed Local Character Overlay and draft Local Character Clause, namely that the:

“State Government’s stated proposed requirement for councils to prepare Local Character Statements and Local Character Overlays’ is really a ruse to increase medium density development via the new ‘Low Rise Housing Diversity Code’ (LRHDC). If the LRHDC is forced to be adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council”.

In response to the above, it is important to note the following points of clarification:

· The preparation of Local Character Statements and overlays is not a ‘requirement’, but is optional for Councils.

· The application of the Low Rise Housing Development Code (LRHDC) in all council areas is linked to land use zones and the permissibility of certain uses. However, it is possible for a Council to use local character overlays to gain exemption from the LRHDC for specific areas identified as having special character.

· The LRHDC has applied in Ku-ring-gai since its inception, Council cannot be forced to adopt it – it is already in place. In fact, Ku-ring-gai was one of the few Councils that was not included in the temporary exemptions from the code. The reason why there has been no development approved in Ku-ring-gai under the LRHDC is that Council has very little zoned land that would permit its use and the underlying development standards and provisions renders development under the LRHDC unviable.

· Council does not intend to use the Local Character Overlays as a means to gain exemptions from the LRHDC. Rather, Council intends to seek exemptions from the LRHDC by developing its own alternate, locally specific code. This intent is contained in the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) planning priority K4, Action 2:

Investigate appropriate locations for, and models of, medium density housing including a medium density complying development model able to integrate into the prevailing local character, in collaboration with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment;

· Council intends to use the local character statements and overlays as a means of addressing the LSPS Planning Priority K12 - Managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character.

· The associated actions are clearly set out in the executive summary of the Local Character Background Study which notes that

“This Background Study is primarily focused on the analysis and identification of Ku-ring-gai’s physical characteristics, relating to Action 1”

and

“Preparation of a Local Character Study, as per Action 2, including ‘desired future character statements’, will be the subject of a future study and further community engagement”.

Suggested changes to the draft Broad Character Area Statements

A number of submissions propose changes and additions to the draft Broad Character Area descriptions. Refer Attachment 3 – Written Submissions Summary Table for details.

The following is a summary of the main suggestions raised in submissions:

Local Government Area

A submission questioned the idea of introducing boundaries within Ku-ring-gai; creating harshly, delineated, separate parts that, in reality, do not exist. The concern is that Council was effectively creating new zones.

The submission suggested that there should be an overarching statement recognising Ku-ring-gai as a whole, outlining Ku-ring-gai’s unique and valuable character - built and natural such as previous studies have provided.

In response:

· Defining the character of the LGA as a whole is not the purpose of this study. Local character refers to smaller areas of land that exhibit similar characteristics such as topography, built form or canopy cover, which can be defined, described and mapped.

· Ku-ring-gai is not a homogeneous area and an overall statement would not do justice to the diversity of the LGA by way of example compare the ‘North Turramurra Table’ area with the ‘Lower East’ area.

· The former is a broad flat plateau the topography here is flat and up until relatively recently was used as agricultural land. Now occupied by large institutional land uses including schools, seniors housing and aged care; a high voltage power line corridor through the area.

· The latter has large portions designated as heritage conservation areas (HCAs). Its significance generally relates to Federation and Inter-war housing and subdivision delivered from the mid-1800s to early 1900s. Detached houses on large lots within a garden setting feature heavily. Complemented by mature well-planted streets.

a. Green Fingers Character Area

Submissions ask that this character statement make a clearer acknowledgement of the following elements:

· that this character area extends into important bushland;

· it provides habitats for endangered and vulnerable fauna and flora on edges, gullies and extending onto parks and vegetation;

· this area is typified by many mature trees; and

· is a high bushfire prone zone.

b. Ku-ring-gai Ridge and Centres Character Area

Submissions recommend the following changes to this character statement:

· adding the numerous local primary schools as key features of this character area;

· the character area is dominated by the Pacific Highway and rail line, recommending re-wording in paragraphs 2 and 4, to better reflect this; and

· acknowledging that this character area retains a high level of heritage buildings reflecting development from the advent of rail in the late 1800s and Inter-war period.

c. Northern Plateau Character Area

Submissions recommend the following changes to this character statement:

· the area has a high level of architecturally significant 20th Century dwellings, subject of a Modern Heritage study (See Draft Heritage Study); and

· parts of the area is of high conservation status containing some of the last remnants of critically endangered ecological communities the Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.

d. Western Slopes Character Area

Submissions ask that this character statement improve references to the following elements:

· cool microclimate for vegetation and fauna habitat; and

· biodiversity protection.

e. West Pymble Character Area

A number of submissions specifically refers to the proposed West Pymble character area and suggests adding Sheldon Forest as a key feature, because it is a large area of Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF). Adding that there is a need to state explicitly that it is the unique combination of dramatic tall forest trees and man-made residential gardens which creates the physical character – at present these elements are separately identified.

f. Lower West Character Area

Submissions ask that this character statement better acknowledge the following key elements:

· high levels of tree canopy and significant bushland that supports biodiversity and habitat;

· areas of heritage significance; and

· highly undulating topography.

g. Lower East

Submissions ask that this character statement better acknowledge the following key elements:

· that this character area is typified by high levels of tree canopy;

· the area’s street layouts reflect the urban development of the early 1900’s;

· the undulating topography as it drops away quickly from the Pacific Highway;

· excellent areas of flora and fauna habitat; and

· includes local schools, nursing home and retirement homes & Swain Gardens.

h. North Turramurra Table

Submissions ask that this character statement better acknowledge the following key elements:

· three nursing homes.

Summary of Survey Responses

Council’s website hosted an online survey comprising eight (8) questions for the duration of the exhibition period. Council received 26 responses. In part, the questions sought to ascertain how many of the respondents had read the Local Character Background Study, of which 80% responded that they had. It was also seeking to learn the gender split, age range and postcodes of respondents. Of which there was a higher proportion of women who responded overall (56%), with the majority of respondents in the age range of 55-65 years, with the next highest age of respondents being in the 75+ age bracket. With a majority of respondents from postcodes 2073 (West Pymble), 2074 (North and South Turramurra and Warrawee) and 2075 (St Ives and St Ives Chase). Respondents were also asked to rate the ‘accuracy of the study in reflecting the character of Ku-ring-gai’, with the majority (37%) responding with ‘somewhat accurate’, 25% responded with ‘accurate’ and 12% with ‘very accurate’, while only 4% stated ‘not accurate at all’.

Two survey questions invited written comments (as opposed to multiple-choice answers), namely:

Survey Question 3 – Provide any written comments you may have about the Study

Key issues raised:

· retain the public golf course at Gordon;

· the study inadequately reflects the cultural and historical value of the domestic architecture of the area;

· the Study currently excludes the effect of the Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) in the Willoughby LGA adjoining the boundary with Ku-ring-gai which if appropriately coloured would show a much bigger area which could be classified as a green finger and emphasise how close to the Pacific Highway and Roseville station the BGHF extends;

· Ku-ring-gai is large and varied and our area Fox Valley has its own characteristics;

· the Study places a large emphasis on mature tree canopy and other vegetation. It is important to maintain and replace vegetation and tree canopy in Ku-ring-gai so that future generations will also have mature trees; and

· the focus seems to be on the green identity which Ku-ring-gai has traditionally promoted, however, little has been said about the provision of amenities for the local population and changing character of many sections of Ku-ring-gai local area.

