Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 26 April 2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 26 April 2022 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.

In accordance with clause 3.23 of the Model Code of Meeting Practice, Councillors are reminded of the oath or affirmation of office made under section 233A of the Act, and of their obligations under the Council’s Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

Please refer to Part 4 of Council’s Code of Conduct for Pecuniary Interests and Part 5 of Council’s Code of Conduct for Non-Pecuniary Interests.

The Oath or Affirmation taken is as below:

Oath:

I [name of Councillor] swear that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government area and the Ku-ring-gai Council, and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.

Affirmation:

I [name of Councillor] solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government area and the Ku-ring-gai Council, and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.

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(s) and attachments:

C.1 NSW Heritage Act 1977

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

Attachment 1: Preliminary heritage assessment - 64 Rosebery Road, Killara

Attachment 2: Preliminary heritage assessment - 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon

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.10 Marian Street Theatre

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

Attachment 1: MST Schematic Design Cost Estimate

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

Attachment 2: MST Cost Shift Analysis

GB.11 Divestment of Council land at 47 Warrane Road Roseville Chase

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

Attachment 1: Valuations

GB.12 Council land - 97 Babbage Road Roseville Chase

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

Attachment 2: Confidential Attachment - NBV valuation for 97 Babbage Road Roseville Chase

GB.13 Ku-ring-gai High School - Northern Sydney & Beaches Hockey Association Proposal to
Upgrade Existing Facilities

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

Attachment 5: Final Cost Estimate November 2021

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

Attachment 6: Revised Cost Estimate

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 13

File: S02131

Meeting held 15 March 2022

Minutes numbered 41 to 54

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

PT.1 Petition supporting Council's planning proposal to rezone this site (Killara Lawn Tennis Bowling Club) RE2 and list the site as a local heritage item 25

File: S13316

Dear Sir

I strongly support maintaining the recreational area with RE2 zoning.

I have been a member of Killara Bowling Club for over 10 years and a resident since 1968 and until recently lived a stone throw from the wonderful green oasis that is the Bowling Club and Tennis Club. I have been appalled at the spread of redevelopment of the region, the loss of trees and the lack of attention to gardens that was once a feature of the area. I am also well aware of the historic nature of the “Recreation Area” created by J.G. Edwards, the “father of Killara” and I am strongly in favour of maintaining this area i.e. the Bowling Club and Tennis Club as a recreational oasis in Killara.

I am NOT in favour of the proposal put forward by some members of the Bowling Club to sell off the bowling Club land to finance another bowling club and strongly support the proposal to merge with the Tennis Club.

In summary as a resident of over 50 years, I am strongly in favour of the zoning category of RE2 – never to be developed as residential.

I actually spoke at the public forum on November 9, 2021 on the heritage aspect of the site, all three of us who spoke favoured the site being heritage listed.

Back in 2007 I did a Heritage course run jointly by Council and the Historical Society. To learn the ropes the study centred on Gordon but, having lived and worked in Killara for over 50 years, I started an intense study of the May25/1831 land grant of 160 acres that forms the heart of Killara and which includes the Bowling and Tennis clubs site.

I have written articles for the Historian – my article on Marian St alone is 21 pages long and over the years I have also given talks on the subject. From the beginning JG Edwards called the site ‘Killara Recreation Ground’.

At a meeting on February 25, 2022 at KBC of which I am a member, there were three letters for us to select one and sign and they were also taking signatures from members who wished to oppose Council’s proposal. There was nothing to take or sign if you wished to agree to the proposal.

I feel so strongly about all this I decided to collect some signatures of those living in the area who want to agree to Council’s proposal. Hence the attached 315 signatures.

Recommendation:

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

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 Investment Report as at 31 March 2022 27

File: FY00623/4

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 2022.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for March 2022 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.2 Disclosures of Interest Returns 34

File: CY00440/10

To table Council’s Disclosure of Interest Returns Register in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Conduct (the Code).

Recommendation:

That the tabling of the Disclosure of Interest Returns Register by Councillors be noted.

GB.3 Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meetings held on 10 June 2021 and 2 September 2021 37

File: CY00458/10

To provide Council with a copy of the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meetings held on 10 June 2021 and 2 September 2021.

Recommendation:

Council receives and notes this report.

GB.4 The Novus Foundation 2022 Gala Dinner 48

File: CY00368/12

To advise Council of the opportunity to purchase tickets for the Novus Foundation Gala Dinner on 27 May 2022.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council purchase a sponsorship package of a table of 10 tickets for the Novus Foundation 2022 Gala Dinner for $3,500; and

B. Councillors who are interested in attending the dinner advise the General Manager by 6 May 2022.

GB.5 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Plans for Public Exhibition 52

File: S13365

To note that Council will be required publicly exhibit the Draft Community Strategic Plan (CSP), Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan, prepared under the NSW Office of Local Government’s (OLG) Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

Recommendation:

That Council note that Council’s Community Strategic Plan and supporting plans will be circulated and published as late papers.

GB.6 Project Status Report 56

File: FY00621/4

To provide Council with the Project Status Report reflecting results for January, February, and March 2022.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for January, February and March 2022

GB.7 Review of Domestic Waste Management Charges / IPART Draft Report 61

File: S02294

To seek Council`s endorsement of a submission to the IPART Review of Domestic Waste Management Service Charges and endorse the NSROC Draft submission to IPART.

Recommendation:

That the General Manager be delegated to lodge Council’s submission to IPART on their review of the Domestic Management Charges in accordance with the responses provided to the IPART questions contained in this report, and that Council endorse the draft NSROC submission to IPART.

GB.8 Review of Mobile Devices for Community Re-Use 111

File: S11623

To introduce a new service associated with donating used mobile devices to charitable organisations.

Recommendation:

That Council initiates the replacement of the Mobile Muster Bins with Reconnect Project Bins and to enter a Memorandum of Understanding to outline the processes and responsibilities for using this service.

GB.9 Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group Minutes - 4 April 2022 115

File: S13163

That Council receive and note the minutes from the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group (‘SRAG’) meeting held on 4 April 2022.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group minutes from 4 April 2022.

GB.10 Marian Street Theatre 120

File: S12062-3

To update Council on the Marian Street Theatre project.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes updates contained within this report and notes the revised cost estimate for the project.

GB.11 Divestment of Council land at 47 Warrane Road Roseville Chase 145

File: S09878

To obtain Council approval for the divestment of 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase.

Recommendation:

That Council approves the divestment of 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase following its rezoning in Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy and as set out in this report and that the net proceeds be used to part fund the Marian Street Theatre upgrade.

GB.12 Council land - 97 Babbage Road Roseville Chase 150

File: S09767

To report back to Council the conclusions of an independent ecological assessment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase.

Recommendation:

That Council proceed with the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy and as set out in this report and that the net proceeds be used to part fund the Marian Street Theatre upgrade.

GB.13 Ku-ring-gai High School - Northern Sydney & Beaches Hockey Association Proposal to Upgrade Existing Facilities 214

File: S13203

The purpose of this report is to update Council on discussions with Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association (NSBHA) and the Department of Education in relation to the proposal for a synthetic hockey pitch at Ku‑ring-gai High School.

Since Council last considered this matter in July 2021 there have been significant changes to what this project looks like and how the other parties see Council being involved going forward.

Recommendation:

That Council determines in principle that it is prepared to be licensee for the proposed synthetic field, subject to agreement of suitable terms in a heads of agreement, licence agreement, and project deed (if necessary) with Schools Infrastructure NSW and quarantines its contribution to the project until the determination of the 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund, after which the matter is reassessed.

GB.14 Gilroy Road Temporary Cycleway - Project Evaluation 236

File: S12998

To consider the status of the temporary separated cycleway in Gilroy Road, Turramurra.

Recommendation:

That the pop-up cycleway in Gilroy Road be retained until the integrated 2-way separated cycleway identified in the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra is constructed.

GB.15 Planning Proposal for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara 257

File: S13022

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

Recommendation:

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

GB.16 Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Gordon - Post exhibition 298

File: S12249

To present the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 – Gordon for Council adoption.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts Volume 2 (Gordon) of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan.

GB.17 Lindfield Local Centre - Traffic Management Plan 381

File: S12474

To advise Council that Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has given its concurrence to Council’s preferred traffic management scheme for Lindfield local centre; and to clarify the basis for funding and delivery of the proposed traffic management measures.

Recommendation:

That Council note TfNSW concurrence for Council’s adopted traffic management option and that Council endorse the funding and delivery recommendations as set out in this report.

GB.18 Minutes of the February 2022 Flood Risk Management Committee Meeting 397

File: S10746

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 21 February 2022 (Attachment A1).

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 22 February 2022.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Illegal tree removal in Ku-ring-gai 404

File: CY00142/14

Notice of Motion from Councillors Lennon and Taylor, A dated 7 April 2022

The endemic tree canopy remaining in Ku-ring-gai is unique in maturity and beauty. Unfortunately, Ku-ring-gai lost 2.4 percentage points of urban forest cover between 2013 and 2020 according to the Centre for Urban Research at RMIT University and Greener Spaces Better Places. During the same period, the Northern Beaches increased urban forest cover by +2.7 points.

One of the critical factors driving the loss of urban cover in Ku-ring-gai has been the illegal removal of trees. Council's current activities to address this issue include issuing penalty notices, criminal investigations, and pursuing consequences through courts of law. Unfortunately, the current penalty notices are not an effective deterrent and criminal investigations can be hampered by a lack of evidence. Council is looking to enhance current measures for pursuing investigations and preventing illegal removal through community education.

We, therefore, move:

That staff provide a briefing to councillors and provide a report back to the August 2022 Ordinary Meeting of Council with additional measures to reduce illegal tree removal.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

NM.2 Footpaths in Ku-ring-gai 405

File: S09113/11

Notice of Motion from Councillor Smith dated 8 April 2022

During my election campaign I had the privilege of meeting and listening to members of my community regarding many issues. One of the key themes I heard was the need for new footpaths to service our aging population, parents with prams who are developing our next generation and school children who need safe access to and from their school.

An assessment of the current footpath network reveals that there is a total of 398km of footpath across the LGA and sadly St Ives Ward has only 54km. It has been presented to Councillors that an additional 268km of footpath is required to ensure every street has at least one footpath.

Council has allocated $5.2m for footpaths in next year’s draft budget, of which $537,000 is allocated to new footpaths. This is a moderate increase from previous years however based on Council’s footpath prioritisation program only 6 streets will benefit from a newly constructed footpath.

If we are serious about improving access for our residents then the budget needs to increase substantially. Modelling shows that it would take about 88 years to build a footpath in every street if the annual budget was increased to $1m, 71 years if Council spent $1.25m and 59 years if Council spent $1.5m annually.

In my view, the need for footpaths is a priority and they need to be built as soon as possible whilst balancing funding for ongoing maintenance and upgrades.

I, therefore, move:

That all future budgets for new footpaths be increased to $1.25 million until every street in Ku-ring-gai has at least one footpath for the benefit of the community. Funding for the new footpaths is to be allocated from the annual footpath renewal budget which forms part of the overall footpath budget.

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

QN.1 Account of losses and recovering costs from Support Marian Street Theatre Committee (or Philanthropist) resulting from NM3 of 15 February 2022 OMC 407

File: S12062

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 NSW Heritage Act 1977

File: S10066

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)(e), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(e) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to information that would, if disclosed prejudice the maintenance of law.

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(e) because it

It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice the maintenance of law.

Report by Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

John McKee

General Manager

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 15 March 2022

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Pettett (Chairperson)

Councillor G Taylor (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors S Lennon & B Ward (Gordon Ward)

Councillors S Ngai & A Taylor (Roseville Ward)

Councillors C Kay & M Smith (St Ives Ward)

Councillor C Spencer & K Wheatley (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (George Bounassif)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Christopher M Jones)

Governance Support Officer/ Minutes Secretary (Nicole Kratochvil)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00PM

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.

No Interest was declared.

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:

Refer:

MM.1 - Proposed contribution to the NSW flood recovery effort - Mayoral Minute from the Mayor to Councillors.

GB.9 - Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022: December Biannual Report - Report GB.9 was circulated previously to Councillors on
4 March 2022. GB.9 replaced report GB.2.

Memorandums:

QN.1- For the purpose of transparency and good governance - Memorandum from the Director Strategy & Environment dated 10 March 2022 to Mayor, Councillors and General Manager containing a supplementary answer to the question with notice.

Confirmation of Reports to be considered in closed meeting

File: CY00368/12

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

GB.4 Draft Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places Policy

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

Attachment 2: Lander & Rogers legal advice

QN.1 For the Purpose of Transparency and Good Governance

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

Attachment 3: Attachment A2 to the Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 28 February 2022 - Email from the potential philanthropist dated 17 July 2021

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: CY00368/12

Meeting held 15 February 2022

Minutes numbered 09 to 40

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Ward)

That Minutes numbered 09 to 40 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

Proposed contribution to the NSW flood recovery effort

File: S02727

Vide: MM.1

The last two weeks have been nothing short of devastating for many areas of our State.

Ku-ring-gai has thankfully been spared the worst of the flood’s effects, but there are many people in western Sydney who have suffered great damage and loss.

Losses have been even greater in northern NSW in the Lismore and Ballina communities, with some heartbreaking stories emerging of uninhabitable homes, businesses destroyed, and personal possessions lost forever.

Sadly, people have also lost their lives to the worst floods in living memory.

The scale of this disaster is such that every level of government needs to step up and provide assistance. I know that many in our community are coordinating practical help such as donations, food deliveries and replacement household goods. Thank you for everything you are doing to assist those communities in the worst hit areas.

In recognition of the scale of this disaster and the huge rebuilding effort required, I would like to propose that Ku-ring-gai Council provide immediate assistance in the form of a $5,000 donation to the following charities:

$3,000 to GIVIT (all donations go directly to flood victims)

$1,000 to the Salvation Army

$1,000 to the Red Cross

These charities are providing immediate on the ground support to those who are in most need.

Resolved:

(Moved: Mayor Pettett)

That Council approve a one-off donation of $5,000 split between the charities outlined in this Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Recommendations from Committee

Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee 23 February 2022

File: CY00022/14

Vide: RC.1

Meeting held 23 February 2022

Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC03.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

That:

A. In respect to Minutes numbered KTC01 and KTC02, Council adopt the Committee recommendation.

B. In respect to Minute numbered KTC03, this is to be brought back to the next Traffic Committee meeting for review.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Investment Report as at 25 February 2022

File: FY00623/4

Vide: GB.1

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for February 2022.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for February 2022 be received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Amended Code of Meeting Practice

File: S02211

Vide: GB.3

To present Council with a draft updated Code of Meeting Practice consistent with the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) Circular of 29 October 2021 for consideration and public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Lennon)

That:

A. Pursuant to section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council place the draft Code of Meeting Practice in Attachment A1 on public exhibition for 28 days.

B. A report be brought to Council in June 2022 summarising the public response and providing a final version of the draft Code of Meeting Practice, for adoption.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Draft Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places Policy

File: S13433

Vide: GB.4

To seek Council’s endorsement of a draft Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places Policy for the purposes of public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

A. That Council endorse the revised draft Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places Policy (dated February 2022) for public exhibition and that the results of the exhibition are reported back to Council prior to finalising the document.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Draft Middle Harbour Southern Catchments Flood Study for Public Exhibition

File: S12267

Vide: GB.5

To place the Draft Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

A. That Council places Draft Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

B. That all properties identified on the Mainstream and Overland Flood Planning Area and Probable Maximum Flood maps in the Draft Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study are directly notified about the public exhibition.

C. That following the public exhibition period, feedback is provided to BMT to inform the final Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study.

D. That the final Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study is presented to Council for endorsement, with any amendments and corrections.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Water Sensitive City Strategy and Policy – Post exhibition

File: S13479

Vide: GB.6

For Council to adopt the exhibited Water Sensitive City Policy (2021) and draft Ku-ring-gai Water Sensitive City Strategy (2022) with amendments as outlined in this report.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

A. That Council endorses the Water Sensitive City Policy (2021) with amendments as outlined in this report.

B. That Council endorses the Ku-ring-gai Water Sensitive City Strategy (2022) with amendments as outlined in this report and to produce a graphic designed document suitable for Council’s website.

C. That a copy of the endorsed policy and strategy are placed on Council’s website.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 1, Volume 2 - Turramurra, Volume 3

File: S12249

Vide: GB.7

To present the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 1, Volume 2 (Turramurra only) and Volume 3 for Council adoption.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

A. It is recommended that Council adopt Volume 1, Volume 2 (Turramurra), and Volume 3 (Technical Manual) of the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 - December Bi-Annual Report

File: FY00382/14

Vide: GB.2

To report to Council on the progress of the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, for the six month period July to December 2021.

Recommendation:

That the results for the December 2021 six month progress and exception report for the Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 be received and noted.

Note: Please refer to item GB.9 which replaced item GB.2.

Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022: December Biannual Report

File: FY00382/14

Vide: GB.9

To report to Council on the progress of the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, for the period July to December 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That:

A. The six (6) month progress review of the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022 for the period July to December 2021 be received and noted.

B. Proposed additions and changes to 2021-22 tasks, as discussed and recommended in this report, to be included in the Operational Plan 2021-2022.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Employment Zones Reform

File: S12792

Vide: GB.8

To inform Council of the Employment Zones Reform that is currently being undertaken by the Department of Planning and Environment.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Spencer)

That Council write to the local state Members of Parliament expressing Council’s concerns with the proposed amalgamation of the B1 local centre zone with the B2 neighbourhood centre zone.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Walkway in Turramurra

File: S02444/14

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillor Wheatley dated 24 February 2022

Dr Lydie Nashar is an active member of the local community in Turramurra. On Thursday, February 17, I was privileged to meet Lydie and inspect her work in the walkway between Princes Street and Avalon Street and part of the walkway from Avalon Street to Pentecost Avenue, Turramurra.

Her motivation and vision have been prompted by her passion for gardens and desire to create a tranquil and beautiful space for the enjoyment of the neighbourhood. Lydie has been upgrading this walkway since 1991 at her own expense and in her own time. During the visit, I was approached by many residents who genuinely believed that the walkway should be named after Lydie.

As I understand it, there are strict guidelines set by the Geographical Names Board about naming public places and that it would unfortunately not meet the criteria. I do strongly agree with the local residents that recognition should be given to Lydie for her service to the local community in beautifying this area.

I, therefore, move:

That the General Manager investigate options available for onsite recognition to acknowledge Dr Lydie Nashar for her efforts in establishing and beautifying this walkway.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/A. Taylor)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted and that options be brought back to Council at the May 2022 ordinary meeting of council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Marian Street Theatre Design

File: S12062

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillors Lennon, Pettett and Ward dated 25 February 2022

On 15 February 2022 Council resolved as follows:

That Council suspend, for a maximum of three months, work by Council staff and consultants associated with the current proposed design of the Marian Street Theatre. The delay will enable the Save Marian Street Theatre Committee in consultation with local residents with expertise in commercial theatre and experts known to them to review the current proposed design of the theatre and to bring any suggestions they make as a result of that review to Council.

