Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 14 February 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 14 February 2023 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 KRG 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 Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Membership

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

Attachment 1: Overview of Candidates & Expressions of Interest process

Attachment 2: Applicant Documentation

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.1 Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Recommendation to enter into Exclusive Negotiations with a Preferred Proponent

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 1: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Developer RFDP Evaluation Report - FINAL - 22 September 2022

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 2: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - OCM Probity Certification

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 3: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC Report LVH RFDP Evaluation Review Oct 22 - Final

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 4: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC opinions - MPU comments - FINAL for December 2022 OMC report

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 5: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Financial Considerations - Confidential Attachment - Dec OMC FINAL

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 6: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - CBRE Summary Overview 200922 (Confidential)

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 7: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Minter Ellison - Final Legal Evaluation Report - 14 September 2022

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 14

File: S02131

Meeting held 13 December 2022

Minutes numbered 265 to 301

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 2023 Australia Day Honours and Citizen of the Year Awards 45

File: CY00811

I am pleased to inform you that 6 Ku-ring-gai citizens, through their outstanding achievements and services to the community have been awarded 2023 Australia Day Honours.

We are very proud to have these dedicated and talented Australians as members of the Ku-ring-gai community.

I would like to read to you the names of these special Ku-ring-gai citizens and, on behalf of Council, congratulate them on their excellent contributions to Australian society.

Mr Glenn Lloyd BALL OAM of St Ives, for service to the community through a range of roles

Dr Raymond John COOK OAM of Roseville, for service to medicine as a neurosurgeon

Emeritus Professor Peter Hayden CURSON [Honorary] OAM of Pymble, for service to tertiary education

The late Mr Christopher DAVIS AM of Turramurra, for significant service to water management

Mr Roger Allan FOY OAM of South Turramurra, for service to automotive history

Mr Marshall Frederick ROSEN OAM of Roseville Chase, for service to cricket

I also congratulate Ku-ring-gai Citizen of the Year winners for 2023:

Citizen of the Year – Tony Pang

Young Citizen of the Year – Justin Qin

Environmental Citizen of the Year – Arden Liceralde

Mayor’s Award for an Outstanding Contribution

by a Community Group – St Ives Lifestyle Disability Support Team

On behalf of Council, I congratulate all these award winners on their outstanding achievements.

Ku-ring-gai should be proud that it has citizens being recognised at the highest level for their selfless dedication, commitment and contribution to local, national and international communities.

Recommendation:

A. That Council acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by these recipients of 2023 Australia Day Honours to the Ku-ring-gai community and to the well-being of our society.

B. That the Mayor write to the recipients on behalf of Council to congratulate them on receiving their award, including a copy of this Mayoral Minute

Petitions

PT.1 Petition to Ku-ring-gai Council concerning traffic issue at Finchley Place and Burns Road Turramurra 47

File: TM10/15

We the residents of Finchley Place, Turramurra petition Mayor Jeff Pettett and the Council Members of KU-RING- GAI COUNCIL, 818 Pacific Highway, Gordon, NSW 2072 to install a system to enable the safe and secure transiting of vehicles from and to Finchley Place from and to Burns Road. We request a qualified traffic planning engineer to thoroughly evaluate the dangers and difficulties of exiting Finchley Place into Burns Road with fast traffic unable to obtain clear forward visibility and drivers exiting Finchley Place also unable to obtain clear forward visibility of fast traffic travelling Burns Road. There have been several near misses experienced by many of us and a collision to one of us in June 2022 (Photos attached). Serious injury and death may happen at any time.

We thank you in advance to take up this matter without delay. (14 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 Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Recommendation to enter into Exclusive Negotiations with a Preferred Proponent 48

File: RFDP8-2022/R

To authorise the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A to:

(i) further refine their proposal

(ii) agree terms of a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA)

such that should Council and Proponent A agree terms, that at a future meeting, Council could consider appointing Proponent A as the Successful Proponent, by executing the PDA

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council authorises the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A, with the objective of refining their proposal and agreeing the terms of a PDA

B. A report be brought to Council on the outcome of the negotiations, which if successful may result in Council resolving at a future meeting to execute a PDA with Proponent A.

C. Council confirms allocation of proceeds from the future sale of the Lindfield Library site to the Lindfield Village Hub project.

GB.2 Mayoral Donations - July 2021 to December 2022 57

File: FY00275/15

To advise Council of the Mayoral donations made during the period July 2021 to December 2022.

Recommendation:

That the report be received and noted.

GB.3 Financial Sustainability Review 61

File: FY00668

For Council to note the report of the Financial Sustainability Review, and its recommendations for revenue and savings strategies to deliver Council’s commitments while maintaining long-term financial sustainability.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. note the findings and recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review (see Attachment A1)

B. utilise the Review findings and recommendations to inform the draft Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plans for 2023/24 to be considered by Council for public exhibition in April 2023.

GB.4 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 2nd Quarter 2022 to 2023 98

File: FY00623/5

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 December 2022.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 31 December 2022 be received and noted.

GB.5 Investment Report as at 30 November 2022 110

File: FY00623/5

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.6 Investment Report as at 31 December 2022 117

File: FY00623/5

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.7 Investment Report as at 27 January 2023 124

File: FY00623/5

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for January 2023.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for January 2023 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.8 2022 - 2023 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2022 131

File: S09112/11

To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2022/23 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022.

Recommendation:

That the 2022/23 December Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

GB.9 Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Meeting held on 15 December 2022 154

File: CY00458/11

To provide Council with the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 15 December 2022 for adoption.

Recommendation:

That the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meetings held on 15 December 2022 be adopted.

GB.10 2023 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions and Change of June 2023 Public Forum and Ordinary Meeting of Council Date 163

File: S02133

To inform Councillors of an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions for debate to the 2023 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) and to change the date of the June meeting of Council.

Recommendation:

That:

1. Councillors provide any proposed motions for the 2023 NGA to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by Wednesday, 22 February 2023; and

2. A further report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 21 March 2023 for approval prior to submission to the ALGA.

3. The June 2023 Ordinary Meeting of Council be moved from 13 June 2023 to 20 June 2023.

GB.11 Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra 188

File: S13626

For Council to consider the Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) and to determine whether to forward the matter to the Minister for a Gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Recommendation:

That the Council resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the reasons outlined in this report.

GB.12 Draft Pymble Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection 347

File: S12249

To report the Pymble Public Domain Plan to Council for adoption.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the draft Pymble Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

GB.13 Draft Roseville Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection 412

File: S12249

To report the Roseville PDP to Council for adoption.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Roseville PDP as attached to this report.

GB.14 Draft St Ives Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection 475

File: S12249

To report the St Ives PDP to Council for adoption.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the draft St Ives PDP as attached to this report.

GB.15 Post exhibition consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area. 569

File: S13920

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition for the Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area.

Recommendation:

That the Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area proceeds and that Council resolves to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

GB.16 8a, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara Consideration of Submissions
Exhibited Planning Proposal and DCP 701

File: S13022

For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, and an associated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, for rezoning of land at 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone land at 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara and make the associated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

GB.17 NSW Public Spaces Charter - Ku-Ring-Gai Council As Advocate 810

File: CY00349/13

To inform Councillors of the NSW Public Spaces Charter and outline the benefits for Council upon becoming a signatory to the charter.

Recommendation:

That Council agrees to become a signatory to the NSW Public Spaces Charter.