Survey Question 4 – Outline important places that you feel help define Kur-ring-gai’s unique local character from a social and/or cultural point of view

Key points raised by respondents:

· garden like streets - very pleasant to walk or drive along. Neighbourhood parks - for general enjoyment. Bushland presence in and around Ku-ring-gai -for many reasons;

· Ku-ring-gai Aquatic Centre and the surrounding park, Bicentennial Park, West Pymble. They provide a variety of meeting places for organised sporting activity, individual pursuits or informal social catch ups;

· Killara Dog Park and sports field (Wattle Street) defines the local character of the area by being a shared, free access space for exercise and social interaction, which has built a sense of community over many years. This is now expressed in informal social gatherings and regular users supporting each other in other aspects of their lives. During Covid lockdown, it was invaluable as a space to go to alleviate isolation and still stay safe. It reflects the social and exercise needs of the area;

· Acron Oval, St Ives - one of the very few places for off leash dog walking. It is a very important area for community members who like to walk their dogs in a shared space. However the space is inadequate when it has to be shared with all the sports clubs. They need space too and it is simply too limited for all the uses it is trying to provide for;

· Hassell Park, St Ives is a hugely under-utilised space. Again great meeting spot for sports but nothing else - no art, no picnic areas etc

· St Ives Shopping Centre and Village Green due to its central position for St Ives and Pymble, offering a range of retail, food outlets & green space;

· the public golf course at Gordon. Such a course enriches the area as a community; and

· Roseville Park, Sous Le Soleil and so many facilities such as tennis courts, new cricket nets and toddler park, historical home and safe park that caters for the whole family.

This report recommends incorporating the abovementioned comments and observations into the draft Broad Character Area statements where they identify important places that assist with defining Ku-ring-gai’s unique local character.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure. A range of well-planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1: Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained.

P1.1.1: Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character.

P1.1.1.2: Prepare a Local Character Strategy for Ku-ring-gai consistent with the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Local Character Guidelines, and the North District Plan.

Governance Matters

The Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study responds to the planning priorities, actions and indicators detailed in the following plans:

GREATER SYDNEY REGION PLAN	Objective 12 Great places that bring people together. Objective 28 Scenic and cultural landscapes are protected.
NORTH DISTRICT PLAN	Planning Priority N6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres and respecting the District’s heritage. Planning Priority N17 Protecting and enhancing scenic and cultural landscapes.
KU-RING-GAI COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN	Our Ku-ring-gai 2038 Long term objectives relating to cultural heritage landscape preservation, and preserving the unique visual character of the Ku-ring-gai LGA.
KU-RING-GAI LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING STATEMENT (LSPS)	Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Priority K12: Managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character. Actions Define Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character through community engagement (short term); and Undertake a Local Character Study in accordance with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Local Character and Place Guidelines February 2019. The study will include investigation of areas of special landscape, views and vistas, visual quality, topography and the Urban Forest (including bushland, tree canopy, street trees, gardens). It will also consider Green Grid links and biodiversity corridors; Implement recommendations from the Local Character Study; and Prepare Local Character Mapping for LEP Overlay and Local Character Statements for DCP in collaboration with Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE).

Risk Management

When Council adopted the Ku-ring-gai LSPS it was with the understanding that a Local Character Study would provide a framework for the integration of local character into Council’s planning controls and thereby inform the location of future new medium and high density zones within and around the Primary Local Centres. The LSPS envisions that the outcomes from the Local Character Study would be implemented through a Mapping Overlay and Local Character Statements for inclusion in Council’s LEP and DCP (subject to approval by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment DPIE).

DPIE has now developed a local character overlay and draft local character clause that will allow councils to insert a reference to local character in their LEP via a Local Character Statement and corresponding map. The DPIE publicly exhibited this draft clause and overlay from 12 November 2020 until 29 January 2021 inclusive. The final clause is still to be finalised and implemented by DPIE.

Given Council has adopted (OMC 20/10/20) a Housing Strategy that does not consider any LEP amendments to accommodate additional housing it is now not immediately clear how the findings of this Background Study could be implemented. To manage this risk, the community engagement component of the study to date, has been undertaken. At a minimum the Local Character Background Study will be a valuable reference source for future Council studies, in particular the Urban Forest Strategy and Green Grid Strategy, the preparation of which will commence shortly.

Financial Considerations

This study is fully funded by the Urban Planning and Heritage budget.

Social Considerations

Experiential mapping has been undertaken to better understand places that hold social, cultural and community value. Research from community engagement workshops conducted by Council, during the preparation of the Community Strategic Plan 2038 have also been reviewed in order to ascertain the objectives and shared vision for the LGA.

Additional social and cultural aspects/attributes of local character and their importance will be investigated in more detail in future stages of the study.

Environmental Considerations

Detailed mapping of environmental factors has been undertaken as part of this study.

Community Consultation

Officers managed community engagement in two (2) phases, as detailed below:

Phase 1 - Online Survey and Interactive Mapping Tool

The primary purpose of this phase was to ‘check in’ with the local community in the early stages of the Background Study research, to test the analysis to date. Council sought input from the local community to understand the unique characteristics of Ku-ring-gai and its suburbs using an interactive online mapping tool to allow residents to share important & unique places in defining local character and to tell us what they thought about the eight (8) proposed draft Broad Local Character Area descriptions.

Gathering of community feedback was via Council’s online engagement platform ‘Oursay’. The site also hosted an online survey where people could provide similar feedback, albeit in a more simplified format.

Council received 60 comments via the interactive map and 64 responses via the online survey. On balance, the community indicated a strong level of support for the draft Broad Local Character Area character statements. They also provided a range of comments regarding important places in Ku-ring-gai.

The online survey was conducted from 16 October, 2020 to 18 December, 2020 inclusive.

Phase 2 – Webinar & Public Exhibition

As COVID restrictions and social distancing requirements precluded the facilitation of face-to-face workshops with interested members of the community, a Webinar was held on Monday, 15 March, 2021. Invitations to the Webinar were sent to 108 residents comprising those who had expressed an interest during the LSPS consultation and the Local Character Study online survey from Phase 1 of this study. Sixteen (16) members of the public attended.

At the commencement of the Webinar Council staff responded to key questions raised by the public during Phase 1 of the community consultation – Online Survey. Refer Attachment 4 – Phase 1 Consultation: Online Survey FAQs.

Consultants SJB Urban presented the key findings to date and together with Council staff, participated in a Q&A session. The Webinar was recorded and subsequently published on the Council website for the duration of the public exhibition period, together with a table of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ which were asked by participants during the Webinar Q & A. Refer Attachment 5 – Phase 2 Consultation: Webinar FAQs. The Webinar signalled the commencement of the public exhibition period, which ran from 15 March 2021 until 26 April 2021 inclusive.