This motion seeks authority for Council staff and other resources to be assigned to the review.

We, therefore, move:

A. That staff work with the Deputy Mayor Cr Ward and Cr Lennon to consult with the Save Marian Street Theatre Committee and other interested parties to review the design of the Marian Street Theatre.

B. That consultants be made available as required to facilitate the review.

C. That the review be undertaken urgently, and staff provide a progress report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 April 2022.

D. That work on further developing and documenting the current proposed design remain suspended until the review has been reported to Council.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Pettett/Smith)

A. That Council rescinds its decision of 15 February 2022 Council “That Council suspend, for a maximum of three months, work by Council staff and consultants associated with the current proposed design of the Marian Street Theatre. The delay will enable the Save Marian Street Theatre Committee in consultation with local residents with expertise in commercial theatre and experts known to them to review the current proposed design of the theatre and to bring any suggestions they make as a result of that review to Council.”

B. That detailed documentation of the project continues in the same manner that was occurring prior to 15 February 2022.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Ngai, Smith, Spencer and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillors Lennon, A. Taylor, G. Taylor and Ward

CARRIED

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

For the Purpose of Transparency and Good Governance

File: S12062

Vide: QN.1

QUESTION:

Question from Councillor for Wahroonga Ward Councillor Cedric Spencer dated 25 February 2022

For the purpose of transparency and good governance,

will the General Manager provide a report for Councillors with details and timeline in relation to the dealings of Marian Street Theatre involving the so called philanthropist (or "investor"), Councillor Ward, staff, other councillors, and certain Committee Members of Support Marian Street Theatre?

Dealings should include activities and representations made by the various parties during and before this term of council, as Director Watson stated at the February OMC that Councillor Ward had brought the philanthropist investor to meet with him and former Mayor Anderson before this term.

RESPONSE:

The response consisted of the three attachments (A1-A3) in the Ordinary Meeting of Council Agenda. An additional memorandum was provided to the Mayor, Councillors and General Manager:

Supplementary Answer by Director Strategy & Environment

At the OMC of Council being held on 15 March 2022, Councillor Spencer raised the following Question With Notice:

Further to memorandum dated 28 February 2022 in relation to this matter, former Mayor Anderson has advised that her recollection of events is different to those put forward in that memorandum, and that there was no longstanding relationship, with the potential philanthropist. The former Mayor also advises that, among other things, her referral of the matter to the General Manager was because the matter was Operational in nature.

Former Mayor Anderson confirmed that there had been no meeting or telephone contact between herself and the potential philanthropist on this matter.

The Meeting closed at 8.11PM

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 15 March 2022 (Pages 1 - 24) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 26 April 2022.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

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.	Integrated risk management, compliance and internal control systems are in place to identify, assess, monitor and manage risks throughout the organisation.	Manage, coordinate, support and facilitate the effective operation of Council's Internal Audit function.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
A shared long-term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement.	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.	Prepare, exhibit and adopt a revised Community Strategic Plan for Ku-ring-gai in response to identified community and strategic priorities, challenges and opportunities.

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.	Business papers and associated minutes are published in an accurate and timely manner for public scrutiny and to encourage community participation.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	S02294

Review of Domestic Waste Management Charges / IPART Draft Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council`s endorsement of a submission to the IPART Review of Domestic Waste Management Service Charges and endorse the NSROC Draft submission to IPART.
background:	The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) is currently reviewing domestic waste management (DWM) charges levied by NSW local councils. IPART released a discussion paper in August 2020 and have followed up with a draft report in December 2021.
comments:	NSW local councils provide a range of DWM services to their residents, such as kerbside waste and recycling collection and periodic clean-up services. To recover the cost of these services, local councils levy DWM charges (separate to ordinary rates) on rateable residential properties. IPART have published draft recommendations for the DWM as follows: · Publish a benchmark waste peg · Publish an annual report on council DWM charge increases · Publish pricing principles (that would reduce the costs able to be recovered from the DWM charge) IPART is seeking submissions on the draft report which are due by 29 April 2022.
recommendation:	That the General Manager be delegated to lodge Council’s submission to IPART on their review of the Domestic Management Charges in accordance with the responses provided to the IPART questions contained in this report, and that Council endorse the draft NSROC submission to IPART.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council`s endorsement of a submission to the IPART Review of Domestic Waste Management Service Charges and endorse the NSROC Draft submission to IPART.

Background

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) is currently reviewing domestic waste management (DWM) charges levied by NSW local councils.

IPART released a discussion paper in August 2020 and have followed up with a report ‘Review of Domestic Waste Management Charges Draft Report December 2021’, which is attached.

IPART is seeking submissions on the draft report which are due by 29 April 2022.

Comments

IPART propose to publish a benchmark waste peg that reflects the average annual change in costs of providing DWM services. IPART propose to publish a report on councils whose charges increased more than the benchmark waste peg. They would review the councils’ information about cost drivers and where councils cannot justify the increase in their charges, they may consider regulating the individual council’s charges or implementing a binding waste peg.

While IPART have decided not to set a limit on annual DWM charges for 2022-23, the proposed benchmark waste peg for 2022-23 is only 1.1%. There is a risk that Council waste services will become unsustainable, consistent with the general financial position of many NSW councils under the rate pegging regime.

IPART also propose recommending that OLG publish pricing principles to guide councils on how they should recover the costs of providing DWM services. The proposed principles are:

1. DWM revenue should equal the efficient incremental cost of providing the DWM services.

2. Councils should publish details of all the DWM services they provide, the size of the bin, the frequency of the collection and the individual charges for each service.

3. Within a council area, customers that are:

a. imposing similar costs for a particular service should pay the same DWM charge

b. paying the same DWM charge for a particular service should get the same level of service.

4. Any capital costs of providing DWM services should be recovered over the life of the asset to minimise price volatility.

The main concern with the pricing principles is that councils may only recover the ‘efficient incremental cost’ of providing the DWM services. There is minimal guidance as to how this would be calculated, but it is likely that the amount of overheads able to be recovered from the DWM charge would reduce. Currently Council recovers a proportional share of overheads relative to other council services, for an amount of approximately $1.8 million in 2022/23.

Council has a detailed financial model in place that calculates total overheads for the service. This includes corporate overheads, such as customer relations, management support, Finance services (revenue accounting, accounts payable), procurement, regulatory & operation services, records management, IT support, human resources, building rental. Currently Council allocates 11% in overhead costs on DW service unit. These costs are reasonable considering the total DWM operational budget of approximately $20m per annum.

IPART note that if the revenue from DWM charges reduce under their methodology, councils may apply for a special rates variation to recover the gap. However, this would result in significant additional costs and create uncertainty for councils in planning for the future.

IPART Seeks Comment on their December 2021 report:

1. Do you think the proposed annual benchmark waste peg will assist Councils in setting their DWM charges?

The proposed annual benchmark waste peg is not supported as:

· Council waste costs vary significantly from benchmarked costs due to service level, density, demographics, and timing of service introductions compared to other councils

· It would incentivise councils to provide low service levels, prioritise cost over innovation and delivering best-practice services.

· It would pose a significant barrier to delivery of council targets and the NSW Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy (WaSM) targets.

· It would increase risk to the successful roll-out of new services such as food organics and garden organics (FOGO), which the EPA has mandated by 2030.

· The peg may not represent the real costs of providing the service and is subject to limitations in the IPART pricing methodology

· It would increase the regulatory cost for councils and the state government.

· Council waste services may become unsustainable, consistent with the general financial position of many NSW councils under the rate pegging regime.

2. Do you think the pricing principles will assist councils to set DWM charges to achieve best value for ratepayers?

The primary impact of the pricing principles would be the requirement that council overheads allocated to the DWM service be the incremental cost rather than a proportional amount relative to all council services. This is unlikely to improve value for money as overhead costs will be less visible when transferred to the general council budget rather than remaining part of the DWM charge.

If pricing principles are introduced that result in reducing DWM revenue, councils would be left to rebalance the reduced DWM charges with general rates which impacts on the Council`s general financial position or alternatively Council would be required to apply for a special rates variation application. Imposing a requirement for special rates variations to make up for lost DWM revenue would therefore result in significant additional costs and create uncertainty for councils in planning for the future. This would also be inconsistent with the Local Government Act that requires Councils to levy the community for the reason costs of providing the domestic waste services.

3. Would it be helpful to Councils if further detailed examples were developed to include in the Office of Local Government’s Council Rating and revenue raising manual to assist in implementing the pricing principles?

The pricing principles proposed in the IPART discussion paper are very brief and require further detailed development, including the provision of examples, before implementation.

Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) Submission

The Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) worked together with its members, the eight local government Councils, to incorporate their views on the issue and make a submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s Draft Report on the Review of the Domestic Waste Management Charge –December 2021.

The submission provides overarching feedback opposing the waste peg and supporting the benchmarking approach proposed in IPART’s 2020 discussion paper. The submission provides more detailed comments on the draft decisions and the issues for which comment is sought on IPART’s paper as well as setting out NSROC’s preferred approach.

An extract from the NSROC submission highlighting the overarching feedback is presented below:

“.. NSROC opposes the approach which IPART has proposed involving a state wide benchmark waste peg and recommends that IPART instead consider an alternative approach more similar to what was envisaged in the Local Council Domestic Waste Management Charges Discussion Paper issued in August 2020. Pricing principles could then be established that reflect the reality of modern waste management and the delivery of services that are for the benefit of domestic residential properties. These views appear to be shared by the majority of councils in NSW and to be supported by waste industry bodies, and we strongly urge you to consider adapting your approach to reflect them. ..”

Ku-ring-gai Council has been involved in discussions with NSROC during the review process and shares the same views as expressed in their submission which is also consistent with Councils’ comments in this report, therefore it is recommended that Council endorses/adopts NSROC Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

NSROC’s Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s is attached to this Report ( Attachment A2).

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council's responses to government policy and reforms are guided by and aligned with the adopted Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community Our Future 2030'.

Analyse and provide appropriate submissions to government proposals affecting the local government industry.

Governance Matters

Nil

Risk Management

Nil

Financial Considerations

The IPART pricing principles would reduce the costs able to be recovered from the DWM charge, impacting on council financial sustainability.

Social Considerations

Nil

Environmental Considerations

If the IPART recommendations are implemented, there will be risks to the NSW Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy targets and new services such as food organics and garden organics.

Community Consultation

Nil

Internal Consultation

Nil

Summary

IPART is currently reviewing domestic waste management charges levied by NSW local councils.

IPART have published draft recommendations for DWM charges as follows:

· Publish a benchmark waste peg

· Publish an annual report on council DWM charge increases

· Publish pricing principles (that would reduce the costs able to be recovered from the DWM charge)

It is considered that the changes proposed to the DWM charges would reduce the quality of domestic waste services, discourage waste recycling and recovery, and detrimentally impact on council financial sustainability.

It is proposed that Council makes a submission in response to the IPART Draft Report as outlined in the body of this Report.

NSROC prepared a submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal which expresses the view of its’ eight Council members and is also consistent with Council’s view.

It is proposed that Council adopts NSROC’s submission to IPART, noting there may be minor changes from current to final draft.

Recommendation:

A) That the General Manager be delegated to lodge Council’s submission to IPART on their review of the Domestic Management Charges in accordance with the responses provided to the IPART questions contained in this report.

B) That Council endorses the draft NSROC submission to IPART.

Colin Wright

Manager Waste & Cleaning Services

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1⇩	Review of Domestic Waste Management Charges Draft Report December 2021		2022/085954
	A2⇩	NSROC Draft Submission IPART Review of Domestic Waste Management Charges DWMC		2022/097622

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	S12062-3

Marian Street Theatre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the Marian Street Theatre project.

background:	The consultant team have recently completed Schematic Design (to approximately 70% documentation) and an updated cost estimate for construction works has been completed.

comments:	This report seeks to update Council on the current status of the project including the latest cost estimate for construction.

recommendation:	That Council receives and notes updates contained within this report and notes the revised cost estimate for the project.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the Marian Street Theatre project.

Background

The Marian Street Theatre (MST) operated as a local theatre for over 40 years until 2013 and prior to that was used as a theatre or public hall since being built in 1906.

Council closed the Marian Street Theatre in December 2013 to undertake urgent lighting, electrical and other associated upgrades but due to the building’s deteriorated state, the Theatre has remained closed ever since.

Council resolved on 8 May 2018 to undertake the renewal of Marian Street theatre and to allocate funds to the project in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. As per the resolution, the project was (and still is) to be funded by asset sales. To date, these asset sales have not been realised.

In 2018 Council staff began investigation into the state of the building (due diligence reporting) followed by design work of a DA to re-open the building. The DA was approved in August 2021. Following a Council adopted Notice of Motion in April 2021 to use funds from general revenue (once the DA was approved) to progress tender documentation of the MST project, the design consultant team re-mobilised and work on design development began in November 2021. The consultant team have recently completed schematic design (to approximately 70% documentation) and an updated cost estimate for construction works has been completed (see Confidential Attachment A1).

Comments

This report seeks to update Council on the status of the design and associated cost estimate. The report also contains notes (Attachment A3) from the design review meeting with the Mayor and Councillors, 16 March 2022.

Vision for Proposed Theatre Performance Spaces

The renovated MST will focus on building a vibrant, multi-use arts venue with a strong focus on drama. The vision for the future of the theatre is set out below:

“MST will be Ku-ring-gai’s innovative new community performance space. It will provide a stage for a diverse range of expressive entertainers, from professional artists to talented community performers, who will deliver a program of stimulating and engaging productions for the community.

As well as a theatre experience visitors will enjoy café facilities and multi-purpose spaces, all connecting sensitively with the surrounding natural environment. MST will honour its live theatrical traditions.

The focus will be on content diversity, which will include live performances, musical experiences and new productions. Our goal will be promoting creativity, originality and inclusivity for anyone who enjoys the delight of great live performances.”

The project vision is further emphasised as;

“The new image for a ‘theatre’ is that of a community living room – a place that is open as needed and always active - with informal programming, a variety of live performance genre, and an atmosphere that is buzzing and welcoming. New spaces have enlarged lobbies where high quality drinks and snacks are available for sale over longer periods of time. These spaces are informal but physically attractive and inclusive in the ways they are designed and animated. They are warm and inspirational - welcoming a variety of live performance media and diverse audiences - rather than one-dimensional, cold and institutional, thereby inviting the community to interact.”

Key Components of the Theatre

Multiple rehearsal and performance spaces have been carefully selected to build ‘a theatre eco-system’.

Seven discrete spaces comprise the ‘eco-system’:

• a main Theatre Auditorium space with 249 seats;

• a smaller experimental Theatrette space with 63 seats;

• an acoustically resonant Rehearsal Space with 60 seats on flat floor;

• a Flexible Community space;

• a commercial Cafe;

• a Main Foyer space with connection to the main auditorium; and

• an outdoor amphitheatre, which connects the cafe through to the park and existing children’s playground.

Design Review

The project Architects and Council staff met with the Mayor and Councillors 16 March 2022 to review the current design. Notes from the meeting are included at Attachment A3 and a summary of a request to review combining the theatrette and community spaces can be seen at Attachment A4. The consensus from the design team for the layout change is not positive due to there being many constraints including budget and structural issues.

If Council requires this change to be made, the instruction should be given as soon as possible as there will be significant program and documentation impacts (particularly for structure). At the present time this matter is not being actioned.

Cost Estimate

An independent Quantity Surveyor (QS) has provided a cost estimates for the design at completion of schematic design (approximately 70% design development) Confidential Attachment A1. Progress on this item was delayed because of Council’s decision to suspend work on the project earlier this year.

The estimated project Cost is now some $21,959,596, a variance of +$5,655,960 when compared to the DA cost estimate prepared two years ago in February 2020 ($16,303,637). Note these are ‘whole of project’ costs including design of which a large amount has already been paid for.

The construction estimate is now some $18,673,126, a variance of +$ 4,809,489 from the DA estimate of $ 13,863,637. The likelihood of escalation has been raised a number of times in briefings with Councillors in recent months.

The shift analysis (Confidential Attachment A2) provides detail on the variances between the schematic design estimate and the DA estimate. In summary, points of divergence are as follows:

· The DA design was priced in February 2020 and there have been some significant impacts on the construction industry since that time. Escalation would be approx. 8% (equating to a revised value for the DA estimate of $17.6m). Certain materials (such as steel and concrete) have gone up in cost significantly - more than 20%. Additionally, scarcity of materials has also seen an increase in costs.

· Services + Theatre Equipment revised estimates equate to a large portion of the increase, of which there is a:

o ~$550k increase for theatre equipment, where the consultant has advised that this is due to the addition of the LED screen to Marian Street (+$110k);

o design development of Audio ($150k) and LED lighting ($75k) and an increase in pricing equating to +25% (remainder ~$130k);

o ~$1,653k increase for mechanical services based on design development and modelling for the auditorium;

o ~$109k increase to align with latest design + include for sanitary fixtures and fittings;

o ~$611k increase to align with latest design + accommodate for the substation (~$350k trade cost) + smoke curtain (~$75k trade cost); and

o ~$62k increase based on indicative pricing from lift contractors.

· upper floors (up ~$403k) due to the detailed structural design which is now available and has significantly more structural steel than anticipated. The latest design also sees additional areas being demolished and replaced on L2 (notably under the auditorium seating, which was previously to be retained);

· scope creep in terms of the amount of new structure has had an impact on the structural costs and the demolition costs (~$150k);

· due to a ‘condition of consent’ requiring the building to be ‘earthquake proof’ (usually only required for new buildings) a significant amount of more steel columns have been incorporated into the design (~$156k);

· development of the detail around landscape, walkways and roads has increased project costs by approx. ~$350k, this includes:

o further details around the suspended grated plastic ramp to the amphitheatre, which was previously price as a timber deck on grade but now details suspended structure with piering and more structural steel than was previously anticipated (~$150k);

o detailed soft landscaping/planting schedule (~$50k)

o bulk earthworks plan for external works showing more cut and fill across the site (~$40k); and

o additional retaining walls and suspended slab elements for the paving to create the over-hangs desired as opposed to the slab on grade previously priced (~$50k).

Additionally, the amounts noted above only reflect trade cost increases which attract on-costs, the likes of which include: contractors preliminaries & margin, design contingency, construction contingency and professional and authority fees.

Council is requested to note the Schematic Design Cost Estimate included in Confidential Attachment A1.

integrated planning and reporting

Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
C2 - Cultural Diversity and Creativity	C2.1 A harmonious community that respects, appreciates, celebrates and learns from each other and values our evolving cultural identity.	Achieve development consent and progress detailed documentation for the tender of Marian Street Theatre
C4 - Healthy Lifestyles	C4.1 A community that embraces healthier lifestyle choices and practices.	Deliver and support programs and events that improve the wellbeing of the community.
P8 Improving the standard of our infrastructure	P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community assets.	Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.

Governance Matters

The Council resolution of 8 May 2018 placed the renewal of the Marian Street Theatre in the Long Term Financial Plan. Council confirmed its resolve to re-establish the theatre with an adopted Notice of Motion in April 2021 to use funds from general revenue to progress tender documentation of the project.