GB.18 Proposed Construction Of New Grandstand And Associated Facilities – North Turramurra Sporting Fields 841

File: S13678-3

To update Council on a proposal by Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) to construct a new grandstand and associated facilities at the North Turramurra Recreation Area.

A report is presented to Council at this point in time because of the time constraints NSFA has agreed to as part of its funding applications and the need to obtain Council in-principle support before negotiations on transaction documents proceed.

Recommendation:

If Council accept the current risks associated with project that Council continue to negotiate the terms of a Heads of Agreement with the NSFA.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Aligning General Manager Performance Agreement Practices with Office of Local Government Guidelines 853

File: CY00254/15

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 27 January 2023

Section 232(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”) states that a councillor is accountable to the local community for the performance of the council. However, there are limitations on how councillors can exercise this accountability as the Act does not empower councillors to make operational decisions. Instead, the General Manager has operational responsibilities under Section 335 of the Act.

Guidelines from the Office of Local Government (published 2011, updated 2022) state that councillors, collectively as the governing body, can exercise their accountability to the local community through establishing the General Manager’s annual performance agreement and then conducting a performance review on an annual basis.

In reviewing and setting the parameters of the annual performance agreement, the Office of Local Government recommends that a panel comprised of multiple councillors (including the Mayor) should be involved. The parameters are reviewed and set in conjunction with the General Manager.

While all other Northern Sydney councils review the annual performance agreement through a panel or council as a whole, Ku-ring-gai has historically taken a different approach. Past council resolutions have given this responsibility to the Mayor alone. A (possibly unintended) side-effect of this is that other councillors have no means by which to influence or provide oversight of the performance of the council.

I move that:

A. Regarding the parameters of the General Manager’s performance agreement:

i. For the financial year commencing 1 July 2023, and for each subsequent financial year, the parameters should be reviewed by a panel comprised of the Mayor and two other councillors chosen by the governing body. The General Manager may also (optionally) nominate a fourth councillor to sit on this panel.

ii. The composition of the panel will be decided by the council in the month (June) immediately preceding the financial year.

iii. Councillors who are not members of the panel may still provide input to the performance agreement through dialogue with panel members.

iv. The panel will meet with the General Manager in the first quarter of each financial year (July to September) to review and agree on the parameters of the annual performance agreement before presenting them to the council for adoption.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

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

Questions With Notice

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Membership

File: CY00458/10

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(a), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

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

Report by Manager Finance

John McKee

General Manager

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 13 December 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:

Acting General Manager (David Marshall)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (George Bounassif)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Senior Governance Officer (Melinda Aitkenhead)

Governance Support Officer (Nicole Kratochvil)

Group Lead Major Projects (Geoffrey Douglas)

Team Leader Urban Design (Bill Royal)

Team Leader Urban Planning (Craige Wyse)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00PM

The Mayor offered the Prayer

265

Apologies

File: S02194

The Acting General Manager Mr David Marshall advised of an apology from the General Manager Mr John McKee.

The Mayor advised the Council as follows:

Further to this apology, I would like to explain the General Manager’s absence. He has been caring for his wife Mellissa who was very ill having been diagnosed with a lung disease last year. I am sorry to say that Mellissa passed away on 2 December at the young age of 49. Her funeral was held on Friday 9 December. The cause of Mellissa’s death was pulmonary arterial hypertension, a serious and progressive disease with no known cure. Council will be donating to the Lung Foundation in lieu of flowers at this very sad time for General Manager John McKee and his family. On behalf of Council I would like to pass on our deepest condolences.

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:

Late Items:

MM.2 2022 Awards

Report by Mayor dated 12 December 2022

GB.26 Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives - supplementary report

Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 30 November 2022 and attachment.

Memorandums:

MM.1 Council Submission for Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Annual Report and Determination

Attachment A1 from Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy as referred to in MM.1 report which was omitted from the report published in the OMC Agenda.

MM.2 2022 Awards

Late Mayoral Minute

GB.15 Queen Elizabeth Reserve - Draft Landscape Masterplan - For Public Exhibition

Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 12 December 2022 to the Mayor, Councillors and Acting General Manager with a revised recommendation proposed for the Queen Elizabeth Reserve – Draft Landscape Masterplan report.

GB.16 Site Inspection – 10 Park Crescent Pymble

Meeting notes from the Councillor site inspection held at 10 Park Crescent on Thursday, 29 November 2022.

GB.19 Heritage Assessment of 22 Woodlands Avenue, Pymble

Memorandum from Manager Urban & Heritage Planning dated 8 December 2022 to the Mayor, Councillors and Acting General Manager with a revised recommendation and the accompanying heritage assessment from Council’s external heritage consultant.

GB.23 Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy - Post Exhibition
Report

Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 7 December 2022 to the Mayor, Councillors and Acting General Manager – Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy – Post Exhibition Report – which addresses concerns that have been raised in relation to the Urban Forest Strategy report.

266

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS AND ATTACHMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

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

C.1 Review of the HOA - Ku-ring-gai High School Joint Use Project

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (e):

Attachment 1: Heads of Agreement - Joint Use - Ku-ring-gai Council and
NSBHA

Attachment 2: Ku-ring-gai Hockey final Otium report - November 2021

Attachment 3: Parking Demand Assessment

Attachment 4: Minter Ellison Draft Risk Review

Attachment 5: Cost Estimate 2 (Rev 1) - Blue Stone October 2022

Attachment 6: Review of OPC Cost Estimate

Attachment 7: Original carpark design

Attachment 8: Heritage advice

C.2 RFT14-2022 - Legal Services Panel

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

Attachment 1: Weighted Selection Criteria

Attachment 2: Summary of Evaluation

C.3 General Manager's Performance Review

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

Attachment 1: Final Review - Performance Agreement 2021-22

Attachment 2: Performance Agreement - General Manager 2022-23

GB.1 Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Recommendation to enter into Exclusive Negotiations with a Preferred Proponent

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 1: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Developer RFDP Evaluation Report -
FINAL - 22 September 2022

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 2: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - OCM Probity Certification

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 3: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC Report LVH RFDP Evaluation

Review Oct 22 – Final

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 4: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC opinions - MPU comments -
FINAL for December 2022 OMC report

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 5: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Financial Considerations - Confidential
Attachment - Dec OMC FINAL

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 6: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - CBRE Summary Overview 200922
(Confidential)

In accordance with 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)(ii) and (d)(iii):

Attachment 7: LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Minter Ellison - Final Legal Evaluation
Report - 14 September 2022

GB.2 Multicultural Advisory Committee

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

Attachment 2: Combined Responses Multicultural Advisory Committee

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

Attachment 3: Multicultural Advisory Committee Member Section

GB.6 RFT17-2022 Catherine Street Drainage Upgrade

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

Attachment 1: RFT17-2022 Drainage Upgrade Catherine Street St Ives
Tender Evaluation Report

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

Attachment 2: KK Consultants Pty Ltd Tender Response Form (Tender
Returnable Schedule 1)

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

Attachment 3: RFT17-2022 Drainage Upgrade Catherine Street St Ives - List
of Tenders received

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

Attachment 4: RFT17-2022 Catherine Street Drainage Master Evaluation
Sheet

GB.14 St Ives Indoor Sports Centre – Funding Deed & Licence

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

Attachment 1: Cost Estimate - St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

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

Attachment 2: QS Peer review of cost estimate - St Ives Indoor Sports
Centre

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

Attachment 3: Funding Deed - ready for execution - St Ives Indoor Sports
Centre

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

Attachment 4: Licence - ready for inclusion with Funding Deed - St Ives
Indoor Sports Centre

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

Attachment 5: Risk Table - St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

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

Attachment 6: MPAC project review - St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

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

Attachment 7: Capital Expenditure Review - St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

267

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 15 November 2022

Minutes numbered 238 to 264

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ward/Wheatley)

That Minutes numbered 238 to 264 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

268

Council Submission for Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Annual Report and Determination

File: CY00438/10

Vide: MM.1

In November 2022, the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal wrote to Council (refer Attachment A1) advising that it had commenced its review of the fees payable to councillors and mayors. The annual determination will be made in May 2023 on the fees payable from 1 July 2023. Individual councils were invited to make submissions by 16 December 2022.