Promotion of opportunities for involvement in the project during Phases 1 and 2 of the community consultation included the following:

· Sydney Morning Herald;

· Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Post;

· Ku-ring-gai E-news x 2 (over 13,000 subscribers);

· Ku-ring-gai Business E-news (1400 subscribers);

· Your Say E-newsletter (380 subscribers);

· Facebook;

· Council’s Website (on the Your Say & Planning for the Future pages); and

· Direct email to participants involved in the Local Strategic Planning Statement consultation.

Internal Consultation

In July 2020 an ‘insights survey’ was distributed to a broad group of Ku-ring-gai Council staff in order to gain insight into what is deemed valuable or unique in the LGA. This addressed elements of character to be considered, as well as key views and vistas with and to areas outside the LGA. The second part of the survey was a digital exercise that allowed users to locate special views and character areas on a map of the LGA, allowing the distribution of responses to be spatially collated. These inputs have been considered in conjunction with element mapping.

A Councillor Briefing was held on 27 October 2020 - to present the eight (8) draft Broad Character Area statements and to reiterate the purpose of undertaking a Local Character Study for Ku-ring-gai.

On 25 May, 2021 a second Councillor Briefing was held – to present the key findings of the recent public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study.

Summary

Consultants SJB Urban were engaged by Council in June 2020, to prepare a draft Local Character Study. This work was in response to the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (KLSPS) Planning Priority K12. The objective of this priority is to ‘manage change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character’.

At its meeting of 20 October, 2020 Council adopted a Housing Strategy that does not consider any LEP amendments to accommodate additional housing. This decision changed the context within which the Local Character Study was intended to be prepared.

The intention of the Local Character Study was to serve as a ‘companion document’ to the Housing Strategy, which would earmark areas for change and intensification. The Local Character Study would simultaneously look at ways and means to allow this growth to occur (within the Local Centres), whilst enhancing/complimenting local character and preserving local character in other areas, not subject to change.

The work to date now constitutes a baseline/background study, rather than a final Local Character Study for Ku-ring-gai. At a minimum the Local Character Background Study will be a valuable reference source for future Council studies, in particular the Urban Forest Strategy and Green Grid Strategy, the preparation of which will commence shortly.

In late 2020 Council sought input from the local community via an interactive online mapping tool and on balance, the community indicated a strong level of support for the draft Broad Local Character Area character statements.

In March and April 2021 a survey asked residents to rate the ‘accuracy of the study in reflecting the character of Ku-ring-gai’. The majority of responses indicated ‘somewhat accurate’, ‘accurate’ or ‘very accurate’ indicating a good level of alignment.

This report recommends that additions and changes to the draft Broad Character Area statements, as suggested in submissions, be incorporated into the final version of the Study; and that Council adopt the Background Study with amendments, as above, so that it can guide other similar and aligned studies in the future.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council staff incorporate changes to draft Broad Character Area Statements as suggested in submissions and documented in this report into the final version of the Background Study.

B. Council adopt the Local Character Background Study, as amended in recommendation A, as the basis for future studies.

Louise Drum

Urban Design Project Coordinator

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Attachment 1 - Local Character Background Study Report as exhibited	Excluded	2021/074116
	A2	Attachment 2 - Local Character Methodology Report as exhibited	Excluded	2021/074118
	A3⇩	Attachment 3 - Table 1 - Summary of Written Submissions		2021/153419
	A4⇩	Attachment 4 - Phase 1 Consultation - Online Survey FAQs		2021/153037
	A5⇩	Attachment 5 - Phase 2 Consultation - Webinar FAQs		2021/153038

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.20 / 388

Item GB.20	S12249

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council’s endorsement of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan.

background:	On 8 December 2020, Council adopted the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) for public exhibition. The KPDP provides guidance for the future design of public spaces and streets in the local centres of Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield. Over the next few years, the KPDP will be expanded to incorporate St Ives, Roseville and Pymble local centres.

comments:	The draft KPDP was on public exhibition during March/ April 2021 for a period of 6 weeks. A staff review of the public and agency submissions has found that in overall terms, the community and stakeholders support the KPDP. Residents and stakeholders have submitted many useful and insightful comments that result in changes to the exhibited document. This report provides a summary of the recommended changes to the draft KPDP.

recommendation:	That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan with the amendments as outlined in this report.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s endorsement of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan.

Background

The Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) provides guidance for the future design of public spaces and streets in the local centres of Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield. Over the next few years, the KPDP will be expanded to incorporate St Ives, Roseville and Pymble local centres

The KPDP updates the 2010 Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan to align with:

- new State Government plans, policies and guidelines;

- the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement;

- the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan; and

- other recent Council adopted plans and policies as listed in the KKPDP.

The KPDP comprises three volumes including Volume 1 – Priorities and objectives of the Plan; Volume 2 – Concept plans for streets and parks; Volume 3 – Details relating to street furniture, paving, lighting and trees.

The KPDP will inform future planning and strategic documents such as the future revision of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP), the future revision of the Development Contributions Plan and to a limited extent the future revision of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan (KLEP).

There is currently funding from development contributions available to deliver a five-year program of public domain works across the local centres. Not all works proposed in the KPDP are funded however, some will be subject to future development contributions as redevelopment occurs within the local government area; other projects may be joint funded or grant funded through agencies such as Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains.

All projects prior to delivery will be subject to further community consultation, particularly targeting community members and stakeholders directly impacted by the proposed works.

On 8 December 2020, Council adopted the reported Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan for public exhibition to be reported back to Council in June 2021. The public exhibition has now closed and this report summaries the submissions and outlines the proposed amendments to reflect the submissions/comments received.

Comments

The KPDP was on public exhibition from 5 March 2021 until 19 April 202, inclusive. The exhibition was advertised through Council’s e-news, social media, newsletters and Council’s website. A Your Say page was established for community feedback. As well as community feedback being sought, council officers invited a number of authorities and state government agencies to review the KPDP and provide comments. Details of the community and stakeholder consultation process are provided under “COMMUNITY CONSULTATION” section of this report.

The community overall, supported the KPDP. Some locations had higher levels of interest with numerous comments, these include the Havilah Road rail underpass, Lindfield Avenue separated cycleway and the Strickland Avenue proposed signalised intersection.

A comprehensive summary of the community feedback is provided in Attachment A1 of this report.

Proposed key amendments to the draft KPDP resulting from community and stakeholder feedback are listed in Table 1, below.

It must be noted that these are high-level concept plans for desired long term outcomes and some proposed concept designs have remained the same in the final plan. In most instances additional funding or further studies, collaboration with Transport for NSW, changes to the LEP and DCP or targeted community consultation, or all of these, will be required to realise these designs. Though the design intent has been demonstrated, the final design may be delivered differently.