Risk Management

Key risks are summarised as follows:

Risk 1 – No ‘asset sale’ funds are available for construction of the project

There is a 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.

Risk 2 – The final design exceeds the budget

There is a risk that the cost of construction will continue to rise. Should tenders for construction exceed the budget a report outlining options would be submitted to Council requesting either amendments to the design or additional funds to cover the increase.

Risk 3 – Council reputation if the project is not delivered

Council’s reputation is not at risk from its decision to proceed with the project, rather, there is a reputational risk if the project is not delivered.

Financial Considerations

The 2021/22 budget and long term financial plan provides a total project budget of $16.7m (including $1.4m already spent to date), which is funded from general revenue ($1.8m) and asset sales ($14.9m). There is a separate report on the agenda for this Council Meeting regarding the forthcoming budget, outlined below.

The draft 2022/23 budget and long term financial plan provides funding of $23.8m (including $1.4m already spent to date), which is funded from general revenue ($1.8m) and a loan of $22m to be repaid from asset sales. The budget of $23.8m is 8% higher than the latest cost estimate of $21.9m, to provide a modest buffer.

Note that there is a proposed change to the funding strategy in 2022/23 with the use of loan borrowing to ensure the project is not delayed waiting for asset sales revenue. Council should note that this approach comes with increased financial commitment and risk. In addition, being the redevelopment of an old theatre building, Council should proceed with the project on the basis that it accepts there may be further increases to project costs.

It has previously been estimated that the theatre would require an operational subsidy of around $0.7m pa. This has also been included in the long term financial plan from 2024/25 onwards and funded from general revenue.

Social Considerations

The proposal will achieve the following positive social and economic outcomes:

· provide new and improved creative, performance and community spaces, as well as a new cafe for use by the broader community;

· provide improved accessibility for people with disabilities and building upgrades in line with current BCA, access and fire safety standards;

· provide improvements to the public open space known as Selkirk Park; and

· ensure the ongoing use of the Marian Street Theatre, which is currently vacant and disused.

The provision of additional community infrastructure, providing both indoor and outdoor community spaces will ensure that the Marian Street Theatre becomes a vibrant and popular place to meet and recreate for all ages.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental issues arising from this report. All environmental impacts have been considered and assessed as part of the DA process.

Community Consultation

Consultation with the community has occurred on numerous occasions with regard to the provision of live theatre in Ku-ring-gai.

Specific to this project, Council established a Marian Street Theatre Committee Reference Group. The reference group consisted of Councillors, members of the Save Marian Street Theatre Committee, theatre and arts cultural specialists, and members of the community. This committee had a role in informing the direction and outcomes of the rejuvenated theatre.

An event day was also held in Selkirk Park on Sunday, 17 November 2019 to inform the broader community of progress and design of the project.

Further community consultation was undertaken through public notification of the DA.

Internal Consultation

GMD is the project owner and sponsor of the project.

The Major Projects Steering Committee and Major Project Advisory Committee are regularly informed and have had input into advancement of the project.

Summary

The consultant design team have recently completed Schematic Design (to approximately 70% documentation) and an updated cost estimate for construction works has been completed (see Confidential Attachment A1). The cost of construction is now expected to be beyond the DA estimate (February 2020) in the realm of $5m (approximately $6m over the 2020 total project budget when including design and contingencies etc). Given current pressures within the construction section, it is possible that further costs increases may occur prior to a construction contract being awarded.

In finalising design development and tender documentation it is advantageous to determine the project budget. The construction documentation can be tailored to delivery within the set budget.

The project architects and council staff met with the Councillors on 16 March 2022 to review the current design. Notes from the meeting are included at Attachment A3 and a summary of a request to review combining the theatrette and community spaces can be seen at Attachment A4.

Recommendation:

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

B. That Council notes the revised cost estimate for the project at completion of Schematic design (approximately 70% design development) included in Confidential Attachment A1.

C. That Council notes further cost increases may occur prior to a construction contract being awarded and during construction.

D. If Council proceeds it accepts the risk of project costs and financial commitment increasing.

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	MST Schematic Design Cost Estimate	Confidential
	A2	MST Cost Shift Analysis	Confidential
	A3 ⇩	Minutes - Design Review Meeting	2022/097132
	A4 ⇩	Theatrette revised design - Pros and Cons	2022/094394

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.12 / 1

Item GB.12	S09767

Council land - 97 Babbage Road Roseville Chase

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report back to Council the conclusions of an independent ecological assessment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase.

background:	At the OMC of 13 June 2017 and 15 June 2021, Council resolved to divest 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase. At its OMC of July 2021 Council, resolved ‘that an independent consultant be engaged by Council to assess the apparent anomalies between claims being made by the community and the material upon which Council relied when considering this matter in 2018’. The claimed “anomalies” related to the ecological attributes and significance of the site.

comments:	At the OMC of June 2021 (OMC124, C.3) Council resolved to divest from surplus land at 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase (the site) in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy. Following this resolution, Councillors received objections from a number of residents and a petition against the sale of the land. The objectors and petition characterised the site as ecologically significant and questioned the potential impact of developing the site. This conflicted with the information presented by Council. Council engaged an independent ecological consultant to deliver a Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment Report (FFA) for future development of the site. The report confirms that development of the site will not result in significant ecological impacts.

recommendation:	That Council proceed with the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy and as set out in this report and that the net proceeds be used to part fund the Marian Street Theatre upgrade.

Purpose of Report

To report back to Council the conclusions of an independent ecological assessment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase.

Background

At the OMC of 26 May 2015 which followed a public hearing, Council resolved that 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase be reclassified as operational land, for a planning proposal be lodged to rezone the land as E4 Environmental Living, for anomalies related to the subdivision line be investigated, and that a further report be brought back to Council regarding future subdivision and divestment.

At the OMC of 13 June 2017, Council resolved to approve the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, subject to a further report outlining the manner of divestment, pricing information and a further resolution and delegations prior to preparing the property for market.

In a further report to the OMC of June 2021 (OMC124, C.3), Council resolved to divest from surplus land at 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase (the site) in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy.

At the OMC of July 2021, in relation to the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, Council resolved ‘that an independent consultant be engaged by Council to assess the apparent anomalies between claims being made by the community and the material upon which Council relied when considering this matter in 2018’. The anomalies related to the ecological attributes and significance of the site.

Council has received and reviewed the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment Report (FFA) which is attached to this report as Attachment A1.

Comments

Subsequent to resolutions of Council of 13 June 2017 and 15 June 2021, which endorsed divestment of 97 Babbage Road, in June/July 2021 Councillors received objections to the sale of the land. The objectors characterised the site as ecologically significant and questioned the potential impact of developing the site. This conflicted with the information presented by Council.

To address this inconsistency, an independent consultant was engaged to deliver a FFA for future development at 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW 2069 (Lot 47/-/DP13444).

The FFA included a number of general and specific survey techniques, including:

· identifying and recording the vegetation communities present on the subject land, with a focus on identifying any threatened ecological communities (TEC);

· searching for threatened species, species diagnostic of threatened ecological communities and priority weeds;

· recording opportunistic sightings of any fauna species seen or heard within the immediate surrounds of the subject land;

· identifying and recording the locations of threatened fauna habitat such as important nesting, roosting or foraging microhabitats;

· targeting the habitat of any threatened and regionally significant fauna including:

o tree hollows (habitat for threatened large forest owls, parrots, cockatoos and arboreal mammals);

o caves and crevices (habitat for threatened reptiles, small mammals and microbats);

o termite mounds (habitat for threatened reptiles and the echidna);

o soaks (habitat for threatened frogs and dragonflies);

o wetlands (habitat for threatened fish, frogs and water birds);

o drainage lines (habitat for threatened fish and frogs);

o fruiting trees (food for threatened frugivorous birds and mammals);

o flowering trees (food for threatened nectarivores mammals and birds);

o trees and shrubs supporting nest structures (habitat for threatened birds and arboreal mammals), and

o any other habitat features that may support fauna (particularly threatened) species;

· assessing the connectivity and quality of the vegetation within the subject land and surrounding area; and

· identifying the species and habitat values of all trees proposed to be removed.

The consultant was also provided the full list of species and all photos submitted by residents and asked to consider this within the FFA.

Following the assessment of the site, the consultant concluded it is ‘unlikely that the proposed development will cause significant effects to the local or regional persistence of a viable local population of any species of threatened fauna or flora.’

The Flora and Fauna Report goes on to state:

‘It is not likely that any threatened flora species occur naturally within the Subject Property. The habitat is overgrown with dense weed infestations and has been managed historically through infill planting, mowing and other gardening activities.

The proposed development may contribute localised effects to habitat for threatened fauna. The primary habitat consisted of a native tree canopy which is likely to provide forage and roost habitat for locally common, mobile threatened fauna species, including Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) and vulnerable microbats.

The Subject Property did not contain any potential breeding habitat for threatened species. There was one hollow-bearing Eucalyptus punctata with a medium sized hollow (~10cm diameter) occurring on the Subject Property. This hollow was shallow (the entire extent could be seen from the opening) and low to the ground (~1.5m above ground level), thus not suitable breeding habitat or substantial shelter for any species.

Large remnant Angophora costata on the Subject Property had thin dead branches with small cracks/crevices however these were not substantial enough to provide habitat to any vertebrate species.

A Test of Significance pursuant to section 7.3 of the BC Act was undertaken to assess the extent of impact for each threatened species considered as having potential to utilise habitat within the Subject Land.

It is unlikely that the proposed development will cause significant effects to the local or regional persistence of a viable local population of any species of threatened fauna or flora.’

The independent Flora and Fauna report (Attachment A1) supports advice previously put to Council that the subject site is appropriate for divestment and could support a residential development in line with the existing local planning controls, without causing significant ecological impact.

integrated planning and reporting

THEME 6 – Council is well led, managed and supported by ethical organisations which deliver projects and services to the community by listening, advocating and responding to their needs.

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

L2.1.1: Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

L2.1.1.4: Progress Council approved property acquisitions and divestments

L2.1.1.5: Improve financial returns from Council’s property portfolio

Governance Matters

Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy governs the processes required to be carried out to facilitate the divestment of Council land. Expert independent valuation advice has been secured to ensure the divestment of the land reflects market value.

Risk Management

Council has the responsibility to manage its property portfolio in the best interests of ratepayers. Retention of the land serves very limited (if any) public benefit and incurs ongoing liability risks.

Council’s solicitors will be engaged to prepare the Contract for the Sale of Land to ensure Council’s interests are protected.

Financial Considerations

Independent valuation advice has been obtained from an expert valuer, indicating the market value of the land to be in the $1.5 to $1.6 million range. (Confidential Attachment A2).

Council will appoint a local real estate agent to manage the divestment of the land by public auction in company with Council’s property staff.

Council’s draft budget for 2022/23 is the subject of a separate report to this Council meeting and includes funding for the Marian Street Theatre upgrade project, which is also the subject of a report on this agenda. Funding for the MST upgrade ultimately relies on being funded from surplus and redundant property assets.

Social Considerations

Divestment from the subject site may impact a small number of residents which directly adjoin the property and who benefit from the vacant lot. However, the site provides only very limited public benefit and access is highly restricted. Divestment of this property and investment in other assets with higher public value has an overall positive impact for the community.

Environmental Considerations

The environmental impact of divestment and development of the site at 97 Babbage road, Roseville has been considered within the FFA. The independent Flora and Fauna report supports the recommendation previously put to Council that the subject site is appropriate for divestment and could support a residential scale development in line with the existing local planning controls, without causing significant ecological impact.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Regarding the divestment of the subject land, Council conducted a public hearing to reclassify the land from community to operational in accordance with the then section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993.

internal CONSULTATION

In compiling this report, discussions have been held between the relevant staff from Council’s Strategy and Environment, Operations, and Corporate directorates.

Summary

An updated report to the OMC of June 2021 (OMC124, C.3), Council resolved to divest from surplus land at 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase (the site) in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy.

A further report to the OMC of July 2021, specifically in relation to the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, Council resolved ‘that an independent consultant be engaged by Council to assess the apparent anomalies between claims being made by the community and the material upon which Council relied when originally considering this matter in 2018’. The anomalies related to the claimed ecological attributes and significance of the site.

To address this matter, an independent consultant was engaged to deliver a Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment Report (FFA) for future development at 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW 2069 (Lot 47/-/DP13444).

The independent Flora and Fauna report supports advice previously put to Council that the subject site is appropriate for divestment and could support a residential scale development in line with the existing local planning controls, without causing significant ecological impact.

Irregularities associated with the original lot boundaries and the road reserve have also been resolved by survey and there are no significant works nor any other impediment to the divestment now proceeding.

It is intended to engage a local real estate agent for the purpose of managing the divestment of the land by public auction. Council has obtained expert independent valuation advice on the market value of the land, indicating the market value of the land to be in the $1.5 to $1.6 million range.

It is recommended that Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to seek further independent valuation advice for the purpose of setting the reserve price at the level recommended by the expert valuer. In the event that the property does not achieve the reserve price at auction that Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate a contract price that is in line with further valuation advice and Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy.

The net proceeds of the sale are to be allocated to Council’s Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve and utlilised for projects budgeted to be funded from asset sales such as the Marian Street Theatre upgrade.

Recommendation:

A. That Council proceed with the divestment of 97 Babbage Road, in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy;

B. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to seek further independent valuation advice for the purpose of setting a reserve price for sale by public auction, and to negotiate any contract terms and conditions required to protect Council’s interest. Negotiations are to follow the strict protocols and procedures set out in Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy;

C. Council authorises the Mayor and General Manager to execute all documentation associated with the conveyancing and any future transactions as set out within this report; and

D. Council authorises the Seal of Council be placed on all necessary documentation if required.

E. That the net proceeds from the sale of 97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase be allocated to Council’s Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve and utilised for projects budgeted to be funded from asset sales such as funding the Marian Street Theatre upgrade.

Vince Rago

Property Program Coordinator

Jacob Sife

Manager Environment & Sustainability

Steve Johnson

Manager Property

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Flora and Fauna Assessment - 97 BabbageRoad, Roseville Chase		2021/392000
	A2	Confidential Attachment - NBV valuation for 97 Babbage Road Roseville Chase		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.13 / 1

Item GB.13	S13203

Ku-ring-gai High School - Northern Sydney & Beaches Hockey Association Proposal to Upgrade Existing Facilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	The purpose of this report is to update Council on discussions with Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association (NSBHA) and the Department of Education in relation to the proposal for a synthetic hockey pitch at Ku‑ring-gai High School. Since Council last considered this matter in July 2021 there have been significant changes to what this project looks like and how the other parties see Council being involved going forward.

background:	After investigations spanning several years, Council in March 2021 determined that Barra Brui Sportsground was not a suitable site for a synthetic hockey field, primarily on the basis of planned intensity of use and lack of sufficient car parking for peak periods of usage. Council subsequently resolved that in the absence of other suitable alternative sites, Ku‑ring-gai High School was a prospective alternate site for NSBHA as contemplated by Council’s decision of 16 March 2021, and further, Council reiterated its decision of 16 March 2021 to quarantine its contribution of $1,116,814 ex GST for a maximum period of 12 months from that date.

comments:	It has always been Council’s preference that NSBHA, who have occupied a site at Ku-ring-gai High School (KHS) for some thirty years, remain at that site as a direct tenant of the DoE. In the absence of any other alternative sites in the local government area, NSBHA are in ongoing discussions with the Department of Education for the full redevelopment of the existing pitch within the grounds of KHS.

recommendation:	That Council determines in principle that it is prepared to be licensee for the proposed synthetic field, subject to agreement of suitable terms in a heads of agreement, licence agreement, and project deed (if necessary) with Schools Infrastructure NSW and quarantines its contribution to the project until the determination of the 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund, after which the matter is reassessed.

Purpose of Report

Since Council last considered this matter in July 2021 there have been significant changes to what this project looks like and how the other parties see Council being involved going forward.

Background

After investigations spanning several years, at its meeting of 16 March 2021 Council determined that Barra Brui Sportsground was not a suitable site for a synthetic hockey field, primarily on the basis of planned intensity of use and lack of sufficient car parking for peak periods of usage. Council resolved, inter alia:

“That:

A. The proposed hockey facility does not proceed at Barra Brui Sportsground

B. Council Officers continue to liaise with the NSBHA to find an alternate site within the Ku-Ring-Gai Local Government Area and report back to Council with the outcome of the investigation

C. Council quarantine their contribution of $1,116,814 ex GST for a maximum period of 12 months.

D. Council Officers write to the Office of Sport and Sport Australia advising them of Council’s resolution and formally request the quarantine of grant funding until an alternate site is determined.

E. Council Officers write to the NSBHA and Scouts NSW advising them of Council’s resolution.”

At its meeting of 20 July 2021, upon consideration of a further status update report, Council resolved:

A. That Council notes in the absence of other suitable alternative sites, the identification of Ku‑ring-gai High School by Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association as an alternate site within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area, as contemplated by Council’s decision of 16 March 2021.

B. That Council reiterates its decision of 16 March 2021 to quarantine its contribution of $1,116,814 ex GST for a maximum period of 12 months from that date.

C. Council lodge grant variation with Sport Australia to have a $500,000 under the Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund re-allocated from the Barra Brui amenities upgrade to unisex, accessible and ambulant toilets, a kitchen space, changing rooms, and store rooms at Samuel King Oval.

Comments

The impact of Council’s decisions of March and July 2021 were effectively to open the door to further investigation of the use of Ku-ring-gai High and to quarantine Council’s funding contribution, net of internal costs, to March 2022.

In the intervening period, Hockey continues to have ongoing discussions with:

· the Office of Sport about transferring their existing grant from the Barra Brui project to Ku-ring-gai High School;

· the Office of Sport in relation to alternate grant funding opportunities; and

· Council, the Department of Education, and Schools Infrastructure NSW about, inter alia:

o concept plans;

o broader community access to the site;

o preferred head tenant arrangements;

o operational costs and capital replacement; and

o approval’s pathways and responsibilities.

During the caretaker period prior to the December local elections, the NSW Government opened the $200 million 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund (Monday 29 November 2021). It is understood that in its discussions with the Office of Sport, NSBHA was advised “the former grant at Barra Brui would have close to zero chance of being transferred to KHS (and will be rescinded).” Consequently, NSBHA applied in the 2021/2022 grant round.

Because of the restrictions on decision making during the caretaker period, it was not possible to report this matter to Council. Grant applications closed on Friday 25 February 2022.

In December 2021 Council provided NSBHA with a letter of support for Round 1 of the 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund. This letter of support was based on Council’s decision of March 2021 to quarantine funds for the project, and Council’s July 2021 decision to consider Ku‑ring-gai High School as a site for the synthetic hockey pitch based on the proposal before Council at the time, being a preliminary concept drawing prepared by NSBHA is provided at Attachment A1 and a preliminary scope of work is provided at Attachment A2. Details of the amenities building upgrade are found at Attachment A3 and the pitch layout at Attachment A4.