It is my firm belief that the current arrangements for setting councillor and mayoral fees are inadequate. They do not properly compensate for the significant workload, range of responsibilities and knowledge required for critical community leadership positions. Ku-ring-gai Councillors are responsible for a complex business with an annual budget of more than $150 million, over 400 employees, delivering a range of services to over 125,000 residents. I propose that Ku-ring-gai Council provide the submission outlined below to the Tribunal for consideration as part of their Annual Determination.

In its review of remuneration of Commonwealth part-time offices, the Remuneration Tribunal acknowledged “the significant contribution and passion that part-time office holders bring to their roles for the public good. Their efforts bring knowledge, experience and capability as well as engendering better governance, advice and decision making”^{^[1]}. This equally applies to elected representatives within the local government sector.

To ensure that quality candidates are attracted to serve in these roles, it is imperative that remuneration levels reflect the significant and increasing responsibilities of our office holders. They need to be equitable, reflective of market conditions, and appropriate to the accountability and professional requirements of the role. This would ensure that local government continues to attract appropriately qualified people, and that councils remain effective, sustainable and meet the needs of their local communities.

The roles of the mayor and councillors outlined in sections 226 and 232 of the Local Government Act require a fulltime commitment. Our civic responsibilities continue to grow. As well as council meetings, committees and interactions with council staff, councillors participate in long term planning, asset and financial management, provide strategic leadership, facilitate community-wide communication and are involved in a range of community engagement activities. Councillors are required to participate in induction programs as well as ongoing professional development.

Councillors spend many hours each month, often outside of normal business hours, serving in their elected roles. As well as regular late-night meetings, all Councillors spend significant time responding to community members and attending local community meetings and events. They preside over citizenship and other civic ceremonies. They attend state, Commonwealth and local government functions and conferences to advocate for and represent their local communities. In 2018, LGNSW commissioned an independent review of the remuneration of elected councillors and mayors. It found that councillors spent 45.6 hours per week on average fulfilling their councillor responsibilities^{^[2]}.

Local government is the closest to the people it serves. Elected representatives are expected to show civic leadership and guide their local communities through the challenges that continue to impact their areas. The recent pandemic, bushfires and floods require strong community leadership. Mayors and councillors need to be resilient, adaptive and responsive as they support their communities.

Legislative changes continue to expand the range of skills that mayors and councillors need to perform their role. However, remuneration has not kept pace with these requirements. Remuneration arrangements must be considered by the Tribunal to ensure everyone can participate in local government - not just those who are retired or wealthy enough to fund it themselves. Remuneration should be set at levels that are fair, reflect the value of the work and the accountabilities of the role. They should account for potential lost earnings and serve to attract a more diverse range of candidates to stand for civic office.

Remuneration of mayors and councillors lag other jurisdictions. Councillors in NSW can be paid as little as $9,560 per year, whereas our counterparts in Queensland are effectively paid a salary. Councillors north of the border were paid a minimum of $55,192 per annum (from 1 July 2022), with mayors earning at least $110,386 per year^{^[3]}. On the other hand, even councillors for the City of Sydney are paid less than the national minimum wage^{^[4]}. One way to address this gap and streamline the process would be to replace the current general categories with a single base rate remunerated at the level of large metropolitan councils.

Thank you for providing Council the opportunity to provide the Tribunal with a submission for consideration on this critical matter.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillor Pettett)

That Council submit the proposed draft submission to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal by 16 December 2022.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

269

2022 Awards

File: CY00455/10

Vide: MM.2

As 2022 draws to a close I would like to outline some significant awards the Council received this year for projects and infrastructure benefitting the community.

The Council was awarded the NSW Government Council Crown Land Management Excellence Award for our management of St Ives Showground. Ku-ring-gai Council was recognised for the Regional Playground opened in December 2020 and the Treetops Adventure Park in November 2021. Council also gained over $2 million in state government funding to implement upgrades and improvements between 2020 and 2022.

As a result of these improvements, the Showground is a busy hub of recreational activities and major events that attract visitors from the local community and beyond.

At the prestigious National Trust Heritage Awards in May, Council was the joint winner of the Conservation - Interiors and Objects category for its restoration of the heritage home Tulkiyan.

Ku-ring-gai won several Keep Australia Beautiful Awards this year, in recognition of the Heritage Festival and Gai-mariagal Festival events as well as Ku-ring-gai Wildflower Garden's Junior Rangers program.

At the 2022 NSW Local Government Awards, Ku-ring-gai Council received a Special Acknowledgement in the Innovation in Special Events category for the Bee Lottery. The Bee Lottery occurs each year and is a fair and transparent way of managing the huge demand from residents to foster native bee hives.

We were also commended for hosting a clothing and linen collection on behalf of NSROC at the Showground – the first of its kind. The event saw nearly 30 tonnes of unwanted clothing and linen collected for recycling.

Congratulations to the Ku-ring-gai team who were crowned winners of the 2022 NSW region Australasian Management Challenge.

Teams consist of young staff with leadership potential drawn from different business units, who are given a series of tasks and problems to solve. Ku-ring-gai were competing against 18 NSW Councils and as a result, they represented NSW in the national finals held later this year.

Finally, the Council’s 2020-2021 Annual Report was awarded Gold at the Australasian Reporting Award. This is the seventh year we have received gold, which shows the consistently high standard and transparency of our annual reporting.

I commend the Council staff on all these achievements and awards which have been accomplished, despite the difficulties posed by the pandemic over the last two years. It is a credit to the many people working hard behind the scenes to benefit the Ku-ring-gai community.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillor Pettett)

A. That this Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. That staff be congratulated on their achievements.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

270

8a, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara Consideration of Submissions
Exhibited Planning Proposal and DCP

File: S13022

Vide: GB.20

For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, and an associated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, for rezoning of land at 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

271

Review of the HOA - Ku-ring-gai High School Joint Use Project

File: S13203

Vide: C.1

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in sections 10A(2)(d)(i), 10A(2)(d)(ii) & 10A(2)(e), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

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

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 Director Strategy & Environment dated 21 November 2022

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

272

St Ives Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition

File: S12249

Vide: GB.9

To report on the submissions received through the public exhibition of Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 – St Ives (St Ives PDP) and to present a final draft of the Plan to Council for adoption.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

273

Pymble Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition

File: S12249

Vide: GB.10

To report on the submissions received through the public exhibition of Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 – Pymble and to present a final draft of the Plan to Council for adoption.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

274

Roseville Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition

File: S12249

Vide: GB.11

To report on the submissions received through the public exhibition of Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 – Roseville, and to present a final draft of the Plan to Council for adoption.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

275

Administration of the 2024 Local Government Election

File: S13912

Vide: GB.3

To enter into an arrangement with the NSW Electoral Commission for the 2024 Local Government election.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That Ku-ring-gai Council resolves:

A. pursuant to section 296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council.

B. pursuant to section 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s. 18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of the Council.