TABLE 1 – Proposed key amendments resulting from community and stakeholder feedback
GEN = General changes throughout the document T = Changes to Turramurra Public Domain Plan G = Changes to Gordon Public Domain Plan			L = Changes to Lindfield Public Domain Plan TM = Changes to Technical Manual
	Summary of key submission comments requiring amendments	Response	Proposed amendment	Affected sections/pages
GEN	Road lane widths need to be sufficient to accommodate bus routes	Road lane widths will be widened as requested	Widen lane width design to minimum 3.2m	Volume 2: Turramurra and Lindfield
GEN	Shared zones are unlikely to be approved in location where vehicles will be reversing into the “Shared Zone” space	Shared Zones describe spaces where pedestrian activity is encouraged and vehicular movement slowed through traffic calming measures.	Streets nominated as “Shared Zones” will be changed to “Low Speed/ High Pedestrian Activity Zone”. Any Potential future categorisation of streets or lanes as Shared Zones will be coordinated with TfNSW	Volume 2: Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield
GEN	Transport for NSW requested the KPDP reference the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy	The objectives of the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy align with the objectives of the Public Domain Plan i.e. to prioritise pedestrian movement and safety around the local centres, even though the policy was released after the first draft of the Public Domain Plan had been prepared.	Reference to the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy will be made in Public Domain Plan	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	TfNSW requested Council consider the addition of 'preserving key sightlines between road users in conflicting directions' as an objective.	Note will be added regrading preserving sightlines for road users	Add objective to *Views and View Corridor* – ‘preserving key sightlines between road users in conflicting directions'.	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	TfNSW suggest reference to *Movement and Place Framework* and associated toolkits such as *The Cycleway Design Toolbox*	Reference to the *Cycleway Design Toolbox* will be added to the Multi-modal Integrated Transport objectives.	Add objective to Multi-modal Integrated Transport ‘incorporated guidelines from NSW Movement and Place Framework and associated toolkits such as the Cycleway Design Toolbox which provides technical design guidance’	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	Northern Sydney Local Health District (NSLHD) requested inclusion of additional note in future signage strategy to add ‘distance in metres to destinations’	Note will be added under Wayfinding and Signage	Add objective to *Way Finding and Signage* ‘Support and encourage active transport by providing wayfinding information on cycling and pedestrian networks, public transport hubs, bicycle parking stations and distances in metres’	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	NSLHD requested inclusion of *Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design* (CPTED) guidelines	Reference to adhere to CPTED guidelines will be added to the document	Reference will be made to ensure *Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines* are implemented during design development of projects under *Design Process.*	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	NSLHD requested reference to benefits of Sustainable Design	Sustainability objectives have been included in the KPDP. Additional comment to the Design Process section will be added to the KPDP.	Reference will be made to ensure *Environmentally* *Sustainable Design* is considered and implemented during design development of projects.	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
GEN	Bike North requested Council’s Bike Plan 2012 be included in the Related Documents section in Volume 1.	This was an oversight. The Bike Plan 2012 was considered in the planning of bike paths around the centres. It will be added to the reference list.	*Bike Plan 2012* will be added to the Reference list in the PDP	Volume 1: About the Public Domain
TM	Clear zones at bus stops to be 12m	Bus stop detail will be updated	Update bus stop detail to show clear zone of 12m	Volume 3: Technical Manual
TM	Outdoor dining - sufficient space must be provided for passengers waiting at the bus stop without interference from outdoor tables in this space.	Noted, however it is highly unlikely outdoor dining areas would be established near bus zones	Note to be included: “sufficient space must be provided for passengers waiting at the bus stop without interference from outdoor tables in this space”	Volume 3: Technical Manual
TM	The Technical Manual contains many references to technical support documents but would be improved with addition of references to cycling technical manuals such as TfNSW *Cycleway Design Toolbox 2020* and Austroads guides such as Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling 2021.	*Cycleway Design Toolbox 2020* and Austroads *Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling 2021* will be added as references for design in the KPDP.	*Cycleway Design Toolbox 2020* and Austroads *Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling 2021* will be added to the Reference List and Design Process in Volume 1 of the PDP	Volume 3: Technical Manual
Turramurra Local Centre
T	Turramurra bus interchange – current interchange does not provide layover space for buses and no amenities for drivers. Adjoining commuter car parking is valued. Roundabout could be a problem at the intersection.	Following further discussions with TFNSW and bus operators the proposed layout of the bus interchange in the Draft KPDP will be altered so that the new interchange has a reduced impact on the adjoining commuter car park. It will retain the existing entry location however, with improved safety for pedestrians. The final design will need to be coordinated with TfNSW and bus operators.	The proposed bus interchange will be altered to reduce the impact on the adjoining commuter car park. The existing entry will be retained in its current location however, with improved safety for pedestrians. The final design will need to be coordinated with TfNSW and bus operators. Facilities for drivers and cyclists will be accommodated in the design.	Volume 2: Turramurra
T	Rohini Street upgrade needs to accommodate bus layover unless other sites can be provided.	Rohini Street upgrade layout will be amended to accommodate bus layover in Rohini Street until a new bus interchange is constructed.	Parking on Rohini Street will be on the northern (station) side of the street while allowing for footpath widening and outdoor dining on the opposite side.	Volume 2: Turramurra
T	Rohini Street – removal of signalised intersection with Pacific Hwy – comments on functionality / impact on bus movements received	This intersection is still subject to comprehensive traffic planning, TFNSW approval and the construction of the Ray Street bridge over the rail line, or a new road between Gilroy Road and Turramurra Ave.	The removal of the signalised intersection remains desirable for an improved pedestrian environment around the centre, the final decision will be coordinated with TfNSW plans for the Pacific Highway and will be done in collaboration with TfNSW.	Volume 2: Turramurra
T	TfNSW remarked “due to geometric constraints it will be unlikely that banner poles will be supported”	Proposed banner poles will not be included in the median through the Pacific Highway in Turramurra	Remove banner poles from drawings of the Pacific Highway in Turramurra PDP.	Volume 2: Turramurra
T	Typical street cross section in Eastern Road shown as 4.75 m traffic lane - not wide enough to provide parking and bus movements. Ensure adequate width for bus movements.	The graphic error is noted. The cross-section drawing of Eastern Road will be amended to provide 3.2m wide traffic lanes in each direction.	Cross-section drawing of Eastern Road to be amended to show 3.2m wide traffic lanes in each direction.	Volume 2: Turramurra
Lindfield Local Centre
L	Havilah Road underpass should not be reduced/ changed to one way traffic movement	Proposed one way movement under Havilah is Council’s preferred option for proposed plans for Pacific Highway upgrades. To access the western side of Lindfield, new traffic signals are proposed at Pacific Highway and Strickland Ave for this purpose.	Note to be included: Final design of underpass to be determined with further traffic studies and in collaboration with Transport for NSW	Volume 2: Lindfield
L	Separated cycleway will take away car parking in Lindfield Avenue	It is acknowledged that the separated cycleway in Lindfield Avenue is a long term plan that is subject to the State government delivering the Greater Sydney bicycle network. The likely timeframe for this is more than 10 years.	Recommend the cycleway on Lindfield Avenue be removed from the KPDP and note to be included stating: The cycleway will be introduced following the installation of a significant portion of the greater bicycle network around the Lindfield local centre. The final design and location of the cycleway will require extensive community consultation and acceptance prior to implementation.	Volume 2: Lindfield
L	Beaconsfield Parade should be classified as a ‘Heritage Street’ rather than a “Standard Street”. Strong support for Council to retain and maintain the Heritage Conservation Area on the northern side of the street.	Comments noted. The KPDP has no effect on HCAs which have statutory protection in the KLEP. Beaconsfield Avenue warrants Heritage Street classification given presence of HCAs and heritage items	Beaconsfield Parade between Drovers Way and Norwood Street will be amended to a “Heritage Street” classification.	Volume 2: Lindfield

Table 2 lists amendments to the KPDP to add clarity, provide additional information or to update the designs within the document. These amendments arise from a staff review of the draft document.