NSBHA obtained a letter of consent from the landowner (Department of Education) to submit the grant application.

In the absence of consideration by Council, changes to the way the project was intended to be delivered arising subsequent to a letter of support being given in December 2021 necessitated a more qualified letter of support to be issued in February 2022, viz.:

……………At its meeting of 20 July 2021, Council resolved, in part:

B. That Council reiterates its decision of 16 March 2021 to quarantine its contribution of $1,116,814 ex GST for a maximum period of 12 months from that date.

At the time of writing, Council’s potential commitment to this project is $1.0 million. Council grants consent to the subject grant application making reference to Council’s contribution to the project.

Further resolution of Council is required in relation to such matters as Council entering into a Deed of Licence with the Department of Education to operate the synthetic sports ground at KHS outside school hours, including regular maintenance of the facilities and future asset renewal and replacement.……………

Notwithstanding that NSBHA had been dealing with SINSW in relation to a project concept plan since early 2021, it was only in early 2022 that SINSW came to the realisation that the curtilage of the State Heritage listed Bini Dome at the Ku-ring-gai High School site would be a significant constraint on the location of car parking included in the concept plan at Attachment A1.

Council staff had raised this as an issue to be addressed in its report to Council of 20 July 2021, which stated:

Preliminary review of the site and the proposal indicates any environmental review will need to address such issues as:

· State heritage listed Bini Dome;

· bushfire affectation;

· riparian zone issues;

· endangered ecological communities; and

· traffic and parking.

This list is not purported to be exhaustive.

According to the EPA Act, exempt development may be carried out under Part 5 of the Act if the development is of ‘minimal environmental impact’.

At risk of oversimplifying the last seven months:

· NSBHA has decided to seek new grant funding rather than seeking to transfer its original grant from one site to another.

· Schools Infrastructure NSW would prefer Council to be the licensee rather than NSBHA. This would necessitate Council being responsible for:

o bookings;

o operational costs;

o maintenance costs;

o capital replacement, etc.

All this is at no cost to DoE who would have access to the facility at no cost until 4.00pm on school days (hours yet to be negotiated).

· The constraints imposed by the Bini Dome curtilage has caused NSBHA, in early February 2022, to remove car parking and access from its 2021/2022 grant application. In this respect, from Council’s perspective, separate parking and access is considered essential to allow maximum use of the facility immediately after ordinary school hours rather than when teachers leave and extracurricular activities at the school cease. At a meeting between stakeholders on 8 April 2022 SINSW advised that it was key a key objective of DoE to provide parking in excess of normal school requirements within school grounds. Given Council’s experience with community expectations around traffic and parking in relation to the former proposal at Barra Brui Sportsfield, this issue is not negotiable.

· Replacement of the existing synthetic surface would likely follow a different approvals path to any carparking and access. The first requiring a review of Environment Factors under Part V of the EPA Act, the second requiring a development application under Part IV. This is solely a matter for SINSW. From Council’s perspective, this could see Stage 1 works considered under an REF and carparking, the subject of a separate development application, not approved, not supported by the school, or simply not forthcoming at all.

In respect of car parking, the report to Council 20 July 2021 noted:

“In the event this project proceeds, it is anticipated that there can be some cost savings to Council if it designs and delivers the expanded car parking facilities in accordance with any approvals obtained by the Department of Education.”

That no parking is included in the 2022 grant application and may not be approved/included at all is of concern.

The table below summaries other changes in issues and responsibilities that have arisen as the project shifted from Barra Brui, through Council consideration of relocation to KHS in July 2021, to the proposal now being considered by Council.

Issue	Barra Brui Project	Project at KHS as at Council Consideration in July 2021	Project at KHS as at April 2022
NSBHA Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund grant	Secure	Unknown	Subject to consideration in a new grant round
Licensee	NSBHA	NSBHA	Council
Operational Costs	NSBHA	NSBHA	Council
Capital Replacement	NSBHA	NSBHA	Council
Maintenance	NSBHA	NSBHA	Council
After Hours General Public Access	Yes	Possibly if facility separately fenced	No
Dedicated Parking	Yes	Yes	No
Consent/review Authority	Council (REF)	SINSW (REF)	Field – SINSW (REF) Parking and Access – SINSW (DA)
Construction Authority	Council	SINSW	SINSW
Project REF documentation	Council (Project Funded)	SINSW (Hockey Funded)	NSBHA (Self Funded)

In the intervening period Council has commissioned:

· Otium Planning Group Pty Ltd to undertake the Ku-ring-gai Multi-Use Hockey Field Feasibility study, November 2021 (Confidential Attachment A5); and

· Blue Stone Management to undertake a preliminary cost plan to determine the projects costs for completion on the school site, (Confidential Attachment A6).

While these documents have been shared with both NSBHA and DoE, and indeed NSBHA has advised they do not necessarily accept the findings of the reports, the work was commissioned to assist Council determine if NSBHA had sufficient funds to carry out the project given that construction cost risk would effectively be transferred to Council under the current iteration of the project and secondly, to assist Council gain an understanding whether the project would generate sufficient income to cover full replacement costs and operating costs.

Council is in the early stages of undertaking a Recreation Needs Study that will provide a detailed review of the current recreation needs of the community and to inform the future development of recreation in the Local Government Area. The study will cover all facets of community recreation, from walking the dog, MTB, and community sports, including. This with the Recreation Strategy will guide Council in the development of future recreation development and to get the maximum value of our open space to the benefit of the community.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C4.1.1 A range of cultural, recreational and leisure facilities and activities are available to encourage social interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.

Programs are delivered in collaboration with agencies and partners to encourage healthy and active lifestyles.

Develop and implement sports programs in co-operation with, or by supporting local sporting clubs and providers.

Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1.1 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 Council’s sporting and recreational facilities.

Pursue improvement of sporting and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities.

Governance Matters

The Department of Education is owner of the subject land. The DoE would be responsible for statutory approvals and/or environmental review under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

It is likely that there would need to be a three-way Heads of Agreement between Council, the Department of Education and NSBHA in relation to implementation of the project. The current position of SINSW/DoE is that similar to the Joint Use Sports Courts at St Ives, construction of the Hockey Facility would be managed by SINSW and all costs (including variations and over-runs) would effectively be underwritten by Council. This was always understood.

Similarly, whereas in July 2021 Council did not see itself as being involved in the ongoing maintenance of the facility, the current position of SINSW and NSBHA is that Council would be responsible for bookings, maintenance and operational costs and replacement costs of the synthetic filed for the duration of any licence. Council would be the “head” tenant with Department of Education, and Hockey simply a user of the facility.

Risk Management

Grant funding from Sport Australia for amenities upgrades has already been forfeited.

There is also the risk that grant funding from the NSW Office of Sport to the value of $2,720,000.00 may not be available to this project subject to the outcomes of the 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund.

NSBHA appears to have accepted advice from the NSW Office of Sport that a variation application to move the existing grant from Barra Brui Sportsground to Ku-ring-gai High School site would be unsuccessful. That is not a matter for Council.

It came to light at the meeting of stakeholders on 8 April 2022 that Northern Suburbs Football Association has come to financial arrangements directly with the school principal in relation to access to the existing turf field and teachers car park at KHS. This puts additional pressure on already limited on-site car parking and provides challenges to the financial modelling underpinning the project.

Financial Considerations

The Department of Education has advised NSBHA that they are not prepared to put any funds towards the project.

While this is certainly Council’s experience with other “joint” projects with DoE, the situation is perhaps compounded by the fact Ku-ring-gai High School is not a sports high school and does not have a hockey program. The school itself does not require a facility of the nature and specification required by NSBHA.

In the event Council determines not to be involved in this project, removal, replacement, or remediation of the existing facility would be a matter for DoE and NSBHA.

In terms of Council and the NSBHA, the parties’ funding commitments towards the project when it was located at Barra Brui Sportsground are broadly outlined below:

· $2,250,000 ex GST secured by NSBHA through the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund to assist with funding the artificial playing surface and clubhouse building refurbishment.

· $250,000 ex GST cash contribution from NSBHA, noting that $200,000 ex GST of these funds will be received by Council prior to the Request for Tender for constructing The Facility, with the remaining $50,000 ex GST received by Council prior to 1 December 2021.

· NSBHA have noted their previous commitment and financial guarantee of $500,000 ex GST from a local hockey family (as per NSBHA’s proposal titled “Project Plan” dated 7 December, 2018) has been withdrawn from the project, however additional funds can be raised by NSBHA if required and subject to agreement between the parties.

· $500,000 ex GST awarded to NSBHA through the Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund to assist with funding the building refurbishment.

· Council will contribute up to a maximum of $1,116,814 ex GST towards the project (including the costs of preliminary environmental assessments up to the date of signing of this memorandum), replacing its original $250,000 ex GST contribution as per the Funding Agreement. This contribution must be allocated towards project management services, including environmental assessment, consultation and planning approvals regarding The Facility, and any capital requirements arising for Council regarding the development of playing surface, ancillary parking and access, as the project is further defined. Council’s contribution is not available for refurbishment of the existing amenities building given its source from s.7.11 contributions.

When Council last considered this matter in July 2021, it was anticipated that all these funding sources and allocations would remain in place for any alternate project.

Sport Australia subsequently advised they were not prepared to transfer the $500,000 Community Sport Infrastructure grant to Ku-ring-gai High as the original grant program explicitly excluded schools from making application.

Following advice from Sport Australia, Council in July 2021 resolved to, inter alia, ……..” lodge grant variation with Sport Australia to have a $500,000 under the Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund re-allocated from the Barra Brui amenities upgrade to unisex, accessible and ambulant toilets, a kitchen space, changing rooms, and store rooms at Samuel King Oval.

Council was subsequently advised that it had been unsuccessful in seeking to vary the grant. Consequently, this element of the original funding package is no longer available to either NSBHA or Council.

Given the rules of apportionment that apply to Council’s projects, it would not be acceptable to see the NSBHA contribution reduce below the amounts outlined above, otherwise the overall quantum of Council’s contribution may need to be revisited.

Council’s contribution was always premised on the facility at Barra Brui Sportsground being made available for other users outside booked time by the NSBHA. This principle remains a fundamental objective in negotiating any HoA going forward.

In the event additional parking is not provided on site, Council access to the field may be further restricted beyond the hours modelled to allow staff to exit the site first.

Council’s funding for this project is from s.7.11/s.7.12. This funding source is available for new assets, not replacement of the existing hockey pitch. The key elements Council was funding are not included in the Stage 1 scope of works the subject of the current grant application. At the same time, the Stage 1 application effectively relies on Council’s funds as part of a “co-contribution”.

Social Considerations

Notwithstanding that work on this project at KHS started more than 12 months ago, it is being carried out under the broad terms of an MoU between Council and the Department of Education through School Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) adopted by Council in November 2021. The MoU allows both parties to explore a partnership arrangement for cross-sharing resources and knowledge to the benefit of the schools and the local community.

In the event suitable public access arrangements can be negotiated with the Department of Education and NSBHA, the inclusion of a synthetic surface at Ku-ring-gai High School will provide increased social benefits for the community and enable better utilisation of facilities.

The site has been used as a synthetic sports field for some 30 years and additional impacts, albeit at an early stage in the design and documentation process, are anticipated to be minimal. Existing parking pressure on surrounding local streets would only be alleviated by the provision of additional on-site parking, which could be designed and constructed as additional hard surface sports courts for daytime use by the school, or simply used by the school for parking.

It would be necessary to work with the local community to both shape and manage expectations relating to increased usage of a site, which would occur as a consequence of this project proceeding. Consideration towards the local residents and ongoing management with user groups will be required from Council to minimise any such impacts that may occur from usage.

Environmental Considerations

Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), the Department of Education has a responsibility to consider the likely environmental impact of any proposed activity. It should be noted that there is already a synthetic playing field at this location which is past its useful life and is being completely rebuilt as part of this proposal.

The DoE must identify all potential impacts of the proposed hockey facility at Ku-ring-gai High School and consider the scale and significance of any such impacts, to determine whether the proposal should proceed, be modified/ reviewed or not undertaken at all.

Preliminary review of the site and the proposal indicates any environmental review will need to address such issues as:

· State heritage listed Bini Dome;

· bushfire affectation;

· riparian zone issues;

· endangered ecological communities; and

· traffic and parking.

This list is not purported to be exhaustive but is a matter for SINSW to manage.

According to the EPA Act, exempt development may be carried out under Part 5 of the Act if the development is of ‘minimal environmental impact’.

Community Consultation

To be carried out by the Department of Education, in conjunction with other parties to the project, as required by DoE procedures for project approvals.

Internal Consultation

Staff from Council’s Operations, Corporate, and Strategy and Environment Departments are aware of this proposal.

Summary

From Council’s perspective, it has always been preferable that NSBHA, who have occupied a site at Ku-ring-gai High School for some thirty years, remain at that site as a direct tenant of DoE.

Since Council last considered this matter in July 2021 there have been significant changes to what this project looks like and how the other parties see Council being involved going forward.

Schools Infrastructure NSW would prefer Council to be the licensee rather than NSBHA. This would necessitate Council being responsible for:

o bookings;

o operational costs;

o maintenance costs;

o capital replacement, etc.

In short, Council would take full risk for taking bookings and generating sufficient revenues to cover operating costs and replacement of the synthetic surface at appropriate times during the life of the licence. While modelling underpinning the project indicates it is viable, charge out rates are at the upper end of what is being charged in the market, project specifications, particularly lighting, are beyond what Council ordinarily provides for night-time use.

Given that the Stage 1 project as reflected in NSBHA’s final 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund grant application does not include elements crucial to Council’s out of hours use of the facility such as car parking, Council’s ongoing support for this project needs to be qualified.

Recommendation:

A. That Council determines in principle that it is prepared to be licensee for the proposed synthetic field, being responsible for such things as:

a. bookings;

b. operational costs;

c. maintenance costs;

d. capital replacement, etc.,

subject to agreement of suitable terms in a heads of agreement, licence agreement, and project deed (if necessary) with Schools Infrastructure NSW.

B. That Council advise Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association that its financial contribution to this project is subject, but not limited to, provision of all the key elements of the concept plan considered by Council in July 2021, particularly an appropriate number of, and suitably located, off-street car parking spaces separate from those required by the school for its ordinary use.

C. That Council advises Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association and Schools Infrastructure NSW that that its financial contribution to this project is subject, but not limited to, agreement of suitable terms in a heads of agreement, licence agreement and project deed (if necessary).

D. That Council quarantine its contribution of one million dollars ex GST until the determination of the 2021/22 Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund, after which the matter is reassessed.

E. That if Council proceeds it accepts the risk of project costs and financial commitment increasing.

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Final concept drawing	2022/100973
	A2⇩	Concept Drawing Explanatory Notes	2022/100974
	A3⇩	Amenity Building Design drawings	2022/100976
	A4⇩	Polytan - Multi-sport Overlay Rev 2	2022/100980
	A5	Final Cost Estimate November 2021	Confidential
	A6	Revised Cost Estimate	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.14 / 1

Item GB.14	S12998

Gilroy Road Temporary Cycleway - Project Evaluation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the status of the temporary separated cycleway in Gilroy Road, Turramurra.

background:	The Streets as Shared Spaces program provides one-off grant funding to support local councils to test and pilot quick-response demonstration projects and strategic pilots that temporarily adapt streets to support healthier, safer and more resilient communities. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, Council staff applied for funding to implement a “pop-up” (temporary) cycleway between Turramurra Memorial Park and Eastern Road, via Karuah Park and Gilroy Road, and the nomination was successful. The installation was completed around March 2021.

comments:	Once installation of the cycleway was completed, bicycle monitoring was conducted for approximately 10 weeks. In terms of average daily counts recorded along the cycleway, the peak counts compare favourably with counts recorded at some established cycleways elsewhere in Sydney, which indicates the cycleway in Gilroy Road has the capacity to serve as an effective and permanent sustainable transport route.

recommendation:	That the pop-up cycleway in Gilroy Road be retained until the integrated 2-way separated cycleway identified in the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra is constructed.

Purpose of Report

To consider the status of the temporary separated cycleway in Gilroy Road, Turramurra.

Background

In May 2020, the then NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE), working with Transport for NSW (TfNSW), established a $15 million Streets as Shared Spaces grant program. Councils were encouraged to apply for grants for temporary projects to deliver short-term improvements to streets and public spaces, to make them safer and more attractive during COVID restrictions and into the future.

The Streets as Shared Spaces program provides one-off grant funding to support local councils to test and pilot new and innovative ideas for streets as safe, shared public spaces. The program provided funding to quick-response demonstration projects and strategic pilots that temporarily adapt streets to support healthier, safer and more resilient communities. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic more people have been walking and cycling, particularly for recreation, and physical distancing requirements impacted everyday activities that require gathering in streets, from waiting at a busy intersection to outdoor dining.

In response to this, Council staff applied for funding to implement a “pop-up” (temporary) cycleway between Turramurra Memorial Park and Eastern Road, via Karuah Park and Gilroy Road (Attachment A1). The objectives were twofold:

1. To provide a safe, separated cycling connection between Turramurra shops and Karuah Park/Turramurra Memorial Park and beyond and thereby supporting cycling as a healthy and sustainable mode of travel, and recreation for recreation purposes, during the COVID-19 pandemic; and

2. To trial the integrated 2-way separated cycleway identified in the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra (Attachment A2), which was since adopted by Council on 15 March 2022.

The funding application was successful and the pop-up cycleway was delivered by reallocating the road space occupied by 9 short stay/42 long stay kerbside car parking spaces on the northern and western sides of Gilroy Road (between Eastern Road and Brentwood Avenue) to form a 2.4m wide 2-way cycleway, separated from the adjacent traffic lane with bolt-on plastic kerbs and bollards/wands. At the northern stub of Gilroy Road, the cycleway is in the form of on-road/mixed use facility, due to the low traffic volumes in this section. Through Karuah Park, a shared user path was constructed in asphalt, by widening the existing internal path on the eastern and southern perimeter of Karuah Oval. The works also included the installation of two new pedestrian refuge islands, to improve safety for pedestrians and bicycles crossing Gilroy Road at the intersection of Eastern Road and crossing of Brentwood Avenue on the western side of Gilroy Road.

To connect to Turramurra Memorial Park, a short section of 2.4m wide 2-way cycleway (also separated from the adjacent traffic lane through bolt-on plastic kerb and bollards/wands) was installed on Karuah Road between the access roads of Karuah Park and Turramurra Memorial Park. This was road space that was not previously part of a traffic lane or kerbside car parking, although minor adjustments to a bus layover space were made to accommodate it. The installation was completed around March 2021.

The Public Domain Plan for Turramurra foreshadows a separated cycleway on the same section/length of Gilroy Road, but integrated with the surrounding streetscape.