C. pursuant to section 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by section 18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

276

Compliance Policy

File: S07151

Vide: GB.4

For Council to consider and readopt the Ku-ring-gai Compliance Policy.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

That the Ku-ring-gai Compliance Policy, Version 4, 2022 be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

277

Request for Council to enforce parking restrictions at Gordon Centre Carpark

File: CY00040/14

Vide: GB.5

To inform Council of the request before it to patrol and enforce parking restrictions on private land, known as Gordon Centre carpark and to seek the decision of Council as to whether it wishes to assume such a role.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

A. That Council advise the applicant, Charter Hall Real Estate Management Services (NSW) Pty Ltd, that it is willing to enter into a formal agreement with the owners of the land, in accordance with the provisions of Section 650(6) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

B. That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and enter an agreement on its behalf with the owners of the land for the administration of private land for parking control at 802 to 808 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

C. That enforcement of the time restriction applicable to the Gordon Centre car park, be advertised both at the site and in the local newspaper and associated social media platforms for a period of fourteen days prior to its commencement.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

278

RFT17-2022 Catherine Street Drainage Upgrade

File: RFT17-2022/R

Vide: GB.6

To consider the tenders received for RFT17-2022 Catherine Street Drainage Upgrade and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That:

A. Council accepts the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Catherine Street Drainage Upgrade.

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

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

279

Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee Meeting Dates for 2023

File: CY00022/14

Vide: GB.7

To determine the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meeting dates for 2023.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Lennon)

A. That the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meetings in 2023 be scheduled for the dates as follows:

· 22 February 2023

· 29 March 2023

· 26 April 2023

· 31 May 2023

· 28 June 2023

· 26 July 2023

· 30 August 2023

· 27 September 2023

· 25 October 2023

· 29 November 2023

B. That Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meetings are held only as required.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

280

Exhibition of draft review of the section 7.12 local levy contributions plan

File: S12472

Vide: GB.8

To present the revised draft s7.12 local Levy Contributions Plan for exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

A. That the draft revised indirect Ku-ring-gai s7.12 Local Levy Contributions Plan 2022 be placed on statutory public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and that a report be prepared and reported back to Council following the completion of the exhibition period.

B. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to make any typographical and contextual changes of an explanatory or clarifying nature to the draft Contributions Plan that do not alter the overall intent of the s7.12 Contributions Plan as reported to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

281

Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road Streetscape Upgrade - Post Exhibition

File: S12474

Vide: GB.12

To report the results of the public exhibition of the draft Concept Plan for Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road, Lindfield Streetscape Upgrade and seek adoption of the final Concept Plan.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ngai)

That:

A. Council receive and note the results of the community engagement and public exhibition of the draft Concept Plan;

B. Council adopt the final concept plan for Lindfield Avenue and Tryon Road, Lindfield; and

C. That staff commence detailed design and preparation of tender documentation consistent with the Concept Plan with the aim of tendering for construction in 2024.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

282

Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy - Post Exhibition

File: S11530/2

Vide: GB.13

To report back to Council the results of the public exhibition of the draft Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Lennon)

That Council adopt the revised Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy Version 3, dated 21 November 2022.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

283

St Ives Indoor Sports Centre – Funding Deed & Licence

File: S12712-3

Vide: GB.14

To update Council on the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre project and to present the final project Deed & Licence agreements for endorsement by Council for execution.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That Council:

A. Receive and note updates contained within this report.

B. Note that “this proposal is not driven by financial outcomes, but rather the economic, social and environmental value offered to the community, including the health benefits for players through increased activity and recreational outcomes.” Further, from a strictly financial perspective, the project is not financially feasible. In this respect, both the Office of Local Government and the Major Projects Advisory Committee have stressed that “Council should ensure that they are transparent in communicating this to the community.”

C. Notes the revised cost estimate for the project at completion of 80% design development included in Confidential Attachment A1.

D. Acknowledge the risk of further increases to project costs in the development of this specialised building with a complex delivery structure including construction managed by the NSW Government at Council’s cost.

E. Note that the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre project will be funded from a combination of:

Loan	$13.5 million (repaid from future Council rates increase)
Office of Sport Grant	$3.5 million
Internal reserves	$1.9 million
s.7.12 (subject to public notification and final approval of the draft plan by Council).	Balance, not exceeding 60% of the total project budget

F. Accept the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project and the Deed & Licence agreements as discussed in the report, and that the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute the Deed and Licence on behalf of Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

284

Queen Elizabeth Reserve - Draft Landscape Masterplan - For Public Exhibition

File: S13787

Vide: GB.15

To advise Council of the outcomes of recent community engagement and to seek Council’s endorsement of a draft Landscape Masterplan for Queen Elizabeth Reserve, Lindfield for public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

A. That Council adopt Queen Elizabeth Reserve draft Landscape Masterplan for public exhibition.

B. That as part of the public exhibition process alternative locations for basketball facilities within the park area be presented for public comment.

C. That following exhibition a final draft Landscape Masterplan, incorporating community comment, be reported back to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

285

Proposed Heritage Listing - 10 Park Crescent, Pymble

File: S10066

Vide: GB.16

To have Council consider the proposed heritage listing of 10 Park Crescent, Pymble, in Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

A. Planning Proposal be prepared to include Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015- Lot 26 DP 7427, 10 Park Crescent Pymble, and Interiors.

B. The Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination.

C. Council requests the plan making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act for this Planning Proposal.

D. Upon receipt of a favourable Gateway determination, the exhibition and consultation process is to be carried out in accordance with the Gateway determination and requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

286

Heritage Reference Committee Minutes of 27 October 2022

File: CY00368/12

Vide: GB.17

To have Council consider the minutes from previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 27 October 2022.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

That Council receive and note the HRC minutes from the meeting held on 27 October 2022.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

287

Heritage Listing - Headfort House
95 Stanhope Road, Killara - consideration of submissions to the public exhibition

File: S13801

Vide: GB.18

For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to heritage list Headfort House, 95 Stanhope Road, Killara as a local heritage item.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

A. That Council adopt the planning proposal to heritage list Headfort House and its curtilage at 95 Stanhope Rd, Killara as a local heritage item.

B. That Council proceed to make the Plan, using its delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That delegation be given to the General Manager and Director Strategy and Environment to correct any errors or inconsistencies in the Planning Proposal and its associated study prior to finalisation.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

288

Heritage assessment of 22 Woodlands Avenue, Pymble

File: S13939

Vide: GB.19

To enable the General Manager to revoke an interim heritage order for 22 Woodlands Avenue, Pymble, in the event the final heritage assessment concludes the property does not warrant heritage listing.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

A. Council receive and note the contents of the Heritage consultant report for 22 Woodlands Ave Pymble.

B. Council under Section 29 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, revokes the Interim Heritage Order for 22 Woodlands Ave Pymble.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

289

Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives

File: S13685

Vide: GB.21

For Council to consider whether to submit the Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That the report be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

290

Post Site Inspection - Middle Harbour Southern Catchments Flood Study - Final Report

File: S12267

Vide: GB.22

To endorse the Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

A. That Council endorse the Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study Final Report.

B. That a copy of the Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study Final Report is placed on council’s website.

C. That Section 10.7 Planning Certificates and Council’s Flood Certificate Reports are updated to include relevant information.

D. That all owners of properties identified on the Mainstream and Overland Flow Flood Planning Area in the Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study (Excluding the four lots added following the model update) are directly notified about the finalisation and any updates to section 10.7 Planning Certificates.