TABLE 2 – Amendments for clarity, additional information or updates to designs.
	Items to be amended	Reason for amendment	Proposed amendment	Affected sections/pages
GEN	Street descriptions	To align with movement and place categories within Transport for NSW Movement and Place Guidelines and Austroads Movement and Place Framework	Addition of movement and place classification to “Core” and “Transition” streets in the local centres as well as a brief description of what the movement and place categorisations mean.	Volume 2: Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield
T	Ray Street Bridge (over rail line connecting with Rohini Street)	At this point in time there is no confirmed funding for a bridge over the rail line The proposed bridge will require significant funding from other sources as development contributions are not available	The bridge remains a desirable addition to the local centre for improved traffic and pedestrian movements. The plans will be amended to indicate the preferred location of the bridge though it will be shown as “possible future bridge subject to funding” rather than a confirmed inclusion.	Volume 2: Turramurra
T	Turramurra Hub site	On 18 May 2021 Council resolved to recommence planning for the Turramurra Community Hub Project. This includes: - Assessing opportunities to increase height and density on the site as required to ensure the project is financially viable - Seek updated advice on market outlook for asset classes (residential / retail / commercial) - Re-assessing the size and standard of all community assets - Re-assess the project delivery options	The Turramurra remains a desirable addition to the local centre for improved community facilities and activation of the centre. However given Council’s resolution to review the master plan KPDP will be amended to indicate the preferred location of the Hub though it will remain as “future Community Hub”	Volume 2: Turramurra
L	Woodside Avenue roundabout	The temporary roundabout at Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Avenue is expected to be removed at the completion of the Lindfield Village Green project but consideration will be given to reintroducing in the future, if and when changes are made to car parking arrangements on Lindfield Avenue.	The roundabout will be included in the KPDP	Volume 2: Lindfield

Two comments referenced the Technical Manual (Volume 3 of the Public Domain Plan). These comments have been included in the Table 1. No other comments were received and therefore no additional amendments required.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Long Term Objective P4.1: Our centres offer a broad range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces and places where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

P4.1.1: Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design and sustainability outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community

P4.1.1.1:

Finalise a Local Centres Public Domain Plan and Technical Manual including outdoor dining and activities.

P4.1.1.2:

Finalise the Public Domain Masterplans for Turramurra, Lindfield and Gordon local centres and concept plans for key precincts.

P4.1.1.3:

Actively engage with residents, key agencies, landholders, businesses and other stakeholders to assist with the delivery of the Activate Ku-ring-gai Program.

P4.1.1.7:

Finalise strategies and plans for Turramurra Local Centre and surrounds.

P4.1.1.8:

Finalise strategies and plans for Lindfield Local Centre and surrounds.

P4.1.1.11:

Integrate people and vehicle movements for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, Traffic & Transport studies in collaboration with Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

Governance Matters

The Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan is consistent with the following strategies and plans:

State Government

· North District Plan;

· Cycleway Design Toolbox 2020;

· Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling 2021;

· NSW Government Movement and Place Framework;

· Transport for NSW Road User Space Allocation Policy;

· NSW Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines

Ku-ring-gai Council

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement;

· Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan;

· Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan 2038;

· Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010;

· Activate Ku-ring-gai Program;

· Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Public Domain Plan 2010;

· Draft Ku-ring-gai Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan;

· Access and Disability Inclusion Plan 2020 -2024; and

· Ku-ring-gai Council Climate Change Policy 2020.

Risk Management

A key risk is that development contributions will slow and funding will fall short of the cost of the proposed works in the KPDP. Funds are currently available for some projects, however the complete delivery of proposed works will rely upon further development contributions and possibly grant money from the State Government. Some elements of the KPDP rely upon redevelopment to deliver outcomes shown including the Community Hubs. The KPDP also foreshadows amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP to incorporate setbacks and land dedication in certain locations. These amendments will be made during reviews or ‘housekeeping’ amendments to the KDCP.

Financial Considerations

S&E staff have been working with Finance Department to establish a five-year program to deliver streetscape upgrades across the Local Centres. There is currently development contribution funds available for the projects for the period 2021-2025.

Local Centre Streetscape Improvements Program

Local Centre	Streets included	Approximate design and construction budget (2020-21 prices)	Commence construction
Gordon	St Johns Avenue, Wade Lane, Henry Street (part), Werona Avenue (part)	$9.5M	2021
Lindfield	Lindfield Avenue, Tryon Road, Milray Street, Havilah Road	$9.0M	2022
Turramurra	Rohini Street (part), Gilroy Road (part), Eastern Road (part)	$5.7M	2022-23
St Ives	Stanley Street (part), Porters Lane, Mona Vale Road (alongside shops)	$9.6M	2023
Roseville	Hill Street, Lord Street (part), Roseville Avenue (part)	$7.4M	2023-24
Pymble	Grandview Street, Alma Street (part), Post Office Street, Park Crescent (part)	$10.4M	2024

Consultant quantity surveyors have prepared a preliminary cost plan, of all the works proposed in the draft KPDP, including funded and unfunded projects. These costings will inform the development of future work programs as well as any future amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, or preparation of a new contributions plan.

Possible changes to development contributions being contemplated by the State Government may curtail revenue inflows in the outer years of the Long Term Financial Plan.

Social Considerations

Improved public domain environments will encourage walking and cycling by residents that could potentially increase the physical and mental health of residents. Increased walking around the centres increases the chances of meeting and interacting with others in the community and thus enhancing social connections. Likewise, improved street environments will encourage residents and visitors to interact and linger around the retail core and eateries, on any day and night, activating the centres.

Upgraded pedestrian movement corridors, crossing points and pavement conditions will improve safety and accessibility in the local centres.

Environmental Considerations

Additional tree planting will provide shade and add to the urban canopy of Ku-ring-gai. The shading from the trees will not only benefit users of the streets, but will cool the adjoining premises, potentially reducing cooling requirements and electrical bills.

Significant trees will be protected and retained. New trees planted in tree pits will have stormwater diverted from the kerb and gutter into the tree pits which will filter the stormwater before ultimately entering the stormwater system, if the water is not absorbed by the trees and plants. This assists in providing additional water to the planting during rain events.

Improved public domain environments such as footpaths, providing safer crossing points for pedestrians and formalisation of some cycle routes will encourage more people to walk and ride to the local centres, leaving the car behind, benefiting the environment.

Quality durable materials will be used to ensure longevity and remove the need for regular replacements and costly repair. Most of the public domain materials selected may be recycled at the end of their usable life.

Community Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken through the exhibition of the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan. A community consultation strategy was developed in conjunction with Council’s Communication team prior to releasing the documents for public exhibition.