Comments

Once installation of the cycleway was completed, 3 sessions of formal bicycle monitoring were conducted through the use of automated (pneumatic tube) counters in the cycleway as follows:

1. an initial session from 11 June 2021 - 1 July 2021 (COVID-19 movement restrictions mostly relaxed);

2. from 20 July 2021 – 9 August 2021 (COVID-19 movement restrictions imposed); and

3. from 16 December 2021 – 28 January 2022 (COVID-19 movement restrictions relaxed).

for a total of approximately 10 weeks of counts. During these counting periods, just under 1,700 bicycle trips were recorded, with the following average daily counts:

Date of counts- Gilroy Rd (inclusive)	Average daily count
11 June 2021 -17 June 2021	16
18 June 2021 -24 June 2021	9
25 June 2021 -1 July 2021	34
20 July 2021 -26 July 2021	40
27 July 2021 -2 August 2021	55
3 August 2021 -9 August 2021	48
16 December 2021 -22 December 2021	16
23 December 2021 -29 December 2021	14
30 December 2021 -5 January 2022	19
21 January 2022 – 27 January 2022	13

During the counting periods, some people riding bicycles were choosing to cycle in the traffic lanes on Gilroy Road rather than in the separated cycleway, although the counts at the end of 2021 indicated these were in the minority compared to the number of people riding in the cycleway.

For context, according to City of Sydney cycling data, RMS Cycling Statistics and TfNSW Open Data Hub, the cycleways below recorded the following average daily usage:

Location	Year	Average daily count
Intersection of Portman Street and Geddes Avenue (Zetland)	2021	43
Intersection of New South Head Road and Neild Avenue (Paddington)	2020	78
Liverpool to Parramatta Rail Trail (Cabramatta)	2018	35
Liverpool to Parramatta Rail Trail (Guildford)	2018	50-80
Crestwood Reserve cycleway (Baulkham Hills)	2018	50
Hawthorne Canal cycleway (Haberfield)	2018	70
Hawthorne Canal cycleway (Haberfield)	2019	81
Rouse Hill to Parramatta separated cycleway, Darcy Road (Westmead)	2018	85
Rouse Hill to Parramatta separated cycleway, Darcy Road (Westmead)	2019	76

In terms of average daily counts recorded along the Gilroy Road cycleway, the peak counts compare favourably with these counts that were recorded at established cycleways elsewhere in Sydney, which indicates the cycleway in Gilroy Road has the capacity to serve as an effective and permanent sustainable transport route with the potential to further increase usage through expansion/extension/connections. This may include a potential future connection through Turramurra Memorial Park and along local roads to Burns Road (broadly consisted with the Ku-ring-gai Bike Plan), where existing separated cycling facilities along Burns Road provide connections to St Ives and Wahroonga.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 (Places, Spaces and Infrastructure) and Theme 4 (Access, Traffic and Transport):

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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.

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.

Implement Public Domain Masterplans for the local centres and concept plans for key precincts.

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

Connections are provided to public transport that are accessible to all age groups and match the travel needs of the community.

An improvement plan is being implemented for bikeways, pedestrian facilities and footpath networks having regard for the access, health and recreational needs of the community.

Governance Matters

Council adopted the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra in March 2022. In the plan, the designed future character of Gilroy Road is a tree-lined boulevard with a strong link between Turramurra Memorial Park / Karuah Park and the Local Centre for cyclists and pedestrians. A separated cycleway and wide pedestrian paths, along with street tree planting will form part of the Green Grid, connecting the Local Centre and Cameron Park with Karuah Park, and then to Lovers Jump Creek riparian corridor. Garden beds and canopy trees will cool the street and create a park-like environment in the street corridor. Refer Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Artist’s impression Gilroy Road Upgrade including separated cycleway from Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan – Volume 2, Turramurra.

In 2021 TfNSW adopted a Road User Space Allocation Policy (Attachment A3), which requires allocation of physical and temporal road user space safely and equitably to support the movement of people and goods, and place objectives. One of the principles by which TfNSW allocates road user space is by considering all road users in the following order of priority/importance:

1. Walking (including equitable access for people of all abilities);

2. Cycling (including larger legal micro-mobility devices);

3. Public transport;

4. Freight and deliveries; and point to point transport ahead of

5. General traffic and on-street parking for private motorised vehicles.

The cycling facilities provided in Gilroy Road would be consistent with the hierarchy of road user space allocation in this policy.

Risk Management

If Council does not approve to continue the tenure of the pop-up cycleway, the conditions of the Streets as Shared Spaces grant require that the temporary facilities be removed. Given the positive results of the trial, there is the opportunity to retain the pop-up cycleway for the benefit of the wider community until the integrated 2-way separated cycleway identified in the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra is constructed as part of the streetscape upgrade for Gilroy Road.

Financial Considerations

The pop-up cycleway was funded by DPIE, and the cost of the project to date is approximately $250,000. The total funding received from the grant was $337,090. These funds have been used for maintenance of the cycleway and publicity. The funding will also be used for the removal of the temporary infrastructure. If the cycleway is retained, some ongoing maintenance will be required to ensure the temporary facilities function effectively until the permanent works are in place.

Social Considerations

Cycling is an important travel mode for both solely bicycle-based journeys as well as parts of trips which involve bus, rail or car journeys. Communities and town centres with walking and cycling at the forefront of design provide attractive, liveable areas with high levels of street activity, improved safety for all ages and abilities, and a high quality of environment. Cycleable environments facilitate greater public transport use and also contribute to healthy communities through the encouragement of physical activity. According to research undertaken by TfNSW in 2013, 48% of potential riders are “interested but concerned”, and in this research, over 70% of customers stated that they would ride a bicycle if they had access to safe cycling routes.

Some existing commuters that used to park in Gilroy Road to access the station have had to park in a different location or further away to access the station, or travel to other nearby railway stations to park, although the pop-up cycleway has provided opportunities for other residents and workers in the northern parts of Turramurra to access the station and shops by bicycle, who may not have otherwise done so due to the absence of a separated cycling facility.

Environmental Considerations

Council has acknowledged, through the Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy and the Ku-ring-gai Bike Plan, that active transport modes such as cycling provide environmental benefits including reducing greenhouse gas and noise emissions of transport. The Climate Change Policy and accompanying action plan adopted by Council in 2021 includes more support for the community to reach zero emissions.

Studies show that a high proportion of car trips are less than 5km, so by encouraging active transport through the delivery of safe, separated cycleways, Council will be supporting the community to help it reduce its emissions from transport.

Community Consultation

Due to the temporary nature of the pop-up cycleway and the accelerated timeframes for its implementation under the grant funding agreement, the normal approvals and consultation processes were not required. Transport for NSW issued special COVID-19 traffic regulation delegations to councils that authorised temporary works including road works and the erection, installation or placing of traffic control facilities provided that the proposal was published on the council website, and conspicuous notices were displayed along the route or area of the affected road and adjacent roads. Written notice to local emergency services, including police, fire and ambulance services was also required.

Community notification was in the form of advising the local community of Council’s plan to install the temporary cycleway through various means. Letter box drops of flyers describing the project were delivered to the residents in Gilroy Road, Eastern Road, Turramurra Avenue and Brentwood Avenue in December 2020, two months before construction began (Attachment A4). A dedicated web page was created with information on the proposal, Frequently Asked Questions and options to provide feedback. Two weeks prior to construction, 10 signs were erected around Gilroy Road and adjacent streets to inform the community of the installation of the cycleway with images and plans of the proposal (Attachment A5), in accordance with the TfNSW delegation to Councils. The community were invited to submit their comments on the proposal before and after the installation of the cycleway. There were also media releases regarding the grant being awarded to Council and the pending installation of the cycleway in the lead up to the construction.

Over the course of the trial, 200 comments were received from the community; 13 of these were supporting the facility, 16 were neutral and 171 raising objection to it. Most of the objections originated from residents living outside of Gilroy Road, with reasons for objection mostly revolving around the perception of little/no use of the facility by people riding bicycles, although the data collected demonstrates otherwise.

Several comments highlighted the loss of commuter parking. While it is acknowledged that some existing commuters that used to park in Gilroy Road to access the station would have to temporarily park in a different location or further away to access the station, the pop-up cycleway would also open up opportunities for other residents and workers in the northern parts of Turramurra to access the station and shops by bicycle, who may not have otherwise done so due to the absence of a separated cycling facility. The loss of short stay parking adjacent to Cameron Park was another theme in the comments from the community, although during the operation of the trial it was noted that there were other short stay parking opportunities on Eastern Road and the northern section of Rohini Street, as well as in the Gilroy Lane/Turramurra Avenue car park.

Other comments revolved around the unsightly appearance of the facility (temporary materials) and this is understandable given it is a temporary facility, however the permanent facility it is trialling (see Figure 1 above) would be fully integrated into an upgraded streetscape with street trees, lighting and footpath widening/upgrades.

The road width in Gilroy Road and its effects on vehicle circulation was another issue raised in comments received during the trial. Similar to other traffic calming treatments though, the new road width in Gilroy Road still allows 2 vehicles to pass, but at a much lower speed than before, which helps to improve amenity and safety for residents and all road users, although some refinements are expected to be made as part of the permanent facility shown in Figure 1 above.

Internal Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with Council’s Waste Services, Traffic Operations and Sustainability during the planning, installation or operation of the temporary cycleway.

Summary

The Streets as Shared Spaces program provides one-off grant funding to support local councils to test and pilot quick-response demonstration projects and strategic pilots that temporarily adapt streets to support healthier, safer and more resilient communities. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Council staff applied for funding to implement a “pop-up” (temporary) cycleway between Turramurra Memorial Park and Eastern Road, via Karuah Park and Gilroy Road, and the nomination was successful. The installation was completed around March 2021.

Once installation of the cycleway was completed, bicycle monitoring was conducted for approximately 10 weeks. In terms of average daily counts recorded along the cycleway, the peak counts compare favourably with counts recorded at some established cycleways elsewhere in Sydney, which indicates the cycleway in Gilroy Road has the capacity to serve as an effective and permanent sustainable transport route.

Recommendation:

That the pop-up cycleway in Gilroy Road be retained until the integrated 2-way separated cycleway identified in the Public Domain Plan for Turramurra is constructed.

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Gilroy Road and Karuah Park - pop-up cycleway plan	2020/368006
	A2⇩	Gilroy Road Turramurra - extract of Public Domain Plan	2022/082042
	A3⇩	Transport for NSW Road User Space Allocation Policy	2021/047335
	A4⇩	Streets as Shared Spaces - Gilroy Road Separated Cycleway - information flyer	2021/033835
	A5 ⇩	Gilroy Road Cycleway - A1 notification boards - January 2021	2022/081889

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.15 / 1

Item GB.15	S13022

Planning Proposal for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

background:	A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 12 December 2018. The Planning Proposal was submitted on 26 October 2020. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 3 August 2021. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 14 March 2022 for advice.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 as follows: · Rezone all sites from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential; · amend Height of Buildings development standard; · amend Floor Space Ratio development standard; · amend Minimum Lot Size development standard; · site specific local provision requiring amalgamation of lots prior to development for the purposes of a residential flat building. Some amendments to the Planning Proposal are recommended.

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

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

Background

A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held with the proponent and Council staff on 12 December 2018 to discuss the proposal to the amend the zoning of the site. The pre-Planning Proposal meeting report is included at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal was submitted on 26 October 2020. The Planning Proposal documentation was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 3 August 2021.

Site Description and Local Context

The sites that are the subject of this Planning Proposal are:

· 8a Buckingham Road, Killara (Lot 2 DP414101)

· 14 Buckingham Road, Killara (Lot 4 DP520573)

· 16 Buckingham Road, Killara (Lot 3 DP520573)

The site the subject of the Planning Proposal comprises three battle-axe allotments, on the southern side of Buckingham Road. The site has a combined site area of 4,989sqm.

The topography of the sites falls from the north to the south, with the battle-axe handle of 8a Buckingham Road having a steep fall from the street and the site being significantly lower than the heritage item and dwellings at 10 and 12 Buckingham Road. The subject sites then have a significant fall to the Killara Golf Club.

The subject sites are currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential and developed with two storey dwelling houses.

To the west and north of the site is also zoned R2 Low Density Residential and comprises low density residential development. To the east of the site is a 4-5 storey residential flat building zoned R4 High Density Residential.

The site adjoins two local heritage items:

· To the north – I255 ‘Southdean’ dwelling house, 10 Buckingham Road, Killara

· To the west – I257 dwelling house, 22 Buckingham Road, Killara

Also within the immediate vicinity is the Killara Golf Club Clubhouse, putting green, fairway and gardens which are listed as a local heritage item.

Image 1: Subject site aerial view

Image 2: Subject site and surrounding zoning

Image 3: Subject site and existing surrounding context

Killara Golf Course Planning Proposal and Potential Development

The southern boundary of the subject site adjoins the Killara Golf Club. This area of the Killara Golf Club adjoining the site was subject to a private Planning Proposal and in 2019 was rezoned to R4 High Density Residential and associated development standards which would enable development of residential flat buildings to a maximum height of 5 storeys adjoining 6a Buckingham Road, and to a maximum height of 3 storey along the boundary shared with the subject site.

An excerpt from the Urban Design Study submitted with the Killara Golf Club Planning Proposal is included at Image 4 (below) and shows the development outcomes enabled on the Golf Course site adjoining 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road.

The rezoning by the Killara Golf Club was to preserve the club’s options in the future as to how it may wish to use the land. To date, no Development Application has been lodged for residential development on the Killara Golf Club site.

Image 4: Excerpt from Killara Golf Planning Proposal

Comments

Original Proposal and Initial Assessment

The Planning Proposal that was originally submitted to Council sought to:

· Rezone to R4 High Density Residential;

· apply a Height of Buildings development standard of 17.5m (5 storey) on 8a and 16 Buckingham Road, and retain the 9.5m (2 storey) on 14 Buckingham Road;

· apply a Floor Space Ratio of 1.3:1 on all sites;

· apply a Minimum Lot Size of 1,200sqm on all sites.

Image 5: Excerpt from original submitted Urban Design Study - Indicative Built Form

Image 6: Excerpt from original submitted Urban Design Study - Indicative Built Form

Following a site inspection and preliminary assessment, Council notified the applicant that it had significant concerns with the built form outcomes enabled by the proposed amendments sought within the Planning Proposal, specifically the 17.5m height and 1.3:1 floor space ratio which do not provide an appropriate interface or transition to the adjoining sites which include heritage items and low density dwellings. The applicant was advised that the Planning Proposal in its current form would not be supported and was given the option to either proceed with the assessment of Planning Proposal as originally submitted or invited to submit amended documents to address Councils concerns.

Envelope testing was undertaken by Council’s Urban Designer to understand what would be appropriate development standards across the site and recommended that:

· Building heights reduced on the eastern and western ends of the site, to allow for up to 3 storey at western end and part 3/part 4 on eastern end due to topography. The two storey component in the centre of the site is suitable as it permits view lines to be retained from the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road over the site and future development on the golf course.

· Floor space ratio should be a result of working back from height, setbacks, deep soil to determine what can be achieved, not just the standard 1.3:1 applied across all the sites. The testing found an indicative a gross floor area of 3225sqm (based on a deduction of 30% for wall thickness, services, balconies, lifts and stairs from the total building envelopes) and an indicative FSR of 0.64:1.

· Building envelope broken up into three separate sections across the site in order to reflect the pattern of subdivision and surrounding low density development context.

· 2 storey built form adjoining the low density residential dwellings and heritage items, with 3^rd storey component having greater setback.

Amended Proposal and Proposed Amendments to KLEP 2015

The applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal, Urban Design Study and Heritage Impact Statement Addendum to address Council’s concerns.

The amended Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A2. Several supporting studies form appendixes to the Planning Proposal, and have been provided to justify the amendments. The Appendixes are included at Attachment A3-A11.

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone the sites from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and amend the development standards applying to the site as follows:

KLEP 2015 – Zoning and Development Standards – 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara
	Existing	Proposed
Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential	R4 High Density Residential
Floor Space Ratio	0.3:1	0.81:1
Height of Buildings	9.5m	RL115.50 for western and eastern sides of site RL110.50 for central portion of site
Minimum Lot Size	840sqm	1,200sqm
Site Specific Provision	N/A	Site-specific local provision or map for amalgamation of subject lots prior to redevelopment for purposes of a residential flat building

Merit

A Planning Proposal is not a Development Application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment and cannot be tied to a specific development. The proposed amendments need to be acceptable as an outcome on the site regardless of the subsequent approval or refusal of any future Development Application.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the site specific and strategic merit of the proposed amendments. The following is an assessment of the relevant merits of the Planning Proposal:

Site Specific Assessment

· Zoning – History, Surrounding Context and Proposed

The subject sites are currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential. To the west and north of the site is also zoned R2 Low Density Residential. To the east and south of the site is zoned R4 High Density Residential.

Image 7: Excerpt from KLEP 2015 zoning map

The Minister’s gazettal of LEP No 194 and No 200 in 2004 made provisions which allowed development up to 5 storeys to occur on land zoned Residential 2(d3). This created the situation where 4-5 storey apartment buildings could be developed immediately adjacent to single residential houses. This is what occurred to 8a Buckingham Road, Killara, and the site is known as an interface site.

An Interface Study was undertaken by in 2011 to understand the impact of the existing and potential 5 storey development on the identified interface sites, and to recommend planning solutions for the interface sites. The most common approach was the use of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to enable the development of townhouses on the interface sites to act as a transition between the high density and low density.

The interface study assessed 8a Buckingham Road and noted:

This property is located to the west of the high density residential zone. It is also located down slope of the potential development site. Future development would potentially cause overlooking and overshadowing issues due to the accentuated height of the development. The vegetation on the common boundary will provide limited privacy screening.

The interface study assessed the potential for overshadowing to be medium-high, the potential for overlooking to be high and the overall impact to be significant. Despite this, the assessment found that the upzoning of 8a Buckingham Road (as a single site) to R3 Medium Density was not suitable due to the site providing a curtilage to the adjoining heritage item and due to the size and configuration the site would not be able to develop successfully on its own.

The area of the Killara Golf Club adjoining the subject site to the south was rezoned through a private Planning Proposal to R4 High Density Residential in 2019, which took into specific consideration the potential impacts on the adjoining low density residential dwellings of 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road.

It is acknowledged that the subject sites are interface sites, as they adjoin R4 High Density Residential zoned land to the east and south. However, the context of the adjoining low density residential zoned land and dwellings to the west and north, including heritage items needs to be taken into consideration, alongside the residential flat building at 6a Buckingham Road and the potential development outcomes on the Killara Golf Course site.

The proposed R4 High Density Residential zone, with a reduced height limit (i.e. not the standard 17.5m/5 storey as discussed in greater detail below) is considered appropriate in the surrounding context as it provides an appropriate transition and interface to surrounding sites. The proposed R4 High Density Residential zone is considered more appropriate than using an R3 Medium Density Residential zone on the sites, as the R4 zone permits residential flat buildings which have a reduced development footprint and facilitates greater setbacks, compared to a townhouse style development under an R3 Medium Density Residential zone. This is especially important for the adjoining heritage items, low density dwellings and significant trees.

An R4 zoning with a reduced height limit has been used elsewhere in Ku-ring-gai as a response to address interface impacts between high density sites and heritage items/low density sites.