E. That all owners of properties identified on the ‘High Filter’ Probable Maximum Flood Map (Attachment A4) are directly notified about the finalisation and any updates to section 10.7 Planning Certificates.

F. That the Probable Maximum Flood maps for the Blackbutt Creek and Lovers Jump Creek Flood Studies are reviewed and updated to ensure consistency with the ‘High Filter’ Probable Maximum Flood Map applied for the Middle Harbour – Southern Catchments Flood Study area.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

291

Minutes of the September 2022 Flood Risk Management Committee Meeting

File: S10746

Vide: GB.24

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 23 September 2022 (Attachment A1).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ward)

That Council receives and notes the Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 23 September 2022 (Attachment A1).

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

292

Car Share Policy

File: S02527

Vide: GB.25

To consider a draft Car Share Policy for Public Exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Lennon)

A. The draft Car Sharing Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28
days.

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

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

b) Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the draft Policy as per Attachment A1 to this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

293

RFT14-2022 - Legal Services Panel

File: RFT14-2022

Vide: C.2

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(d)(i), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

Report by General Manager dated 15 September 2022

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Wheatley)

A. That the following firms be included on Council panel for the provision of legal services on a non-exclusive basis, in accordance with their tender submissions:

· Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd

· HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

· Maddocks

· Marsden Law Group

· Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd

· Moray & Agnew

· Redenbach Legal

· Shaw Reynolds Lawyers Pty Ltd

· Sparke Helmore Lawyers

· Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie

B. That the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute all documents necessary on Council’s behalf.

C. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

294	Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Recommendation to enter into Exclusive Negotiations with a Preferred Proponent File: RFDP8-2022/R Vide: GB.1
	To authorise the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A to: (i) further refine their proposal (ii) agree terms of a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA) such that should Council and Proponent A agree terms, that at a future meeting, Council could consider appointing Proponent A as the Successful Proponent, by executing the PDA
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors A.Taylor/Ngai) That: A. Council authorises the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A, with the objective of refining their proposal and agreeing the terms of a PDA B. A report be brought to Council on the outcome of the negotiations, which if successful may result in Council resolving at a future meeting to execute a PDA with Proponent A. C. Council confirms allocation of proceeds from the future sale of the Lindfield Library site to the Lindfield Village Hub project.
	AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer) That this item be deferred to the 14 February 2023 Ordinary Meeting. The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED. For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Smith, Spencer, Ward Against the Amendment: Councillors Ngai, A. Taylor , G. Taylor and Wheatley The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer) That this item be deferred to the 14 February 2023 Ordinary Meeting. For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Ngai, Smith, Spencer, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillors A. Taylor and G. Taylor CARRIED

295	Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy - Post Exhibition Report File: S12227 Vide: GB.23
	To provide an overview of the finalised Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and to seek Council’s adoption of the strategy.
	Councillors Smith, Spencer and Wheatley separately departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item. MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Ngai/Spencer) A. That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and Implementation Plan as attached to this report. B. That Council notes that an additional budget allocation of $200,000.00 per annum for canopy replenishment in priority areas to supplement current operational budgets and support grant applications would be required to implement the Urban Forest Strategy Implementation and Action Plan Oct 2022, and that the matter of additional funding be considered as part of the preparation of the Operational Plan 2023-24.
	Amendment: (Moved: Councillors G.Taylor/A.Taylor) A. That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and Implementation Plan with: i. the changes outlined in the memorandum from the Director Strategy and Environment, circulated on 7th December; and ii. the following change to the Key Targets (found on pages 6 and 35 of the Urban Forest Strategy): “min. 55% Native canopy tree planting on public land annually Subject to further investigation” be changed to: “min. 55% locally indigenous canopy tree planting on public land annually. B. That Council notes that an additional budget allocation of $200,000.00 per annum for canopy replenishment in priority areas to supplement current operational budgets and support grant applications would be required to implement the Urban Forest Strategy Implementation and Action Plan Oct 2022, and that the matter of additional funding be considered as part of the preparation of the Operational Plan 2023-24.GB.16 - Urban Forest Strategy The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors G. Taylor/A. Taylor) A. That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and Implementation Plan with: i. the changes outlined in the memorandum from the Director Strategy and Environment, circulated on 7th December; and ii. the following change to the Key Targets (found on pages 6 and 35 of the Urban Forest Strategy): “min. 55% Native canopy tree planting on public land annually Subject to further investigation” be changed to: “min. 55% locally indigenous canopy tree planting on public land annually. B. That Council notes that an additional budget allocation of $200,000.00 per annum for canopy replenishment in priority areas to supplement current operational budgets and support grant applications would be required to implement the Urban Forest Strategy Implementation and Action Plan Oct 2022, and that the matter of additional funding be considered as part of the preparation of the Operational Plan 2023-24.GB.16 - Urban Forest Strategy CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

296

Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives - supplementary report

File: S13685

Vide: GB.26

To provide supplementary information for Council’s consideration of GB.21 – Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives.

Councillors Ngai, Spencer and Wheatley separately departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

A. That the proponent be requested to amend the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (Attachment A6 of GB.21) and the Arborists Report (Attachment A9 of GB.21) to correctly identify all trees currently listed as E. grandis (Flooded Gum) as E.Saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) . The findings and recommendations of the Biodiversity Impact Assessment, Arborists Report and Planning Proposal are to be amended accordingly.

B. That Council staff reassess the planning proposal with the corrected information and review their recommendation as to whether the planning proposal should proceed to a Gateway determination or not.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

297

Procedural Motion:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley)

That the meeting be adjourned from 8:58pm till 9:14pm.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley)

That the meeting be adjourned from 8:58pm till 9:14pm.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Councillor A.Taylor left the Meeting.

298

General Manager's Performance Review

File: CY00254/15

Vide: C.3

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

Report by Director Corporate dated 28 November 2022.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer)

A. That Council endorse the Final Review – Performance Agreement 2021-22 (Attachment A1) as a record of the General Manager’s performance for 2021/22.

B. That Council adopt the Performance Agreement – General Manager 2022-23 (Attachment A2) as the General Manager’s Performance Agreement for 2022/23.

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

Against the Resolution: Councillors Kay and G. Taylor

CARRIED

Council resolved itself into Open Meeting
to deal with the following item after a Motion moved by

Councillors Wheatley and Ward was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council resolved itself into Closed Meeting
with the Press and Public Excluded to deal with the following item
after a Motion moved by Councillors Spencer and Ward
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

299

Multicultural Advisory Committee

File: S04141

Vide: GB.2

To provide Council with recommendations for community representatives to be appointed to Council’s Multicultural Advisory Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Pettett)

That council appoint 10 applicants from the confidential list Attachment 3 to the Multicultural Advisory Committee as decided in closed session and as initiated by the Mayor.

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

Against the Resolution: Councillors G. Taylor and Ward

CARRIED

Council resolved itself into Open Meeting
to deal with the following items after a Motion moved by

Councillors Spencer and Wheatley was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

300

Trucks on Pacific Highway

File: S10082

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Smith and Wheatley dated 25 November 2022

Since the opening of the $3 billion NorthConnex, trucks and buses over the length of 12.5m or over the height of 2.8m, travelling between the M1 and M2, are required to use NorthConnex unless they have a genuine pickup or delivery destination only accessible via Pennant Hills Road, are carrying a placard Dangerous Goods load or are a restricted access vehicle required to use Pennant Hills Road. Fines are enforceable for trucks travelling on Pennant Hills Road which do not meet the criteria.