The KPDP was on public exhibition from 5 March 2021 until 19 April 2021, inclusive, longer than the required 28 days specified in the Community Participation Plan. In addition to notification on Council’s website, the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan was notified by way of two E-newsletters (13,500 subscribers), Business E-news (1,500 subscribers), as well as suburb specific e-news (Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield).

The Enliven Ku-ring-gai event held in St Johns Avenue, Gordon on 5 March 2021 was used to promote the KPDP exhibition. Council officers were present on the day to inform the community of the imminent streetscape upgrade works for Wade Lane and St Johns Avenue and the KPDP for Gordon.

Council officers also invited number of authorities and State government agencies to review the KPDP and to provide comment. These included:

· Transport for NSW	· Emergency services
· Ausgrid	· Forest Buses
· Ku-ring-gai Council Councillors	· TransDev
· Northern Sydney Local Health District	· Bike North
· Local Police	· Taxi Council
· NSW State MPs - Mr Alister Henskens and Mr Jonathan O’Dea	· Chamber of Commerce

Responses were received from Transport for NSW, North Sydney Local Health District, the Hon. Jonathan O’Dea MP, TransDev, and Bike North.

The KPDP was, overall, supported by the community. Council received 70 submissions, the majority of those were responses to the Lindfield Public Domain Plan. The submissions have been compiled and summarised and can be found in Attachment A1.

The KPDP provides high-level concept designs for the streets of the local centres of Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield. Further consultation for the delivery of individual projects will be required with more focused and specific community consultation prior during preparation of detailed concept plans. This could include mail-outs, onsite events and meeting with businesses, social media, online engagement portal and the like, similar to the community consultation that was carried out for the St Johns Avenue project in Gordon.

Internal Consultation

A series of internal workshops have been carried out with a number of departments including Operations, Strategy and Environment, and Development and Regulation for the Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield Public Domain Plans and the Public Domain Technical Manual.

Councillor briefings for the Draft Public Domain Plans were held on:

· 4 August - Turramurra Public Domain plan;

· 1 September 2020 - Lindfield Public Domain Plan;

· 7 October 2020 - Gordon Public Domain Plan.

The draft KPDP was circulated to all Council staff that attended the workshops associated with the preparation of the KPDP and others that were considered stakeholders of the plan. No additional comments were received from internal stakeholders.

Councillors were made aware of the public exhibition and invited to comment through direct email, as mentioned above.

A Councillor briefing about the submissions received and the proposed changes to the KPDP was held on 25 May, 2021.

Summary

The draft KPDP was on public exhibition for over 6 weeks and during this time Council received 70 submissions from the community and stakeholders.

Attachment A1 of this report provides a detailed response to all issues raised in submissions. Some comments provided in submissions have resulted in amendments to the draft KPDP, these are listed in Table 1 of this report. Table 2 describes amendments to the draft KPDP arising from an internal review by staff.

Overall, the comments from the public exhibition have been largely supportive of the intent and scope of the KPDP.

The recommendation is for Council adopt the draft KPDP as exhibited incorporating the amendments listed in this report and minor editorial amendments as required.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan incorporating the amendments as outlined in this report and minor editorial amendments as required.

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment 1-Turramurra_Gordon_Lindfield - Submission Summary_KPDP Public Exhibition		2021/155534
	A2⇩	Attachment 2 - Agency Submission Summary - KPDP Public Exhibition		2021/155537

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.21 / 436

Item GB.21	S10531-3

St Ives Cultural & Environmental Education Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the St Ives Cultural and Environmental Education Centre (CEEC) project.

background:	At the OMC of 28 May 2019 Council resolved (in part) to endorse moving the CEEC to the St Ives showground and to progress the project.

comments:	This report seeks to update the Council on status of the project and discuss next steps.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note updates contained within this report and that Council resolves to progress the project toward Tender Documentation for construction.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the St Ives Cultural and Environmental Education Centre (CEEC) project.

Background

The primary function of the Cultural and Environmental Education Centre (CEEC) project is the delivery of environmental education, aimed at facilitating increased environmental awareness in the community and influencing positive behavioural change for the benefit of the environment.

At the OMC 28 May 2019 Council resolved:

A. That Council endorse the area adjacent to the Model Aeroplane Flying Arena within the St Ives Showground as the preferred location for the Cultural and Environmental Education Centre, in order for the project to progress to the concept design and costing phase.

B. That a concept design plan and cost estimate is developed and reported back to Council.

The concept design (Attachment A1) and cost estimate for the new facility were presented to Councillors in August 2020 and subsequently approved to proceed to a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) which is the pathway to gain development consent.

The REF documentation was completed and lodged with Council in December 2020. The REF has been reviewed by Council’s Environment and Sustainability team and deemed suitable for approval but is subject to final approval of the draft St Ives Showground Plan of Management (PoM) which was lodged with Crown Lands in April 2021. At that time the PoM was also endorsed by Council for public exhibition following Crown Lands’ review. The CEEC is now incorporated in the PoM as it was not previously acknowledged. There are no concerns that the CEEC will not be allowed as it is a ‘permissible use’ within the current and proposed zoning. Approval of the PoM is expected by about August this year (2021).

Comments

Council are satisfied with the REF and the remaining approval for the PoM is currently with Crown and expected to be approved by August. The next step is for Council to consider if the project is ready for documentation to tender for construction.

The CEEC project was conceived by Council’s Sustainability team and is to be partially paid for from the Environmental Levy. As such, sustainability is at the forefront of the project and is a major factor in its design and (eventual) construction. The building may be subject to review through the ‘Living Building Challenge’ (LBC) which is a very stringent form of certification that requires considerable thought not only in design but also in construction. For example, all materials must be locally sourced and sustainable in their manufacturing. Even construction methods must practice sustainable measures such as controlling pollution and waste. To this end, the building (at the moment) is considered to be constructed of ‘rammed earth’ walls or the like. The LBC will provide a framework for the construction and design process that will be class leading.

Read more about the LBC on their website HERE

At the General Manager & Directors (GMD) meeting of 21 May 2021, the GMD resolved;

A. That the GMD approves the CEEC project to progress with Detailed Design in readiness to tender for construction; and

B. That the CEEC contract for construction be ‘Design & Construct’ with the design team being novated to work with the contractor

Due to construction being a large part of the LBC, it is considered crucial to the project’s success to have a builder that is motivated to rise to the challenge. This means that the builder is very much a part of the project and as such will need to help drive decisions working alongside the architects. For this reason, GMD recommended that the Design & Construct approach be adopted.

Management of the facility once completed will be the responsibility of Council’s Community Department who will collaborate, particularly on programming, with the Environment and Sustainability team.

integrated planning and reporting

Natural Environment

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A community empowered with knowledge, learning and information that benefits the environment.

Increased community action that benefits the natural environment.

Develop a detailed design for a Cultural & Environmental Education Centre and secure funding for its construction.

Governance Matters

The proposed Cultural and Environmental Education Centre is deemed to be a visitor information centre for the purposes of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP).

The development of information facilities such as visitors’ centres is “development permitted without consent" under Clause 65(3)(a)(iii) of the ISEPP; if the development is carried out by or on behalf of a Council on a public reserve under the control of or vested in the Council. While the development will not require development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), approval will need to be determined under Part 5 of the EP&A Act and requires the preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF).