· Height

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Height of Buildings development standard on the site from 9.5m to a maximum RL115.50 for western and eastern portions of the site and a maximum RL110.50 for central portion of site. The proposed boundaries of the RLs follow the existing lot boundaries (see Image 9 – proposed height of building map below).

o 8a Buckingham Road – maximum RL115.50

o 14 Buckingham Road – maximum RL110.50

o 16 Buckingham Road - maximum RL115.50

Image 8: Excerpt from Urban Design Study

Image 9: Proposed Height of Buildings Map – Planning Proposal

The use of maximum RLs across the site rather than a just proposing a standard 9.5m/11.5m height is supported as it provides greater certainty and control over the development outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal.

The proposed RLs of a maximum RL115.50 for western and eastern sides of site and a maximum RL110.50 for central portion of site, would enable development for at part 3/part 4 storey building at the eastern end of the site, up to 3 storeys on the western end of the site, and 2 storey component within the central portion of the site.

Image 10: Context of subject sites, existing residential flat building development and golf course

In the assessment of the Planning Proposal for the Killara Golf Course, due to impacts on the adjacent low density dwellings at 8a, 14, 16 and 22 Buckingham Road, Killara an amendment was required which required a reduction in height adjacent to the Buckingham Road properties boundary to a maximum RL109.5, which would enable development of residential flat buildings to a maximum 3 storey height.

Images 11 and 12 (below) are excerpts from the Urban Design Study submitted with the Planning Proposal for the subject site and demonstrates the relationship between built form enabled on the Killara Golf Course, the proposed built form enabled on the subject sites, and the adjoining heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road.

Image 11: Relationship between Planning Proposal on subject sites, potential development on golf course and 10 Buckingham Road.

Image 12: Relationship between Planning Proposal on subject sites, potential development on golf course and 10 Buckingham Road.

The proposed maximum building height development standards across the site respond to the surrounding context and provide an appropriate step down and transition of height from the adjoining residential flat building development at 6a Buckingham Road to the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential zoned properties to the north and west. The maximum RL110.50 in the central portion of the site will enable the setting of the heritage item to be maintained, with views over Block B towards the south and Killara Golf Couse.

The proposed maximum building height development standards also respond appropriately to the changes in topography between the subject site, the adjoining low density residential sites and the Killara Golf Course.

The proposed maximum building height development standards are appropriate in the context of the adjoining development.

While it is noted that the Planning Proposal is proposing a maximum RL of 110.50 for the central portion of the site, the 3D View Perspective (PP401 of the Urban Design Study) shows a lift overrun exceeding above the proposed maximum height of buildings. The lift overrun does not appear on any other plan drawings or sections in the Urban Design Study. The Urban Design Study also includes references to and annotations of a ‘landscape podium’ on the rooftop within the central portion of the site (PP301, 302 and 303). It is assumed that the lift overrun is to access this ‘landscape podium’. As this is a Planning Proposal, and not a Development Application, consideration of detailed design is not appropriate and is not considered as part of the assessment. A Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development design outcome on the site. It is recommended that the references and images of the lift overrun and landscape podium be deleted from the Urban Design Study and Planning Proposal.

· Floor Space Ratio

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the KLEP 2015 floor space ratio development standard applying on the sites from 0.3:1 to 0.81:1.

(Note: Part 2 Explanation of Provisions of the Planning Proposal states the proposed floor space ratio is 1.81:1 – however all other parts of the Planning Proposal and Urban Design Study state 0.81:1 is proposed).

The Urban Design Study includes a breakdown of how the floor space ratio was derived (Proposed Envelope Plan PP107). The total area of the building envelopes are very similar to the testing undertaken by Council’s Urban Designer, however the Urban Design Study has allowed for a 25% reduction for wall thickness, services, balconies instead of the 30% used by Council’s Urban Designer. The Apartment Design Guide indicates that a building envelope should be 25-30% greater than the achievable floor area to allow for building components that do not count as floor space but contribute to building design and articulation. In this regard the use of 25% is acceptable.

The Urban Design Study outlines that the total building envelopes – 25% provides a Gross Floor Area of 3476.12m². This results in a floor space ratio of 0.7:1 across the entire subject site in accordance with the LEP definition.

The Urban Design Study then provides a floor space ratio for the ‘effective density’, whereby the area of the battle-axe handles have been excluded from the total site area, which results in a floor space ratio of 0.81:1.

The Planning Proposal is seeking to use the ‘effective density’ of 0.81:1 as the proposed amendment to the maximum floor space ratio on the site. This is incorrect and not supported. A maximum floor space ratio of 0.81:1 across the site would result in a development outcome that is bigger, bulkier and more dense than that modelled in the Urban Design Study, and is not appropriate for the surrounding context.

The Urban Design Study analysis of testing the building envelopes and site area as per the LEP definition supports a maximum floor space ratio of 0.7:1. A floor space ratio of 0.7:1 will deliver an ‘effective density’ of 0.81:1 on the area of the site that is developable.

It is recommended that Planning Proposal be amended to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.7:1.

· Site Specific Local Provision for Site Amalgamation

The Planning Proposal seeks to include a site-specific local provision or map to require amalgamation of the lots (8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road) prior to a redevelopment for the purposes of a residential flat building. No further detail or analysis is provided in the Planning Proposal as to the site-specific provision for site amalgamation.

It is a concern that lots, which are all over 1,200sqm, could be developed individually without any consolidation. Due to the battle axe nature of the lots and constraints such as topography and heritage, the best outcome is for the lots to be amalgamated and developed as one consolidated site. This will ensure that any the any future residential development on the site allows for generous landscaped areas and setbacks to ensure the amenity and adjoining properties and curtilage to the heritage item is maintained.

The inclusion of a site-specific local provision which requires the subject sites to be amalgamated to enable development of a residential flat building is supported. However, as both multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings are permitted within the proposed R4 High Density Residential zone, the site-specific provision should require lot consolidation for both these uses, not just residential flat buildings as proposed.

Clause 6.6 of the KLEP 2015 currently requires that development consent must not be granted for multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building unless the lot has an area of at least 1,200m².

An amendment to Clause 6.6 Requirements for Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings could be made, which requires that development for the purposes of multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building on the site would need a minimum lot size of 4,300m².

(Note: 6.6(4) outlines that the area of access handles is not including in calculating the lot size for the purpose of this clause, so accordingly the minimum lot size proposed is 4,300sqm which is the site area excluding the access handles and not 4,989 which is the total site area).

Clause 6.6 already contains a site-specific provision for sites at Turramurra on the Pacific Highway, which sets a minimum lot size of 5,000sqm for the erection of multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building, as outlined below:

3) Despite subclause (2), development consent must not be granted for the erection of multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building on a lot on land identified as “Area 1” on the Lot Size Map unless the lot has an area of at least 5,000 square metres.

A similar site-specific provision could be made for the subject site, as follows:

3a) Despite subclause (2), development consent must not be granted for the erection of multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building on a lot on land identified as “Area 2” on the Lot Size Map unless the lot has an area of at least 4,300sqm.

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be amended to include the draft site-specific provision (above), which requires a minimum lot size of 4,300sqm for the development of either multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building on the site. The Minimum Lot Size Map in Part 4 Mapping of the Planning Proposal is also required to be amended to identify the subject sites as ‘Area 2’ for the purpose of this clause.

· Minimum Lot Size

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the KLEP 2015 minimum lot size development standard from 840sqm to 1200sqm.

A lot size of 1200sqm is the standard minimum lot size that has been applied throughout Ku-ring-gai for sites zoned R4 High Density Residential, and this is consistent with the 1,200sqm minimum lot size required under Clause 6.6 for the development of multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings permitted in the R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density zones.

As discussed above under Site-Specific Local Provision for Site Amalgamation, the Planning Proposal seeks to include a site-specific local provision requiring the amalgamation of the three sites for the development of a residential flat building, and a minimum lot size of 4,300sqm is recommended. To reinforce the requirement for lot consolidation and ensure consistency between the minimum lot size required under Clause 6.6 for the development of multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings and the minimum lot size under Clause 4.1 and the Minimum Lot Size Map, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be amended to propose a minimum lot size of 4,300sqm.

· Traffic and Transport

A Traffic and Transport Study was submitted with the original Planning Proposal and has not been updated with the amended Planning Proposal, however the amended dwelling yield is 36-40 apartments (vs 34-40 in the original proposal) so there is no real change to the traffic study in terms of traffic generation. The Traffic and Transport Study includes diagrams from the original Urban Design Study and should be amended so as to include the revised diagrams in order to avoid confusion.

In assessing the Planning Proposals impact on traffic and transport matters, consideration is had to s9.1 Ministerial Directions related to:

o 3.1 Residential zones

The objectives of this direction are (in part):

(b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services.

o 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives (in part):

(a) improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport;

(b) increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars;

(c) reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car.

Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has reviewed the proposal and provided the following key points:

Public Transport, and Journey to Work

Image 13 (below) shows the catchment within 30 minutes of public transport travel time of the subject site.

Image 13: Travel Time Map – 30minute Public Transport Catchment

Source: Walkscore.com. Includes walking distance/time to access public transport

The travel catchment extends (in a north-south direction) to employment areas and strategic centres of Chatswood, St Leonards and nearly as far as south as North Sydney. Northerly, it extends as far as Hornsby. The 30 minute catchment is much more limited in the east-west direction, barely extending to the eastern edge of Macquarie Park.

The Table – Journey to Work (below) is an extract from the 2016 Census of Journey to Work that the majority of residents living in the area travel to work destinations largely in the City, and to destinations generally along the North Shore railway. As a result, a relatively high proportion of trips to work are undertaken by rail due to the proximity to Killara railway station, and the places of work are shown in the catchment map above as generally being within 30 minutes travel by public transport. There are also approximately 12% of work trips that were made by walking and cycling.

Overall, the subject site would provide relatively good access to jobs by public transport.

		Mode of Travel
		Car, as driver	Train	Bicycle	Walked only	Worked at home	Total
Destination	Blacktown	6					6
	City and Inner South	9	11				20
	North Sydney and Hornsby	18	7		4	6	35
	Ryde		3	4			7
	Total	33	21	4	4	6	68

Table: Journey to Work

Walkability

Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001) suggests best practice is achieved when key land uses are located within walking distance of each other (e.g. shops, library, childcare centres, cinemas, bus/rail interchange).

Image 14 (below) shows an indication of the 10 minute walking catchment from the subject site.

Image 14: Travel Time Map – 10m Walking Catchment

Source: Walkscore.com

The 10 minute walking catchment is relevant when assessing access to shops and services by walking, and therefore discouraging the number of trips generated and the distances travelled by car.

Page 7 of the Planning Proposal makes the following comments in relation to access to employment, shops, services/facilities and leisure/recreation: …

Local Killara shops are located to the north and local Lindfield shops are located to the south of the subject site. Larger centres are located to the north at Gordon and Hornsby; Chatswood to the south and the City within 30 minutes of the site.

The subject site is close to educational facilities such as the Lindfield and Killara Public Schools and independent schools such as Ravenswood School for Girls, Holy Family Catholic School and Newington College Preparatory School.

The proposed increase in housing density in proximity to existing well established infrastructure will optimise its use.

The table below lists the distance and walking time to key facilities:

Key land use	Walking distance*	Walking time*
Killara Golf Club	0.45km	6 mins
Selkirk Park	0.5km	7 mins
Marian Street Theatre	0.5km	7 mins
Regimental Park	0.55km	8 mins
Daystars Child Care Centre	0.75km	10 mins
Greengate Hotel	0.75km	11 mins
Holy Family Catholic School	1.1km	14 mins
Killara Public School	1.1km	14 mins
Coles Lindfield	1.3km	15 mins
Lindfield Medical Practice	1.3km	16 mins
Ravenswood School	1.4km	18 mins
Lindfield Village Hub (future library, community facilities, supermarket, childcare, urban open space)	1.5km	18 mins
Commonwealth Bank	1.5km	18 mins
Harris Farm Lindfield Avenue (future)	1.5km	19 mins
Australian Post Lindfield	1.6km	20 mins
Lindfield Executive Centre (medical suites)	1.7km	21 mins
Lindfield Village Pharmacy	1.6km	21 mins
Lindfield Library (current)	1.7km	22 mins
Lindfield Public School	2.1km	26 mins

Table: Key facilities – Distance and Time from subject site

*source: Google Maps

The majority of these basic facilities are located outside the convenient 10 minute walking catchment. Some nearby parks and a child care centre are located in close proximity to the site, while other key services and facilities such as supermarkets, pharmacies, medical centres and the majority of schools are located some distance further. It is likely, therefore, that future residents of this site will likely be using cars to access basic services and facilities more than would a residential site located in the either Lindfield or Gordon local centre.

Cycling Accessibility

Image 15 (below) shows the 30-minute cycling catchment from the subject site.

Image 15: Travel Time Map – 30minute Cycling Catchment

Source: Walkscore.com

The 30-minute cycling catchment is larger than the pedestrian catchment, but the bicycle network in the catchment is largely undeveloped, with very few dedicated facilities currently provided. The majority of current cycling is expected to be confined to either on-road/mixed use cycling or cycling on footpaths (where permissible). This catchment borders Chatswood, and after verifying on Google Maps, is also within 30 minutes bike ride to Macquarie Park. While there is a relatively high proportion of trips to work by bicycle from this travel zone, the absence of useful lengths of safe, separated cycling facilities anywhere near the site is unlikely to further encourage cycling as an alternative means of local transport or travel to work in the short to medium term.

Traffic Generation

The assessment estimates traffic generation of 11 vehicle trips during the am and pm commuter peaks. Analysis of the impacts of the generation of this proposal and the traffic generation from the recently gazetted land use changes at Killara Golf Club suggests the intersection of Pacific Highway and Buckingham Road and intersection of Pacific Highway and Fiddens Wharf Road would continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service.

· Heritage

The site adjoins two local heritage items:

o To the north – I255 ‘Southdean’ dwelling house, 10 Buckingham Road, Killara

o To the west – I257 dwelling house, 22 Buckingham Road, Killara

Also within the immediate vicinity is the Killara Golf Club Clubhouse, putting green, fairway and gardens which are listed as a local heritage item.

A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with the original Planning Proposal, and an addendum heritage statement was submitted alongside the amended proposal. Councils Heritage Planner has reviewed the amended proposal the following is a summary of the key issues:

Setbacks

Block C is proposed to be a minimum of almost 13m from the heritage item at 22 Buckingham Road, which would be an acceptable lineal distance. However, the distance needs to be managed in relation to the overall height, massing and envelope.

Block A is proposed to be a minimum of approximately 18.6m from the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road at the point indicated on the urban design concept drawings. Whilst this may vary depending on how the dimension is measured, the separation is likely to exceed 15m at any given point.

Whilst the topography places the development in a visually prominent location when viewed over the Golf Course from the south, the entirety of the development is substantially physically distanced from Killara Golf Club.

Building Envelopes

As noted in the Urban Design Study section (Images 8, 11 and 12 of this report) , the form of the proposed building envelopes has been amended and improved from a heritage perspective to reflect the comments provided by Council, principally in relation to heritage and urban design.

The setting of the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road appears to be well maintained with views over Block B towards the south and Killara Golf Course indicated.

The relationship of Block C to the heritage item at 22 Buckingham Road is challenged. Whilst more than 12m setback is likely to be achieved on the ground, the relationship of the building massing and height above 8m (aligned within the principles of the DCP) may need to be refined and guided in the site specific DCP. The overall wall lengths and distribution of massing needs to be sensitive to the adjoining heritage item.

Additional building massing between the subject sites and heritage item that is Killara Gold Club and its expanded curtilage is permitted by the Killara Golf Club Planning Proposal. There is an expectation therefore, that any impacts of a development in the subject location are negated by the intervening development. Notwithstanding this and as noted above, the heritage item at No.10 Buckingham Road maintains views over the new building massing towards the Golf Course.

Landscape

The revised landscape concept plan prepared by Paul Scrivener indicates that considerable vegetated buffers are envisaged along the west, south and east boundaries of the site. In addition, vegetation provided along the northern boundary to the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road and flanking the access driveway from Buckingham Road. Such vegetation is essential to support an overall Planning Proposal of the scale on these sites from a heritage perspective. This will be a requirement that should be carefully articulated in the site specific DCP.

· Biodiversity

The site includes areas mapped on the KLEP 2015 Biodiversity map (Clause 6.3) and Greenweb within the Ku-ring-gai DCP (Part 18). An Arborist Report and Ecological Constraints Assessment have been submitted with the Planning Proposal. Councils Team Leader Natural Areas has reviewed the Planning Proposal and provided the following key points:

Arborist Report

The arborist report does not map the existence of two Eucalyptus saligna, forming part of the Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation (BC) Act 2016. These two trees are located within adjoining properties and overhanging the north east and south east of 16 Buckingham Road

Image 16: Amended Preliminary Tree Asset Identification Map – plus missing Eucalyptus

saligna, forming part of the Blue Gum High Forest CEEC listed under the NSW BC Act 2016.

Source: base map, Amended Preliminary Tree Asset Identification (Urban Forestry 2021)

Ecological Constraints Assessment

The Ecological Constraints Assessment (Cumberland Ecology 2020) report maps only trees within the site and does not include canopy overhanging the subject site. As such it fails to map in the existence of Blue Gum High Forest formed by three Eucalyptus saligna adjoining and overhanging the north east and south east of 16 Buckingham Road.

Image 17: Ecological Constraints Assessment – Showing Eucalyptus saligna,

forming part of the Blue Gum High Forest CEEC listed under the NSW BC Act 2016.

Source: Base map, Ecological Constraints Assessment (Cumberland Ecology 2020)

Impacts on Blue Gum High Forest - Building Footprint and Driveway

Assessment of the indicative building footprint as outlined in the Urban Design Study suggest that impacts to the existing Blue Gum High Forest adjoining and within the site can be avoided. However, as no detailed tree protection zones are provided, it is uncertain. Further assessment at DA stage will need to be undertaken to assess and protect these trees. As such it is important to note that future reduction of this building area may be required to avoid impact / encroachment upon this tree (including both root impacts and the need to prune and allow for future growth and space between building and tree – thereby reducing future need to prune).

Furthermore, deliberate designing and retention of the separated driveways should enable long term retention of the existing Blue Gum High Forest (forming part of the CEEC listed under the NSW BC Act 2016).

This will primarily be done through application of Councils Ku-ring-gai LEP Part 6.3 and Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 8, Biodiversity provisions.

Biodiversity Mapping and Greenweb Mapping

It has been identified that Biodiversity mapping within these provisions is more extensive than occurring within the site. Updating the Biodiversity (Greenweb) mapping through a site specific DCP would provide greater clarify for future developers.

Site Specific DCP

Should a site-specific DCP be proposed additional factors that would benefit Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Forest and protect Blue Gum High Forest include:

o updated Greenweb mapping (DCP biodiversity provision mapping);

o a requirement for deliberate designing and retention of the separated driveways to protect large canopy trees; and

o a landscape plan including planting of native trees (including Blue Gum High Forest species).