Since fines became enforceable, many local residents, businesses and schools have witnessed the number of trucks travelling in both north and southbound directions along the Pacific Highway to avoid the toll has significantly increased. Council has previously advocated on behalf of our residents to the State Member for Ku-ring-gai, the Hon Alister Henskens MP and the Minister for Transport and Roads, The Hon Andrew Constance MP, to show the same care for our community as has been shown for the Hornsby community by permanently banning trucks and buses over the length of 12.5m or over the height of 2.8m, travelling along the Pacific Highway between the M1 and Ryde Road unless they have a genuine pickup or delivery destination only accessible via the Pacific Highway or are a restricted access vehicle required to use the Pacific Highway.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe the State Government is listening to our community. When responding to these requested changes, The Hon Alister Henskens MP and The Hon Andrew Constance MP refer to the data from the heavy vehicle counters located at Blythewood Av/ Pacific Highway and Ryde Road/Lofburg Road. The data is easily accessible on the TFNSW website and shows a decline of 7% between 2020 and 2022. It is to be anticipated that with an additional one and half months remaining in 2022, the reduction in heavy vehicles will decline further.

However, the real issue is the presentation of the data and the lack of detail defining a heavy vehicle. The National Heavy Vehicle regulator defines a heavy vehicle in the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) as a vehicle that has a gross vehicle mass (GVM) or aggregate trailer mass (ATM) of more than 4.5 tonnes. Based on this definition, the data that the community is referred to does not provide the full picture of the number of b-doubles using the highway before and after the opening of the NorthConnex. If the state government were serious about reducing the number of trucks on the highway, it would be categorising heavy vehicles by the size of the truck. Based on the current data, it is obvious that there is no indication of the number of b-double trucks before NorthConnex was opened. Without that information, we will never know whether there has been an increase or reduction other than relying on the testimony of our long-suffering community.

I have received requests from countless residents concerned about the increase in b-double trucks on the Pacific Highway from Warrawee to Ryde Road. These trucks utilise this strip of road to avoid the NorthConnex tolls. The increase in b-double trucks poses a significant risk to our community, particularly vehicles and pedestrians along that stretch of the highway. Furthermore, once the pinch point program is complete, the highway will be 3 lanes from Pymble to the M1, which will exacerbate the use of the Pacific Highway by b-double trucks.

I believe now is the time for our local state member to listen to the community and provide them with the same care and protection as the member for Hornsby has done for his community and ban b-double trucks on the Pacific Highway between the M1 and Ryde Road with the same provisions as Pennant Hills Road.

I, therefore, move that:

A. The Mayor write to the State Member for Ku-ring-gai, The Hon. Alister Henskens MP and the Minister for Transport, The Hon David Elliott MP and advocate for the permanent ban of trucks and buses over the length of 12.5m or over the height of 2.8m, travelling along the Pacific Highway between the M1 and Ryde Road unless they have a genuine pickup or delivery destination only accessible via the Pacific Highway or are a restricted access vehicle required to use the Pacific Highway.

B. The State Government install signage and cameras on a gantry similar to the existing infrastructure located on Pennant Hills Road.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley)

That:

B. Council calls upon the State Government install signage and cameras on a gantry similar to the existing infrastructure located on Pennant Hills Road.

B. Council calls upon additional information from The Hon. Alister Henskens MP regarding his advocacy for a reduction in B-Doubles on the Pacific Highway since receiving Council’s letter on 14 May 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

301	Localism (Procurement and Tendering) File: S08352 Vide: NM.2
	Notice of Motion from Councillor Lennon dated 25 November 2022 The resident businesses of Ku-ring-gai pay the rates and charges that fund the services Council provides and the sporting, cultural, and other facilities Council operates. They provide the money by which Council pays employee and contractor wages, salaries, and fees. The Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government recognises local Councils’ freedom to institute Buy Local policies. Paragraph 1.6 says that a council should develop a Buy Local policy if it wishes to consider local preference as a factor in the procurement process. I, therefore, move: That Council staff develop and submit to council within three months a Buy Local policy in accordance with the Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government, favouring businesses whose principal place of business is within Ku-ring-gai.
	motion: (Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward) That Council staff develop and submit to council within three months a Buy Local policy in accordance with the Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government, favouring businesses whose principal place of business is within Ku-ring-gai.
	amendment: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Ward) That Council deliver a program to raise awareness with local businesses about opportunities to supply goods and services to Council, and to encourage Council staff to consider local businesses when undertaking procurement. The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Ward) That Council deliver a program to raise awareness with local businesses about opportunities to supply goods and services to Council, and to encourage Council staff to consider local businesses when undertaking procurement. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

GB.9 St Ives Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition TBA

GB.10 Pymble Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition TBA

GB.11 Roseville Public Domain Plan - Post exhibition TBA

GB.20 8a, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara Consideration of Submissions TBA

Exhibited Planning Proposal and DCP

C.1 Review of the HOA - Ku-ring-gai High School Joint Use Project TBA

The Meeting closed at 11:00PM

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 13 December 2022 (Pages 1 - 31) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 14 February 2022.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	RFDP8-2022/R

Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Recommendation to enter into Exclusive Negotiations with a Preferred Proponent

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To authorise the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A to: (i) further refine their proposal (ii) agree terms of a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA) such that should Council and Proponent A agree terms, that at a future meeting, Council could consider appointing Proponent A as the Successful Proponent, by executing the PDA

background:	In response to a Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP) Council received Detailed Proposals from three prequalified Proponents. Each response had qualifications that require negotiation before commercial terms can be confirmed. The Detailed Proposals received were evaluated by an Evaluation Panel with Probity oversight. The Panel recommended Proponent A as the Preferred Proponent. The recommendation of the Evaluation Panel was endorsed by the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC) at its September meeting and reviewed by the independent Major Projects Advisory Committee (MPAC) in October.

comments:	A confidential briefing on the LVH procurement status was provided to Councillors on Wednesday 30 November 2022

recommendation:	That: A. Council authorises the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A, with the objective of refining their proposal and agreeing the terms of a PDA B. A report be brought to Council on the outcome of the negotiations, which if successful may result in Council resolving at a future meeting to execute a PDA with Proponent A. C. Council confirms allocation of proceeds from the future sale of the Lindfield Library site to the Lindfield Village Hub project.

Purpose of Report

To authorise the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A to:

(i) further refine their proposal

(ii) agree terms of a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA)

such that should Council and Proponent A agree terms, that at a future meeting, Council could consider appointing Proponent A as the Successful Proponent, by executing the PDA

Background

This report sets out the results of a procurement process undertaken by Council’s Major Project Unit (MPU) to identify a Preferred Proponent to deliver the Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) project.

In response to a Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP) Council received Detailed Proposals from three prequalified Proponents. Each response had qualifications that require negotiation before commercial terms can be confirmed.

Overview of LVH Project Components

The LVH project comprises of two components, being (i) the Community Component and (ii) the Developer Component.

Community Component

The Community component shall be retained in Council ownership and comprises the following elements:

(i) Library and Community Centre min 2,450m²

(ii) Childcare Facility min 550m²

(iii) Public Park min 3,000m²

(iv) Public Plaza min 900m²

(v) TfNSW Commuter Car Parking – 135 spaces

(vi) Additional Community Works (this includes road works and other public domain works external to the LVH site .