Risk Management

The following risks have been identified for the project:

· if tender costs for construction come in higher than expected Council may not be able to deliver the project or will need to value engineer some elements to stay within budget; and

· there is a possibility that the Crown Lands may not accept additional reserve purposes at the St Ives Showground. This is considered unlikely given the nature of the new proposed reserve purpose (being for cultural and environmental education).

Financial Considerations

The current budget for the CEEC is $4,329,300 ($1,253,600 from the Environmental Levy and $3,075,700 from s7.12 [formerly s94A] Contributions Plan funds).

Operational costs are anticipated to be covered by income generated from the facility, existing budgets for the St Ives Showground precinct and the Environmental Levy where appropriate, and managed by Council’s Community Department. A significant opportunity exists for Council to increase its income base from the precinct as a result of the program / visitation growth that is likely to accompany the construction of this facility.

A Business Plan covering operating the venue, anticipated revenue and maintenance & renewal costs is currently underway.

Social Considerations

This project represents a significant opportunity to increase patronage to the St Ives Showground through the delivery of cultural and environmental education and other functions and events.

The facility will provide a community space for existing and new residents of Ku-ring-gai to come together to socialise and learn through workshops, seminars, functions and other events.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations have been an integral part of the design development process for the Cultural and Environmental Education Centre. The design incorporates a number of sustainable design principles which aim to minimise environmental impact (including energy and water conservation and waste minimisation) and is designed to complement the natural environment. The LBC requires that the building not only minimises environmental impact but that actually has a regenerative impact.

The primary function of the new facility will be the delivery of environmental education, aimed at facilitating increased environmental awareness in the community and behavioural change for the benefit of the environment.

Community Consultation

Ku-ring-gai Council are committed to including genuine and meaningful consultation with Aboriginal people, communities and organisations to inform the design, construction and operation of the CEEC. Consultation and community inclusion is a driving principle behind the concept of the CEEC and is also a crucial element of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The CEEC offers Ku-ring-gai Council an opportunity to further research the available resources and consult with the appropriate people and authorities to better understand the aboriginal heritage of this area. The CEEC also provides an opportunity for Council to tell that story as part of the reconciliation process between traditional owners and the community.

In order to identify the appropriate aboriginal persons to consult with on the project, Council have approached the Aboriginal Heritage Office of whom Ku-ring-gai Council are a funding partner. Additionally, Council has sent an expression of interest to the Hornsby Council Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Reference Committee and has recently reached out to the Australian Museum for assistance and further direction. Council will also liaise with the Sydney Metropolitan Land Council and if required will be seeking the services of an Aboriginal consultant, to both facilitate further discussions and collate knowledge.

Internal Consultation

Stakeholder workshops and presentations have been conducted across multiple Council directorates including Community, Operations, and Strategy & Environment. Councillor briefings have been conducted periodically to keep Councillors updated on progress of this project.

Summary

As part of Council’s Environmental Levy program, funds are available to develop a multi-purpose Cultural and Environmental Education Centre within the St Ives showground precinct.

Approval of a REF and inclusion in a PoM for the CEEC project is now considered a formality. Council is now asked to consider that the project is ready for documentation in preparation to tender for construction.

Recommendation:

That Council resolve to progress the St Ives Cultural & Environmental Education Centre project by commencing Detailed Design in readiness to tender for construction.

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇩

Presentation to Council_St Ives CEEC

2021/152251

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.22 / 483

Item GB.22	S12712-3

St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre project.

background:	At the OMC 16 February 2021 Council resolved to endorse a Heads of Agreement with the Department of Education and also endorse the concept design for documentation of a DA.

comments:	This report seeks to update Council on status of the project and outline the next steps to be taken.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note updates contained within this report.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre project.

Background

At the OMC 16 February 2021 Council resolved:

A. Council accept the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project and draft Heads of

Agreement as discussed in the report and subsequent legal advice, and:

1. Council resolve to endorse the Heads of Agreement;

2. The budget for the project be increased by $2.2m from $17.4m to $19.6m; and

3. Loan borrowing for the project be increased from $11.3m to $13.5m (to be repaid

from asset sales).

B. Council endorse the Concept Design (as presented and attached to this report) for

documentation of a Development Application (DA) to be lodged before the end of the financial year.

The Heads of Agreement was executed by both parties in March 2021. Work on the DA submission is now complete, however, approval from the Ministers Office is required in order to lodge the DA. It is not known at the time of writing this report (28 May 2021) how long that will take but it may be 6 – 8 weeks. The approvals documentation is understood to be with the Ministers Office but signing is out of Council’s control. If the DA is not lodged this financial year (which it may not) it should not be long thereafter.

Comments

Considerable work has been done on the design to satisfy the stringent requirements of the Educational Facilities Standards and Guidelines which are in advance of standard building code practices. Once the design achieved approval from the many and varied DoE internal stakeholder groups, work began on an Operational Management Plan (OMP). This document is the forerunner to starting on the commercial terms of the Funding Deed and Licence agreements. Council staff have been negotiating terms within the OMP and all terms have now been agreed by both parties. Work on the Funding Deed & Lease is scheduled to commence in June 2021.

Recently, at the Major Project Steering Committee (MPSC) of 26 May 2021, the committee recommended:

A. That Tender documentation and the Tender for construction be finalised while the project DA is under assessment; and

B. That project updates including Recommendation A. be reported to Council in June 2021.

Documentation for a DA is generally considered to be about 40% of construction documentation. In order to minimise Council’s risk of significant variations through construction, the MPSC have recommended that the design documentation for tender be brought up to +85%. As a reference point, Schools Infrastructure would ordinarily document their own development applications to the 85% level prior to assessment.

DoE will lodge the DA and by doing so it becomes a Crown DA and, as such, cannot be refused by the assessing authority. Likewise, conditions of consent can only be applied with the concurrence of the Crown. The MPSC considered this fact in their decision which now means that not only tender documentation but the tender for construction can also be conducted while the DA is under assessment. This would mean that the contractor is appointed and poised to start work almost immediately upon DA approval. Stage 1 of the project (DoE’s 2 x Indoor Sports Courts) was conducted in this manner.

At the OMC 26 February 2019, Council resolved (in part) the following:

· That Council, in accordance with 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 determines that the use of consultants who have documented two courts for the Department of Education constitutes extenuating circumstances that should result in cost benefits for Council in designing and documenting a further two court at the same site and to the same design standards and specifications.

Council will continue to work with the design team that have documented the DA as it is not practical or economic to have a new design team (effectively) start from the beginning on the project. Council staff will review all new fee proposals to ensure they continue to offer value for money to Council.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C4.1: A community that embraces healthier lifestyle choices and practices.

A range of cultural, recreational and leisure facilities and activities are available to encourage social interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.

Healthy and active lifestyle programs and activities are delivered in collaboration with agencies and partners.

Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

A program is being implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.

Negotiate a Heads of Agreement with the Department of Education for the construction and joint usage of an indoor sports facility at St Ives High School.

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

Partnerships are established with community groups and organisations to optimise the availability and use of sporting, recreation and leisure facilities.

Engage with community partners to improve sporting, leisure and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities.