· Site Access

The Urban Design Study provides two options for vehicle and pedestrian access into the site:

o Entry and exit via the access handles at 14 and 16 Buckingham Road (west) and pedestrian access via 8a Buckingham Road access handle (east); or

o entry via 8a Buckingham Road access handle (east) and exist via 16 Buckingham Road access handle (west), with pedestrian entry and exit via 14 Buckingham Road access handle.

Site access is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of a Planning Proposal other than ensuring the site will have the opportunity to provide access to the road should development on the sites under the proposed LEP amendments be realised in the future.

Site access and the preferred configuration and location it is something that could be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP to support the Planning Proposal.

Key considerations in the location of the vehicle and pedestrian entry and exit are:

o tree protection requirements to ensure the significant trees and vegetation located along the existing battle axe driveways of 14 and 16 Buckingham Road are able to be retained;

o travel paths when walking to/from Killara Station;

o minimum widths and accessibility requirements; and

o impacts on heritage items, and landscape buffering requirements.

Strategic Merit Assessment

· Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities, in particular:

o Objective 4. Infrastructure use is optimised

o Objective 10. Greater housing supply

o Objective 11. Housing is more diverse and affordable

o Objective 13. Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

o Objective 14. Integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities

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

o Objective 30. Urban tree canopy cover is increased

A Metropolis of Three Cities outlines that liveability incorporates access to housing, transport and employment, as well as social, recreational, cultural and creative opportunities. Provision of housing close to public transport and services and facilities improves the opportunity for people to walk and cycle to local shops and services. Heritage and biodiversity is protected and enhanced. The proposal is consistent with these principles.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the planning priorities of the North District Plan, in particular:

o Planning Priority N1. Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

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

o Planning Priority N6. Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the districts heritage

o Planning Priority N12. Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

o Planning Priority N16. Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

The Planning Proposal will allow for additional housing supply in a location that enables good access via public transport to key strategic centres such as Chatswood, St Leonards and Hornsby. The Planning Proposal has been amended to ensure the built form outcomes on the site are compatible with the protection of the adjoining heritage items and protection of significant trees on the site and adjoining sites. The Planning Proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan priorities to focus housing in locations that support the 30-minute city and provide access to jobs, services and public transport, as well as the priorities to respect heritage and protect biodiversity.

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) came into effect on 19 March 2020 and provides a 20 year vision and local planning priorities and associated actions for land use planning in Ku-ring-gai. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following local planning priorities:

o K3. Providing housing close to transport, services and facilities to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community

o K4. Providing a range of diverse housing to accommodate the changing structure of families and households and enable ageing in place

o K12. Managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

o K13. Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage

o K21. Prioritising new development and housing in locations that enable 30minute access to key strategic centres

o K28. Improving the condition of Ku-ring-gai’s bushland and protecting native terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna and their habitats

o K29. Enhancing the biodiversity values and ecosystem function services of Ku-ring-gai’s natural assets

o K30. Improving the quality and diversity of Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest

o K31. Increasing, managing and protecting Ku-ring-gai’s urban tree canopy

While the Planning Proposal is consistent with the overarching local planning priority to provide housing close to transport, services and facilities, the LSPS provides specific details about each centre, its suitability for additional housing and timing.

The LSPS sets out that the Killara Secondary Local Centre is suitable for additional housing, and it contains a local railway station or bus routes on an arterial road corridor, and meet the criteria for 30minute access to a strategic centre and is supported by retail and other services. The timing for future housing delivery in the Killara centre is identified as 2031-2036. This Planning Proposal seeks to bring forward the timing of housing delivery in the centre, which is inconsistent with the LSPS. The Planning Proposal seeks to provide an ‘interface solution’ for the subject sites and respond to the immediate surrounding context of the subject sites, including the adjoining high density development at 6a Buckingham Road, as well as the potential future high density development on the adjoining Killara Golf Course. It is considered that there is sufficient justification to support the Planning Proposal and delivery of housing in this location prior to the 2031-2036 period, as it will result in a better planning outcome.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the principles for the location of additional housing as set out in the LSPS:

o Locate high density housing types within a 10min walk (800m radius) of Primary and Secondary Local Centres: Gordon, Lindfield, Turramurra, St Ives (subject to the provision of priority bus infrastructure), Roseville, Killara, Pymble and Wahroonga

o Locate medium density built forms and other housing types on interface and transition areas where they function as a buffer between differing scale of building or differing land use types

o In considering areas for future medium and high density housing form, the following areas are to be avoided:

o Heritage conservation areas.

o Areas of visual or aesthetic quality and character.

o Areas within or affecting scenic and cultural landscapes.

o Areas of intact tree canopy where the built form does not sit under the canopy.

o Areas with multiple constraints including steep topography.

o Areas with environmental values.

o Areas that are bushfire prone and with evacuation risk.

o Centres with limited transport and service access until improvements are implemented.

The sites the subject of the Planning Proposal are interface sites, whereby they already adjoining high density development at 6a Buckingham Road, and will adjoining future high density development on the Killara Golf Course. The Planning Proposal seeks to provide an interface and appropriate transition between the high density developments, and the adjoining low density residential area. The development standards proposed and the built form outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal will function as a buffer and transition between differing scale of building, while respecting and conserving the heritage significance of adjoining heritage items and amenity of low density residential dwellings. The sites the subject of the Planning Proposal are not constrained by a Heritage conservation area, scenic or cultural landscape or bushfire prone land. While the site does have areas of intact tree canopy and environmental values, the proposed scale of the built form will be 3 storeys which will comfortably sit under the canopy and located outside of areas of environmental value to ensure significant trees will be retained and protected.

· Ku-ring-ai Housing Strategy and Housing Strategy Approval Letter Conditions

Council’s adopted Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy provides all new dwellings to 2036 from capacity within the existing planning controls and zoning. As the Planning Proposal is seeking to upzone the site and amend the development controls to enable delivery of more housing on the site, it is inconsistent with the Housing Strategy.

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will enable the delivery of an addition 36-40 dwellings on the site.

In approving the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy, the Department of Planning afnd Environment issued a number of approval conditions, one of which is:

6. Council is to commit to a work program to identify areas for additional medium density housing opportunities outside of primary local centres such as Roseville Chase, Killara, Pymble, Wahroonga, West Gordon and North St Ives as identified in the Ku-ring-gai LSPS for potential delivery in the 2031 to 2036 period. A Planning Proposal(s) for these centres is to be submitted to the Department for a Gateway determination by December 2023. Where this work is not pursued by Council the Department welcomes place-based approaches by landowner/developers to explore opportunities for additional medium density housing in locations that are well serviced by transport, services and facilities

At OMC 16 November 2021 Council resolved to reject the Housing Strategy conditions of approval. As Council has not committed to a work program, the subject Planning Proposal submitted by the landowners is consistent with the requirements of Condition 6. The Planning Proposal will enable a medium density built form outcome on the site in an area that is close to public transport, services and facilities.

(Note: While the Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential, the development standards proposed, 3 storey and an FSR of 0.7:1, are consistent with and in the case of the FSR lower than the development standards for medium density development throughout Ku-ring-gai).

· Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) applicable to the site. Many of these SEPPs contain detailed provisions and controls which would only apply at the Development Application stage. It is noted that the Planning Proposal contains assessment against SEPPs that have been repealed – specifically the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, SEPP Seniors and SEPP 70. These SEPPs have been replaced by SEPP Housing 2021, and it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be amended to include assessment against the new SEPP Housing 2021. This is noted in the Table of Amendments at Attachment A12.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the applicable s9.1 Ministerial Direction, specifically those relating to:

o 2.3 Heritage Conservation

o 3.1 Residential Zones

o 3.4 Integration of Land Use and Transport

The Planning Proposal is justifiably inconsistent with direction 6.3 Site Specific Provisions. The Planning Proposal seeks to include a site-specific provisions which would require:

o a minimum lot size which is larger than usually required in Ku-ring-gai for the development of a residential flat building. The purpose of the site-specific provision for the site is to ensure that the 3 sites the subject of the Planning Proposal are developed together as one consolidated site, rather than potentially 1 or 2 out of the three being developed.

o Site-specific development standards including height of buildings using RLs and floor space ratio

The objective of direction 6.3 is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site-specific planning controls, and 4(c) outlines that a Planning Proposal must allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended.

(6) notes that a Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with this direction, if the provisions are of a minor significance.

In order to ensure that future development on the site enabled by the Planning Proposal responds appropriately to the surrounding context, comprising high density, low density and heritage items, as well as responding appropriately to site constraints such as changes in topography, there is a need for site-specific provisions and development standards. It is considered the inconsistency with direction 6.3 is minor in nature and justifiable in order to ensure the best built form outcomes on the site.

Amendments required to be made to Planning Proposal Documents

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has found that there are a number of errors, inconsistencies, and lack of detail or analysis provided within the documents. There are other amendments required as a result of Council’s assessment, such as the amendment to the Floor Space Ratio and Minimum Lot Size development standards.

A table of amendments is included at Attachment A12 which details the required amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal if Council is to support it being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

Site-Specific DCP

In order to provide more certainty and clarity regarding the built form outcomes on the site under the amendments proposed within the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal, should it receive a Gateway Determination.

The site-specific DCP should include detailed controls regarding:

· built form, including wall lengths and massing;

· setbacks from adjoining heritage items, low density residential dwellings and significant trees including canopy to be retained;

· upper level setbacks of building envelopes;

· ensure appropriate curtilage areas to adjoining heritage items;

· pedestrian and vehicle access to the site ensuring retention and protection of large canopy trees;

· building envelope to ensure it is broken up into 3 separate section across the site in order to reflect the pattern of subdivision and surrounding low density development context;

· roof forms;

· landscaping, including buffer areas to heritage items and requirement for landscape plan including planting of native trees (including Blue Gum High Forest species); and

· updated Greenweb mapping (DCP biodiversity provision mapping).

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice

In accordance with Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the planning proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) on 14 March 2022.

The KLPP provided the following advice (Attachment A13):

A. The Planning Proposal, amended as per the Table of Amendments (Attachment A12) be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (sic) for a Gateway Determination

B. That a site-specific Development Control Plan be prepared for the site and exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal, should it receive a 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

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

P1.1.1.1 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.

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 managed 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

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. A flow chart of the planning proposal process is included at Attachment A14, and indicates what stage this planning proposal is currently at, and the next steps involved.

If Council fails to make a decision within 90 days (from the commencement of the review of the application) or if Council makes a decision to not support the Planning Proposal, the proponent can request the Department of Planning and Environment for a Rezoning Review.

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 the Planning Proposal is forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on the matter as to whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning 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.

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s 2021/2022 Schedule of Fees and Charges. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will enable the delivery of 36-40 dwellings on the subject site to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community.

Environmental Considerations

The subject site includes areas mapped on the KLEP 2015 Biodiversity map (Clause 6.3) and Greenweb within the Ku-ring-gai DCP (Part 18). An Arborist Report and Ecological Constraints Assessment have been submitted with the Planning Proposal. Council’s Team Leader Natural Areas has reviewed the Planning Proposal and the potential environment impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment. Further detailed consideration of environmental impacts will be included in the site-specific DCP, and any future development that may occur on the site as a result of the proposal.

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is issued a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included internal consultation with Council’s staff with expertise in planning, heritage, traffic and transport and biodiversity and has informed the recommendations of this Report. External Urban Design advice was provided on the assessment of the Planning Proposal.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara which seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:

· Rezone from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential;

· amend Height of Buildings development standard;

· amend Floor Space Ratio development standard;

· amend Minimum Lot Size development standard;

· site specific local provision requiring amalgamation of lots prior to development for the purposes of a residential flat building.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed and found to have sufficient strategic and site-specific merit to enable it to proceed to Gateway Determination and public exhibition, subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A12.

Recommendation:

A. That the planning proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this report and Table of Amendments (Attachment A12).

B. That the planning proposal (as amended) be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

C. That delegation be given to the General Manager and Director of Strategy and Environment to verify all amendments are in accordance with the recommendations in this report and Table of Amendments (Attachment A12) prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment.

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

E. That a site-specific DCP be prepared in accordance with the details in this report, and Council’s Fees and Charges.

F. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the public exhibition of the planning proposal and site-specific DCP is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Gateway Determination and the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan

G. That a report be brought back at the end of the exhibition process.

Alexandra Plumb

Acting Senior Urban Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	PRE-PLANNING PROPOSAL MEETING REPORT - 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045679
	A2	PLANNING PROPOSAL JANUARY 2022 - 8A, 14 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045678
	A3	URBAN DESIGN STUDY REV 2 - January 2022 - Planning Proposal 8A 14 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045692
	A4	TRAFFIC REPORT - Planning Proposal 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045697
	A5	Additional TRAFFIC RESPONSE - Planning Proposal - 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045698
	A6	STATEMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT - Planning Proposal 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045700
	A7	ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT - 8A 14 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD KILLARA - January 2022	Excluded	2022/045702
	A8	ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT - Planning Proposal 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045714
	A9	TREE ASSET IDENTIFICATION - Planning Proposal 8A, 14 & 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045717
	A10	SURVEY - 8A & 14 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045707
	A11	SURVEY - 16 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KILLARA	Excluded	2022/045711
	A12 ⇩	Table of Amendments - Buckingham Road Planning Proposal		2022/045362
	A13 ⇩	KLPP Advice 14 March 2022 - Planning Proposal for 8a, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara		2022/076162
	A14 ⇩	Planning Proposal Process Flowchart		2022/068797

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.16 / 1

Item GB.16	S12249

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Gordon - Post exhibition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 – Gordon for Council adoption.

background:	The Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010 (PDP 2010) has been in effect for 12 years and has served Council well, enabling the delivery of a number of projects through funding collected from development contributions A review of the PDP 2010 has been undertaken to reflect changing community needs, recent State Government guidelines and standards, and the priorities and actions within the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement.

comments:	Following the adoption of Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 1, Volume 2 (Turramurra) and Volume 3 on 15 March 2022 and after the completion of the site inspection for Gordon, this report presents the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 (Gordon).

recommendation:	That Council adopts Volume 2 (Gordon) of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan.

Purpose of Report

To present the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 – Gordon for Council adoption.

Background

On November 23, 2010, Ku-ring-gai Council adopted the Ku-ring-gai Council Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010 (PDP 2010); the Plan has been in effect for 12 years and has served Council well, enabling the delivery of a number of projects through funding collected from development contributions. Delivered projects for Gordon include the Gordon Bus Interchange; Beans Farm Road and Hansons Way. Projects in the delivery phase include Wade Lane and St Johns Avenue Streetscape Upgrade; Fitzsimons Lane and Pacific Highway (north) Streetscape Upgrade.

Revision of the PDP 2010 was necessary to reflect changing community needs, recent State government guidelines and standards, and the priorities and actions within the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council 8 December 2020, Council was presented with the Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan. The Plan included specific chapters for Gordon, Lindfield, and Turramurra local centres. It was resolved:

“That Council adopt the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Public Domain Plan for public exhibition and after the exhibition a further report be brought back to Council.”

The draft KPDP was placed on public exhibition from 5 March 2021 until 19 April 2021. The outcomes of the public exhibition were reported back to OMC 15 June 2021. At that meeting Council resolved:

“That the matter be deferred to enable an inspection of the sites identified in the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan being the three town centres of Lindfield, Turramurra and Gordon.”

A number of attempts were subsequently made by staff to schedule site inspections for Councillors during 2021 however COVID 19 restrictions and the caretaker period prior to the 2021 Council elections meant the site inspections were postponed until early 2022.

A Councillor site inspection for Lindfield was held on 14 February 2022, and for Turramurra on 21 February 2022.

A Councillor site inspection for Gordon was held on 29 March 2022.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council 15 March 2022, Council adopted Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 1, Volume 2 – Turramurra (only) and Volume 3.

This report represents the draft KPDP Volume 2 – Gordon only for Council consideration.

Artist’s impression – St Johns Avenue, Gordon streetscape upgrade

Comments

This report presents the following sections of the draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan:

- Volume 2 – Gordon Public Domain Plan.

The draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) has been prepared to provide guidance on the planning, design and construction of streets, roads, parks, car parks and other public spaces.

Volume 2 – Local Centres Public Domain Plans for Gordon (Attachment A1):

· sets out objectives for each local centre;

· sets desired future character and provides concept designs for streetscapes and public open spaces; and

· nominates examples of appropriate street trees.

The Gordon public domain plan provides concept plans for the Gordon local centre. To ensure a coherent, well-coordinated rollout of the concept design and desired future character of the local centre, it is vital that all contributors adhere to the concept design and deliver a quality outcome.

The KPDP provides guidelines and concept designs for all stakeholders, planners, designers and developers – public or private, large or small scale – who intend to carry out works within the public domain areas of the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres. The KPDP must be read in conjunction with the Local Environment Plan, the Development Control Plans and the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.

The delivery of the public domain renewal projects will be led by Council and largely funded through development contributions. Funding is currently available for a number of projects identified in the KPDP, however many are not and will require the continued collection of development contributions to realise all listed projects. Delivery of some portions of the public domain works will be redevelopment of sites with works completed by developers directly via Voluntary Planning Agreements or Works-in-Kind type agreements.

Projects currently identified under the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 will be prioritised for delivery. Additional projects will be added as Development Contribution funding becomes available. Streetscape projects for Gordon programmed for delivery within the next five years include St Johns Avenue (eastern end), Fitzsimons Lane, part of Merriwa Street, and Pacific Highway western side (north of Merriwa Street).

It must be noted that the plan presented in the KPDP are high-level concept plans that represent desired long-term outcomes. 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.

Following public exhibition in March/ April 2021, Council received submissions from the community and internal and external stakeholders. There were no comments specific to Gordon, however some internal amendments have been made that are listed in Table 1 (below).

TABLE 1 – Amendments for clarity, additional information or updates to designs.
	Summary of key submission comments requiring amendments	Reason	Affected sections/pages
1	Removal of right turn lane into St Johns Avenue from Pacific Highway	To align with adopted traffic plan for Gordon	Illustrative Plan
2	Adjustments to signalised intersection at Ravenswood Avenue and Pacific Highway	To align with adopted traffic plan for Gordon	Illustrative Plan

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

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: Implement the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan and Technical Manual and review and update as required.

P4.1.1.2: Implement Public Domain Masterplans for the local centres and concept plans for key

precincts.

P4.1.1.6: Prepare streetscape concept plans for identified precincts in Gordon Local Centre

consistent with the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.11: Integrate all transport modes for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, Traffic and 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:

NSW 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.

A further risk is the proposed restructuring of the infrastructure contributions planned by NSW Government. The restructure may reduce the amount of contributions Council may collect from developments for the purposes of streetscape improvements, this is because public domain works are currently excluded from the Essential Works List which will become mandatory for all Contributions Plans.

Artist’s impression – Pacific Highway, Gordon streetscape upgrade, north of Merriwa Street.

Financial Considerations

Strategy and Environment staff have been working with Finance Department and Operations to establish a five-year program to deliver streetscape upgrades across the Local Centres. There are currently development contribution funds available for the projects for the period 2021-2025.