Developer Component

The Developer component shall be retained by the Developer and comprises the following elements:

(i) Residential apartments and associated car parking

(ii) Retail component comprising Supermarket, supporting retail and parkside café and dining retail and associated car parking

Council’s Role

Council’s role on this project is to represent Community’s interests in the redevelopment of Council land to deliver the Community Component as set out above, at minimal or no cost to ratepayers.

Council is not the developer; its role is to manage a commercial transaction that will appoint a property developer to deliver (design and build) the project. In its capacity as landowner, Council defines the scope of the project, procures a property developer, and manages the delivery of the project as the client.

In this stage of the procurement process, Council have received Detailed Proposals from the prequalified bidders in response to Council’s Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP). The bids all came with qualifications which the Evaluation Panel considered when determining the Preferred Proponent. A key outcome of this procurement stage includes receipt of:

· A competitively bid ‘Developer Rights Fee’ (DRF) to be paid by the Developer to Council for the right to develop the project. The DRF is a significant source of funding for Community Component

· A competitively bid ‘Indicative Cost Estimate’ for the community facilities and public domain works, which is not to be exceeded. This figure represents an upper limit that the Preferred Proponent is bound by under the PDA Heads of Terms

· A competitively bid response to the PDA terms and conditions

· Initial designs based on Council’s performance briefs

Developer’s role

The Developer manages the overall development process and appoints a design and construct (delivery) team to deliver both Community and Developer components as an integrated Hub development.

The developer and their delivery team shall occupy Council’s land under a licence that permits them to build the project. On completion Council retains the Community Component and the Developer retains the Developer Component.

Overview of Procurement and Planning Process to date

In 2018/19 an EOI process was conducted resulting in 18 submissions, of which five were shortlisted. Concurrently with the EOI and subsequent tender process, a new Planning Proposal was undertaken for the site with the intention of making the project financially viable through improved site controls.

In early 2020 the tender process occurred in parallel with the appearance of the COVID pandemic. This impacted on the effectiveness of the tender process with only two out of five shortlisted developers submitting tenders.

In June 2020, Council resolved to decline to accept any tenders in accordance with Clause 178 (3) (e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005[5], authorising the General Manager to enter into negotiations with ‘any possible providers’.

The first round of post tender negotiations did not result in a viable outcome. In December 2020 Council acknowledged that, resolving to review the project objectives and to continue negotiations.

Following the project review, an alternative procurement approach commenced in late 2021 known as the ‘Select Market Engagement’ (SME) Process. The first stage of the SME Process was a non-binding Request for Preliminary Proposals (RPP) which took place at the end of 2021. The RPP submissions suggested that there could be a viable outlook for the project. This gave confidence to move to the next stage being the Request for Detailed Proposal Process (RFDP).

The revised Planning Proposal process for the site resulted in amendment #28 of the Ku-ring-gai LEP, published in March 2022, and the amended LVH DCP was published in May 2022.

Once the site specific LEP and DCP were published, the RFDP bid process commenced.

Comments

RFDP Evaluation

The RFDP submissions received were evaluated by the Evaluation Panel (EP) with the assistance of Technical advisors. External probity advisors maintained an oversight of the Evaluation Process.

The LVH Evaluation Panel Report presented at Confidential Attachment A1 details the process followed during the bid and subsequent evaluation periods.

Evaluation Panel Recommendation

On consideration of the Detailed Proposals, technical advisor reports, and responses to clarifications, the Evaluation Panel concluded that Proponent A be recommended as the Preferred Proponent because the overall attributes of their submission were considered on balance more advantageous than the other Detailed Proposals.

Overall Programme and Key dates

Key Activities

Target Date

Status

EOI to market

Oct 2018

Complete

Submit Planning Proposal

Oct 2019

Complete

Tender

Early 2020

Complete

Tender reject / negotiate resolution

30 June 2020

complete

Request for Preliminary Proposal (RPP)

Late 2021

Complete

Planning Proposal Gazetted

March 2022

Compete

Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP)

Apr/Jul 2022

Complete

MPSC endorse Preferred Proponent

28 Sept 2022

Complete

MPAC briefing/Prepare advice to Council

Oct 2022

Complete

Ordinary Meeting of Council to endorse Preferred

13 Dec 2022

Pending

NEXT STEPS:

Exclusive Negotiations with Preferred Proponent

Once the Preferred Proponent has been determined by Council resolution, a period of Exclusive Negotiations is intended to commence during which time Proponent A’s detailed proposal will be further clarified and refined, and the commercial terms and conditions of the Project Delivery Agreement will be agreed.

An exclusive negotiation period is required prior to entering into the PDA for the following reasons:

· To negotiate the final terms and conditions of the Project Delivery Agreement

· To negotiate the detail of certain departures to the bid documents proposed by the Preferred Proponent

· To the extent possible to further resolve the project design such that it can form an annexure to the PDA as a masterplan

Assuming the parties can agree to suitable terms during the exclusive negotiation period, it is intended that a further report be brought to Council in 2023 seeking a resolution that a Project Delivery Agreement be executed with Proponent A.

Project Delivery Agreement (PDA)

The Project Delivery Agreement sets out the transaction structure in two phases, one mandatory and the other optional, as described (in summary and at high level) by the graphic below.

The two phases are known as:

1. ‘Planning Phase’ activities, and

2. ‘Delivery Phase’ works

Indicative diagram describing the two-stage nature of the PDA

PDA – Planning Phase Activities

Assuming Council (at a future meeting) resolve to enter into a Project Delivery Agreement, there will then commence a period during which the parties will work together to consolidate a range of issues before the agreement becomes unconditional. Key Issues to be addressed during the Planning Phase include:

· Consolidation of the different parcels of land which comprise the Project site

· Council confirming that all Council funding is in place

· Proponent confirming that all Proponent funding is in place

· Parties agreeing final project costs

· Parties agreeing final design for all Components

· Successful Proponent obtaining a development approval

· Resolution of any other matters under the PDA

Should the parties fail to agree to any of the issues outlined above then there will be no obligation upon Council to proceed to the delivery phase of the project.

PDA – Delivery Phase Works

On successful completion of the Planning Phase activities, the parties will be ready to commence the Delivery Phase works. The Delivery Phase is the construction phase of the project.

The Delivery Phase Works only commence when Council issues a ‘Delivery Phase Direction’ in relation to the Community Component. Council is not obliged to issue a Delivery Phase Direction, so there is no obligation to proceed to the construction stage unless Council determines to do so.

Key steps in this stage are:

· Council to issue a Delivery Phase Direction for the Community Component

· the parties have executed the Community Component Design & Construct Contract

Delivery Phase of the PDA (construction), will commence once all Conditions Precedent are satisfied, including receipt of Development Consent, and agreement of the final cost and design.

integrated planning and reporting

P4 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure (S&E)

P5 Local Economy (MPU)

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 E1.1: Ku-ring-gai is an attractive location for business.	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 (S&E) E1.1.3 Secure a development partner for Lindfield Village Hub (MPU)	P4.1.1.2Progress public domain streetscape plans for key local centre precincts such as Lindfield, Gordon and Turramurra. P4.1.1.5: Finalise Public Domain Plans for St Ives, Roseville, Lindfield and Pymble. P4.1.1.8 Integrate all transport modes for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, traffic and transport studies in collaboration with Transport for NSW. E1.1.3.1: Progress negotiations with prospective developers for the Lindfield Village Hub..

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

E1.1: Ku-ring-gai is an attractive location for business.