Governance Matters

On 4 March 2020 Council received a letter of support from the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) following the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) assurance process. The letter of support included a program of work as advisory notes, being key considerations to implement the LSPS. Item 2 in the advisory notes provides:

Shared use agreements
Planning Priority N3, Action 10 seeks to optimise the use of available public land for social infrastructure.	Work with Department of Education on the potential delivery of a new indoor sports facility for St Ives High School.

Continuing to work with DoE on this project is consistent with Council’s obligations to implement its LSPS.

Monthly project reports are prepared in line with the approved Major Projects Governance Structure.

Risk Management

The following risks have been identified for the project:

· if tender costs for construction come in higher than expected and/or sufficient budget is not allocated for the project, Council may not be able to deliver the project;

· the DoE will be managing the project and hence Council’s ability to control costs will be limited;

· once the project proceeds further and more costs are sunk, it may be difficult to withdraw from the project no matter how much costs increase;

· the HoA is not binding, there is a risk the terms may change again through commercial negotiations i.e. if Council and DoE cannot agree to terms and conditions of a Funding Deed & Licence the project is unviable for Council;

· risk to Council’s broader financial position if asset sales are not achieved to fund the project as currently reflected in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan and Operational Program and Delivery Plan;

· with Council’s application for the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund being successful for $3.5 million towards the project, there is reputational risk if Council do not proceed with the project; and

· Office of Sport may withdraw the $3.5m funding grant if significant movement toward delivery of the project is not achieved by the end date - May 2022.

Financial Considerations

On 28 April 2020 Council resolved to part fund the project through a short-term bank loan due to delays in asset sales. A TCorp loan application was approved 1 December 2020 and a LCLI (Low cost loans initiative) was approved March 2021.

Due to Council bearing all project costs including risk of cost overruns (which it cannot necessarily control) up to the project budget, it was recommended to Council that an additional 5% contingency on top of the estimated budget be added now so that a larger amount is applied for in a loan. This now makes the total estimated project budget to be $19.6m.

Social Considerations

A long term objective of Council’s Community Strategic Plan is to ensure that recreation, sporting, and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

As the age profile of the community changes, different preferences for recreation and leisure are emerging. Through its own programs Council will maintain its emphasis on access to a range of fulfilling recreation and leisure opportunities including multi-use spaces, facilities and infrastructure. This will include the acquisition of land for new parks under the Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy. Council will continue to work closely with sporting organisations and clubs, user groups and residents to upgrade and build sustainable sports grounds, netball, tennis and multi-sport courts, clubhouse facilities and other recreational facilities and amenities to provide for the needs of the population into the future. Many of these works require extended planning and are subject to available funding. Council will also continue to identify opportunities for multi-use recreational facilities, including optimising the community’s use of Council’s existing facilities.

The inclusion of community use of the facilities at St Ives High School will provide increased social and cultural venues for the community and enable better utilisation of facilities.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations have been taken into account in project design and documentation of the DA.

Community Consultation

DoE have undertaken some preliminary consultation with the broader community as is part of their due process with any DA.

Statutory notification will also be carried out as part of the DA process.

Further consultation with sporting bodies and the intended future users will be done while the DA is under assessment.

Internal Consultation

This project has been reported through Council’s Major Projects Steering Committee and the Major Projects Advisory Committee on a number of occasions.

Summary

Acting on Council resolutions from the OMC 16 February 2021, the Heads of Agreement has been executed and documentation of the DA is now complete (waiting on Ministerial approval to lodge).

At the MPSC meeting 26 May 2021, it was recommended that Tender documentation and the Tender for construction be finalised while the DA is under assessment. This work is currently being programmed so that it can be completed in time for the winning contractor to be appointed and poised to begin work as soon as the project achieves development consent (DA approval).

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Receive and note updates contained within this report.

B. Note its decision of 26 February 2019, viz.:

“That Council, in accordance with 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 determines that the use of consultants who have documented two courts for the Department of Education constitutes extenuating circumstances that should result in cost benefits for Council in designing and documenting a further two court at the same site and to the same design standards and specifications”,

continues to be relied upon in the documentation of this project for construction.

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

[1] Council Committee members, members of wholly advisory committees and delegates of Counci

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.1 / 39

Item GB.1	S02090

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.6 / 141

Item GB.6	S08410-2

Aspects	Summary of Key Changes Made	Rationale
Definitions	Australian Standard AS ISO 31000: 2018 Risk management – Guidelines.	To ensure currency and compliance with the prevailing practice
Roles and Responsibilities	Further elaborated and better defined based on Council’s business specifics in line with the Australian Standard AS ISO 31000: 2018 Risk management – Guidelines and the Office of Local Government Guidelines.	To ensure accountability are clearly defined and documented
Introduction of the Enterprise Risk Management Strategy and Risk Appetite Statement (currently under development)	To ensure the underlying risk methodology and risk taking boundary are clearly defined and communicated.	To improve the overall risk methodology
Relevant legislation	Updated based on the common practice from similar Councils and the recent regulatory developments.	To ensure currency and compliance with the prevailing practice
Related Internal Council Policies	Updated the reference made to the existing related Council policies.	To ensure currency and consistency with Council’s internal practice
Policy Review	Defined review timeframes for the Policy based on the best practice guidelines set by the Australian Standard AS ISO 31000: 2018 Risk management – Guidelines and the Office of Local Government Guidelines.	To ensure currency and compliance with the prevailing practice

Related Legislation:	Work Health Safety Act 2011 Work Health Safety Regulations 2017 Code of Practice “How to Manage Work Health & Safety Risks” 2011	Local Government Act 1993 Part 2, Division 3 “Health & Safety Duties Chapter 3 General risk and workplace management
Related Policies (Council & Internal)	Risk Appetite Statement Enterprise Risk Management Strategy	TRIM Number: TRIM Number:
Related Documents - Procedures, Guidelines, Forms, WHS Modules/PCD’s, Risk Assessments, Work Method Statements, etc	AS ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management - Guidelines IEC/ISO 31010:2009 Risk Management - Risk Assessment Techniques	ISO Guide 73 – Risk Management Vocabulary Circular No 19-20 - A new internal audit and risk management framework for local councils in NSW
Other References	Council’s Enterprise Risk Management system – Technology One

Term	Meaning
Risk	Effect of uncertainty on objectives. (Note: effect is a deviation from the expected and may be positive and/or negative).
Risk Management	The coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to risk.
Enterprise Risk Management Framework	The set of components that provide the foundations and organisational arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving risk management throughout the organisation.
Risk Management Process	Systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the activities of communicating, consulting, establishing the context, and identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk.
Control	An existing Council process, policy, procedure or activity that minimises negative risk impacts and enhances positive risk opportunities.
Risk Treatment	A proposed action that will further modify negative risk impacts or enhance positive risk opportunities.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	GB.12 / 183

Item GB.12	CY00413/9

Attachments:	A1⇩	HRC Minutes 18 February 2021		2021/098861
	A2⇩	HRC Minutes 15 April 2021		2021/147420

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	NM.1 / 485

Item NM.1	TM3/13

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 15 June 2021	NM.2 / 487

Item NM.2	S12710