Local Centre Streetscape Improvements Program

Local Centre

Streets included

LTFP funds

(S 7.11)

Commence construction

Gordon

St Johns Avenue, Wade Lane, Henry Street (part), Werona Avenue (part)

$9.5M

2022

Gordon

Fitzsimons Lane, Merriwa street (part) and Pacific Highway (north streetscape)

$4.5M

TBC

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.

The extent of the works will be finalised once a cost report has been prepared by a quantity surveyor. This will ensure the scope of works is consistent with the available budget.

Possible changes to development contributions being contemplated by the State Government may curtail revenue in the outer years of the Long Term Financial Plan which may require adjustments to projects. Likewise, reliance of the “pooling” provisions in the 2010 contributions plan may result in funds for some projects not being available in later years if funds are not repaid.

Social Considerations

Improved public domain environments will encourage walking and cycling by residents that could potentially increase community health and increase the chances of meeting and interacting with others in the community.

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 and crossing points will improve safety in the local centres.

Covid Impacts

The public domain plan will assist Council in working with the State Government initiatives to support local businesses to expand outdoor dining where appropriate and ensuring public amenity and safety are maintained in accordance with covid planning requirements.

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.

Where possible, indigenous tree species will be selected for tree planting. However, other factors such as street character, soil and planting conditions, solar access to adjacent properties, space constraints, maintenance and community consultation will all be considered when selecting the tree species.

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

On 8 December 2020, Council adopted the reported Draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan for public exhibition and was reported back to Council in June 2021. 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.

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.

The draft public domain plans for Gordon were presented to Transport for NSW at a workshop with a number of representatives from both Transport for NSW and Council. Comments from Transport for NSW have been taken on board and changes made to the draft KPDP.

Council officers also invited number of authorities and State Government agencies to review the KPDP and to provide comment. These included:

Internal Consultation

A series of internal workshops were conducted with a number of departments including Operations, Strategy and Environment, and Development and Regulation for the Gordon Public Domain Plan.

A summary of the draft Public Domain Plan for Gordon was presented to the previous Councillors through a Councillor briefing sessions held on 7 October 2020. No issues of concern were raised by the Councillors.

The draft KPDP was circulated to all Council staff who 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.

A Councillor briefing about the submissions received and the proposed changes to the KPDP was held on 25 May, 2021.

Site inspections

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 15 June, 2021, a site inspection for Gordon was held on 29 March 2022.

An overview of the proposed concept design for Gordon was presented to the attending Councillors. Electronic copies of the information sheets for Gordon distributed on the day have since been emailed to all Councillors.

A summary of the questions / issues raised at the Gordon site inspections has been provided in Attachment 2.

Summary

The draft Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan provides guidelines and concept designs to ensure a coherent, well-coordinated rollout of the concept design and desired future character of the local centres. Adherence to the KPDP can deliver a quality outcome for our local centres.

The KPDP Volume 2 (Gordon) has been reviewed and commented upon by the community, council officers, Councillors and external stakeholders and State agencies. No comments were received for Gordon. Some minor amendments have been made to align with the traffic plan for Gordon.

Overall, the KPDP is supported by the community and the adoption of this plan will assist in delivering an improved public domain outcome for the Gordon local centre.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 (Gordon) as attached to this report.

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⇩	Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 - Gordon		2022/093170
	A2⇩	Public Domain Plan - Gordon site inspection notes		2022/100587

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.17 / 1

Item GB.17	S12474

Lindfield Local Centre - Traffic Management Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To advise Council that Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has given its concurrence to Council’s preferred traffic management scheme for Lindfield local centre; and to clarify the basis for funding and delivery of the proposed traffic management measures.

background:	In 2015 Council adopted a draft traffic management option for Lindfield local centre, for submission to TfNSW for their endorsement. The adopted scheme was subsequently submitted to TfNSW and up until recently concurrence had only been given to certain elements of the scheme while a number of issues remained unresolved. The Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited in 2021 supported by a Transport Impact Assessment that included evaluation of the majority of the proposed upgrades in Council’s adopted traffic scheme, since these would directly and indirectly relate to the Lindfield Village Hub. TfNSW has reviewed all upgrade proposals within the LVH Planning Proposal and has now effectively given their concurrence to Council’s adopted traffic management scheme.

comments:	TfNSW has given its concurrence to a traffic scheme for Lindfield local centre, this allows Council to move forward with the delivery of a range of intersection upgrades and road modifications. Some intersection upgrades directly support the Lindfield Village Hub project, while others support the wider Lindfield local centre.

recommendation:	That Council note TfNSW concurrence for Council’s adopted traffic management option and that Council endorse the funding and delivery recommendations as set out in this report.

Purpose of Report

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 10 November 2015, Council adopted a traffic management scheme for Lindfield local centre, for submission to TFNSW for concurrence. The traffic management scheme was developed to support the Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Master Plan and consider the cumulative impact of other planned growth in the Lindfield local centre. With respect to traffic management, Council resolved:

H. That Council adopt in principle the Traffic Management Option 1C of the Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study 2013/14 and submit it to Roads and Maritime Services [now Transport for NSW] for concurrence.

The adopted traffic management scheme was subsequently submitted to TFNSW and in the intervening years staff worked closely with TFNSW however concurrence was only given to certain elements of the scheme. Up until recently a number of issues remained unresolved particularly in relation to the signalised pedestrian crossing on Pacific Highway adjoining the rail station entry and the intersection of Pacific Highway, Balfour Street and Havilah Road.

The Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited in 2021 supported by a Transport Impact Assessment that included evaluation of the majority of the proposed upgrades in Council’s adopted Traffic Management Option 1C (Attachment A1), since these would directly and indirectly relate to the Lindfield Village Hub.

TfNSW has reviewed all intersection upgrades and road modification proposals within the LVH Planning Proposal and through its review (Attachment A2), has now effectively given its concurrence to Council’s adopted traffic management scheme

Comments

TfNSW has given its concurrence to a traffic scheme for Lindfield local centre which allows Council to move forward with the delivery of a range of intersection upgrades and road modifications.

In its response to the Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal, Transport for NSW provided concurrence for the following intersection upgrades and road modifications:

1. New traffic signals - intersection Pacific Highway and Beaconsfield Parade;

2. relocation of mid-block pedestrian signals - Pacific Highway near Tryon Place;

3. new traffic signals - intersection Pacific Highway and Strickland Avenue;

4. road closure to traffic – Bent Street between Pacific Highway and Bent Lane;

5. modifications to existing traffic signals to ban right turn movement from Havilah Road to Pacific Highway, and other modifications - intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road;

6. localised widening of Pacific Highway to accommodate extension of existing right turn bay on the Pacific Highway for vehicles turning into Balfour Street - intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road;

7. modifications to existing laneway for one-way traffic flow (southbound) – Woodford Lane;

8. new traffic signals - intersection Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road;

9. localised road widening on Grosvenor Road to accommodate an additional approach lane - Grosvenor Road at Pacific Highway; and

10. modifications to existing laneway for one-way traffic flow (southbound) – Bent Lane between Bent Street and Balfour Avenue.

A number of these locations were identified in the LVH Transport Impact Assessment as directly supporting the Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal therefore it is recommended that the delivery (including, design, construction, approvals and funding) of the above intersection upgrades and road modifications be the responsibility of the selected development partner for the Lindfield Village Hub project. The works are:

· New traffic signals - intersection of Pacific Highway and Beaconsfield Parade;

· relocation of mid-block pedestrian signals - Pacific Highway near Tryon Place;

· road closure – Bent Street between Pacific Highway and Bent Lane;

· modifications to existing traffic signals - intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road;

· modifications to existing laneway – Woodford Lane; and

· modifications to existing laneway – Bent Lane between Bent Street and Balfour Street.

The remaining upgrade works are not directly related to the Lindfield Village Hub and relate to network upgrades to support the current and future traffic conditions across the centre. It is recommended that the following works are the responsibility of Council to deliver:

· Localised road widening on Grosvenor Road to accommodate an additional approach lane - Grosvenor Road at Pacific Highway;

· new traffic signals - intersection Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road;

· new traffic signals - intersection Pacific Highway and Strickland Avenue;

· extension of right turn bay on Pacific Highway into Balfour Street - intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road.

Table 1 summarises the recommended delivery mechanism and funding sources for intersection upgrades and road modifications across Lindfield local centre.

Table 1 – Recommended Delivery Mechanism and Funding Source for Proposed Road infrastructure – Lindfield Local Centre
	Location	Proposed road infrastructure	Delivery Mechanism	Funding source
1	Intersection Pacific Highway and Beaconsfield Parade	New traffic signals with pedestrian crossing facilities	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub project	LVH
2	Pacific Highway near Tryon Place	Relocation of mid-block pedestrian activated signals	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub project	LVH
3	Intersection Pacific Highway and Strickland Avenue	New traffic signals with pedestrian crossing facilities	Delivered by Council as a capital works project	Council
4	Bent Street between Pacific Highway and Bent Lane	Closure to vehicle traffic and installation of pedestrian plaza	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub project	LVH
5	Intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road -	Modifications to existing signals to ban right turn movement from Havilah Road into Pacific Highway, and other associated modifications (such as line markings etc.)	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub project	LVH
6	Intersection Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road	Localised widening of Pacific Highway to accommodate extension of existing right turn bay on the Pacific Highway for vehicles turning into Balfour Street.	Delivered by Council as a capital works project. May require land acquisition or land dedication through future redevelopment of adjoining site.	Council
7	Woodford Lane	Modification to existing laneway to convert to one-way traffic flow (southbound)	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub	LVH
8	Intersection Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road	Removal of existing mid-block pedestrian activated signals on Lindfield Avenue and installation of new traffic signals with pedestrian crossing facilities at intersection of Tryon Road and Lindfield Avenue	Delivered by Council as a capital works project - part of Lindfield Avenue Streetscape Works	Council
9	Grosvenor Road at intersection with Pacific Highway	Localised road widening to accommodate an additional approach lane on Grosvenor Road	Delivered by Council as a capital works project	Council
10	Bent Lane between Bent Street and Balfour Avenue.	Modifications to existing laneway for one-way traffic flow (southbound)	Delivered as part of Lindfield Village Hub	LVH

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

Plan for works in response to development in local centres.

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.

P4.1.1.1: Implement the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan and Technical Manual and review and update as required.

P4.1.1.2: Implement Public Domain Masterplans for the local centres and concept plans for key precincts.

P4.1.1.8: Prepare streetscape concept plans for identified precincts in Lindfield Local Centre consistent with the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.11: Integrate all transport modes for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, Traffic and Transport studies in collaboration with Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

Governance Matters

The recommendations in this report are consistent with the following Council strategies and plans:

- Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Plan

- Ku-ring-gai DCP

- Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010

- Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010

Risk Management

This report addresses to key risks:

- The inability for Council to deliver planned traffic infrastructure and modifications identified in the Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study due to substantial shortfalls in funding arising from the S7.11 apportionment principle in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 and the escalation of construction costs which have risen significantly more than the general escalation applied to the entire Contributions Plan.

- To clarify the scope of the Lindfield Village Hub responsibilities in relation to delivering TfNSW local traffic requirements. This will help Council fine-tune budget assumptions and also the scope of works in the Lindfield Village Hub Bid documents that will be issued to market.

- Clarifying delivery and funding for the proposed extension of right turn bay on Pacific Highway into Balfour Street. In the LVH Transport Impact Assessment, the modelling results for 2024 with the LVH development (notional LVH opening year) show that the overall operation of the intersection would deteriorate during all peak hours. This is generally due to increased demand for the right turn from the Pacific Highway to Balfour Street, which will exceed the available capacity (currently 25 metre / 4 vehicle right turn bay storage). Therefore, the right turn bay on Pacific Highway into Balfour Street would need to be extended to cater for the additional demand generated by the LVH. TfNSW supports the lengthening of the right turn bay and requires that the length of the extension be verified through further intersection modelling. The area around the northern approach is highly constrained, particularly on the western side with the new Coles development, heritage building and electricity substation. This restricts opportunities for widening Pacific Highway to enable the right turn bay to be extended. It would be difficult if not impossible for the Lindfield Village Hub to deliver this work as land acquisition/dedication is likely to be required. It is therefore recommended that Council deliver this work as part of a long term delivery plan.

- Clarifying delivery and funding for the proposed improvement on Grosvenor Road at Pacific Highway which was identified as part of the traffic management scheme for Lindfield local centre adopted by Council in 2015. The intersection is located at the edge of the study area and was considered to be one of the constraints on the Pacific Highway corridor through Lindfield (the other being the intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road). The suggested improvement was proposed on the basis that additional intersection capacity on Grosvenor Road could reduce green time for Grosvenor Road – and therefore increase green time for Pacific Highway – providing benefits for all approaches. However, there is no timetable or funding for delivery, and this project is not identified in the works program of the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 or any other capital works program.

Financial Considerations

The delivery of the proposed intersection upgrades and road modifications identified in this report will be the responsibility of Council or the selected development partner for the Lindfield Village Hub project.

Where Council is identified as responsible for funding and delivery of proposed intersection upgrades and road modifications the following sources have been identified:

- Development Contributions (S 7.11); and

- Funds from the sale of Balfour Lane, Lindfield.

Development Contributions

A substantial shortfall in funding is expected for traffic signal infrastructure and modification of key intersections identified in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.

It is noted that S7.11 development contributions will typically form a minor part of overall funding of major traffic facilities due to “apportionment”, or the process by which the assessed demand or cost is related specifically to the development from which contributions may be sought. Apportionment seeks to ensure that new development only pays its share or portion of the cost of the facility or work for which it has created a demand. For major traffic facilities in Ku-ring-gai (such as traffic signals), the apportionment to new development is usually significantly less than 100% due to Ku-ring-gai being a brownfields LGA. For example, regarding the modifications to the intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road, the apportionment of this project cost is discounted to 27% of estimated total construction cost (at the time of development of the contributions plan). Similarly, for the new traffic signals at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Strickland Avenue, the apportionment is 48% of the estimated total construction cost and the apportionment for the new traffic signals at the intersection of Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road is 44% of the estimated total construction cost.

The shortfall is further exacerbated by the escalation of actual construction costs which have risen significantly more than the general escalation applied to the entire Contributions Plan.

Funds from Sale of Balfour Lane, Lindfield

In order to make up for the shortfall in S 7.11 funds it is recommended that Council utilise the funds from the sale of Balfour Lane, Lindfield for the design and construction of road infrastructure in Lindfield.

The use of the proceeds of the sale is restricted by the Roads Act 1993 to “…acquiring land for public roads or for carrying out road work on public roads”.

Roads Act 1993 - Division 6 Miscellaneous

43 Disposal of land comprising former public road owned by council

(1) This section applies to land vested in a council and forming part of a former public road.

(2) Land to which this section applies is operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993 unless, before the land becomes vested in the council, the council resolves that it is to be community land, in which case the land is community land.

(3) If the land is disposed of by sale, the proceeds of sale (less the costs of the sale) are to be paid to the council.

(4) Money received by a council from the proceeds of sale of the land is not to be used by the council except for acquiring land for public roads or for carrying out road work on public roads.

Other potential funding sources

Council may be eligible for grants from the Australian Government Black Spot and/or NSW Safer Roads Program or other grant funding sources subject to the project meeting the program’s eligibility criteria.

In some cases, there may be potential for a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to dedicate land and/or works-in-kind where the timing and location of future redevelopment aligns.

Social Considerations

The ability to move around Ku-ring-gai easily has a major influence on the liveability of our community and viability of our economy. Residents seek local services, shops, social and recreational opportunities to be readily accessible to where they live, work, play and spend time socially. Businesses and services also need to be accessible to customers and able to efficiently receive and send goods.

Our local and regional road network needs to be managed effectively to reduce congestion, particularly around local centres, to maximise the efficiency of parking and to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists

Environmental Considerations

There are no direct environmental considerations arising from this report.

Community Consultation

The proposed intersection upgrades and road modifications formed part of the broader planning process for the Lindfield Village Hub. The community was invited to make submissions to the Planning Proposal for the Lindfield Village Hub, including the Transport Impact Assessment, and these submissions were reviewed as part of the assessment of the Planning Proposal.

The proposals also formed part of the community consultation undertaken for the Lindfield Public Domain Plan in 2010 and 2021.

Planning for the new traffic signals at the intersection of Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road has already commenced, with traffic signal modelling completed and traffic signal design well advanced. It is proposed to deliver the new signals as part of the streetscape upgrade works to Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road. A concept plan for this project has been adopted by Council for exhibition.

Internal Consultation

The Major Projects Unit, Operations and Finance Departments have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Summary

In 2015 Council adopted a traffic management scheme for Lindfield local centre, for submission to TFNSW for concurrence. The adopted traffic management scheme was subsequently submitted to TFNSW and in the intervening years staff worked closely with TFNSW however concurrence was only given to certain elements of the scheme. Up until recently a number of issues remained unresolved. TFNSW has reviewed all intersection upgrades and road modification proposals within the LVH Planning Proposal and through its review, has now effectively given its concurrence to Council’s adopted traffic management scheme.

Table 1 set outs the recommended delivery mechanism and funding source for proposed road infrastructure across Lindfield local centre.

A number of these locations were identified in the LVH Transport Impact Assessment as directly supporting the Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal. This report recommends the delivery (including, design, construction, approvals and funding) of these intersection upgrades and road modifications will be the responsibility of the selected development partner for the Lindfield Village Hub project.

The remaining upgrade works are not directly related to the Lindfield Village Hub and relate to network upgrades to support the current and future traffic conditions across the centre. This report recommends that these works be the responsibility of Council and/or other parties (by way of VPAs or the like) to deliver.

To cover the anticipated substantial shortfall in in S7.11 funding this report recommends that Council utilise the proceeds from the sale of Balfour Lane, Lindfield to fund the design and construction of road infrastructure for which it is responsible for.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Note that TFNSW has given concurrence to Council’s adopted traffic management option for Lindfield local centre;

B. Endorse the proposed road infrastructure, delivery mechanisms and funding recommendations as set out in Table 1 of this report; and

C. Approve the use of proceeds from sale of Balfour Lane, Lindfield to cover shortfall in S7.11 funds and consistent with the requirements of the Roads Act 1993.

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Lindfield Local Centre – Traffic Management Option 1C		2015/072510
	A2⇩	TfNSW Response - Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal 18 June 2021		2021/179493

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	PT.1 / 1

Item PT.1	S13316

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	FY00623/4
	6 April 2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	CY00440/10
	2 March 2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	CY00458/10

Attachments:	A1 ⇩	Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes 10 June 2021		2022/101656
	A2 ⇩	Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes 2 September 2021		2022/101659

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	CY00368/12
	8 April 2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	S13365

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	FY00621/4

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	S11623

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	S13163

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.11 / 1

Item GB.11	S09878

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	GB.18 / 1

Item GB.18	S10746

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	NM.1 / 1

Item NM.1	CY00142/14

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	NM.2 / 1

Item NM.2	S09113/11

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 26 April 2022	QN.1 / 1

Item QN.1	S12062