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 (S&E)

E1.1.3 Secure a development partner for Lindfield Village Hub (MPU)

P4.1.1.2Progress public domain streetscape

plans for key local centre precincts such as Lindfield, Gordon and Turramurra.

P4.1.1.5: Finalise Public Domain Plans for St Ives,

Roseville, Lindfield and Pymble.

P4.1.1.8 Integrate all transport modes for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, traffic and transport studies in collaboration with Transport for NSW.

E1.1.3.1: Progress negotiations with prospective developers for the Lindfield Village Hub..

Governance Matters

Progress of the project procurement and key issues for consideration have been reported through the Major Projects Governance structure, which includes the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC), the Major Projects Advisory Committee (MPAC), the Major Projects Councillor Consultation Forum (MPCCF), and the Ordinary Meetings of Council (OMC).

The recommendation to enter Exclusive negotiations with Proponent A was considered by the MPSC at its meetings of 28 September, 26 October, and 23 November 2022.

A staff report to Major Projects Advisory Committee (MPAC) took place on 10 October 2022.

MPAC provided their opinion to Council in its report dated 18 October 2022, provided at Confidential Attachment A3. The MPAC staff commentary on the MPAC report is provided at Confidential Attachment A4.

Risk Management

The major project risks are cost time and quality. At high level these risks are managed by:

· a robust transaction strategy, prepared with the input of experienced advisers (commercial, legal, cost, planning, architecture)

· a robust prequalification process (EOI) assuring quality participants

· a competitive bid process assuring market tested responses

· a staged transaction structure where design and cost information are progressively developed between the parties within the cost envelope established at the time of the bid

· clear go/no go points at key points in the procurement process

· recommendation of a Preferred Proponent with relevant experience and skill

Financial Considerations

The cost to construct and fit out the community facilities, public domain and external works, after allowing for construction contingencies and escalation, has been estimated to be in the order of $80m. Once complete, the additional cost to operate and maintain the public facilities is estimated to be approximately $2m pa higher than for the existing facilities that would be replaced.

These capital and ongoing operating costs would be funded by the Development Rights Fee, a contribution of $9.8m towards commuter parking by Transport for NSW, Council development contribution funds of $17m, and the proceeds from the future sale of the existing Lindfield Library site. More detail on the project costs and funding is provided at Confidential Attachment A5.

All design development will have to be carefully managed to ensure estimates are maintained, however, the final cost to Council of the project shall be known once the design has been resolved, development consent received, and design and construct price has been agreed.

Social Considerations

The social objective of the Lindfield Village Hub project is to revitalise the western side of the Lindfield local centre through the provision of a mix of green public open space and community buildings including a library and community centre, underground car park, a town square, new housing, dining, and retail outlets

Environmental Considerations

There are no direct environmental considerations arising from this report.

Community Consultation

From August 2018 to May 2019 Council involved the community in a broad discussion to extend understanding about the Lindfield Village Hub mixed use development, as a Council-led development providing new community facilities and enhanced social outcomes for the Ku-ring-gai and Lindfield communities and the key findings and outcomes were presented to Council at a briefing on 21 May 2019.

Public exhibition of the Planning Proposal was undertaken in 2021. Community and Agency feedback from that consultation was considered by Council’s Strategy and Environment department in their final report to Council.

It is envisaged that Community feedback would be sought during the design development process with the Preferred Proponent during the Planning Phase activities in 2023

Internal Consultation

The Major Project’s Unit (MPU) regularly report to the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC) which is the governing body overviewing the project.

Library, Community and Events staff are being engaged currently with seeking their feedback into the current procurement process

Summary

The Evaluation Panel Report recommends that Proponent A be nominated as the Preferred Proponent for the LVH Project because the overall attributes of their submission were considered more advantageous to Community and Council than the other Detailed Proposals received.

Once the Preferred Proponent has been resolved upon by Council, a period of exclusive negotiations will commence during which time Proponent A’s detailed proposal will be further clarified and refined and the commercial terms and conditions of the Project Delivery Agreement will be finalised.

At that time, and subject to the successful outcome of the exclusive negotiation period, there may be a recommendation to Council that a Project Delivery Agreement be executed with Proponent A.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council authorises the General Manager to undertake exclusive negotiations with Proponent A, with the objective of refining their proposal and agreeing the terms of a PDA

B. A report be brought to Council on the outcome of the negotiations, which if successful may result in Council resolving at a future meeting to execute a PDA with Proponent A.

C. Council confirms allocation of proceeds from the future sale of the Lindfield Library site to the Lindfield Village Hub project.

Geoff Douglas

Group Lead - Major Projects

Attachments:	A1	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Developer RFDP Evaluation Report - FINAL - 22 September 2022	Confidential
	A2	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - OCM Probity Certification	Confidential
	A3	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC Report LVH RFDP Evaluation Review Oct 22 - Final	Confidential
	A4	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - MPAC opinions - MPU comments - FINAL for December 2022 OMC report	Confidential
	A5	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Financial Considerations - Confidential Attachment - Dec OMC FINAL	Confidential
	A6	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - CBRE Summary Overview 200922 (Confidential)	Confidential
	A7	LVH - RFDP8-2022 - Minter Ellison - Final Legal Evaluation Report - 14 September 2022	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	FY00668

Financial Sustainability Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to note the report of the Financial Sustainability Review, and its recommendations for revenue and savings strategies to deliver Council’s commitments while maintaining long-term financial sustainability.

background:	In response to continuing financial challenges and other external factors impacting on Council and local government more generally, the organisation commissioned a financial sustainability review. The objectives of this review were to test the assumptions in Council’s adopted long-term resourcing strategy, the risks to successful delivery and options for addressing these risks.

comments:	The review suggested that Council’s resourcing strategy and long-term financial plan (LTFP) be updated to reflect recent changes in funding strategy, cost increases in major projects, other economic factors and updated information on the condition of assets and projected maintenance and renewal costs. The review made recommendations relating to Council’s capital works program, funding the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre and Marian Street Theatre projects, service reviews, alternative funding strategies and adjusting rates to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Council while meeting community needs and expectations.

recommendation:	That Council: A. note the findings and recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review (see Attachment A1) B. utilise the Review findings and recommendations to inform the draft Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plans for 2023/24 to be considered by Council for public exhibition in April 2023.

Purpose of Report

Background

Ku-ring-gai Council’s current Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy were adopted by Council in June 2022 following public exhibition and incorporation of feedback from the community. The Resourcing Strategy details the funding and resourcing required to deliver the strategic objectives in the Community Strategic Plan and the priorities described in the Delivery

Program. The adopted Resourcing Strategy notes that:

While Council remains in a sound financial position, long term financial sustainability continues to be a significant challenge for Council and local governments across Australia. This is largely due to rising costs generated by increasing community demand for services, facilities and infrastructure and restricted revenue that does not keep up with those costs.

To partly address this issue Council has sought to ‘recycle’ existing assets, by selling underutilised property and using the proceeds for major capital projects and infrastructure renewal. In the longer term, financial sustainability will require additional recurrent revenue that balances the community’s capacity and willingness to pay with the demand for services, facilities and infrastructure.

Many of Council’s key assets such as buildings and drains were built many decades ago and over the following generations have not been upgraded or replaced. In more recent times increased attention has been placed on improving existing assets and providing new facilities to cater for increasing population, changing requirements and expectations. This introduces a financial burden for current and future generations for asset management that was not adequately addressed in the past.

In this context, Council decided to sell underutilised property to partly pay for new facilities and renew existing assets that would otherwise have been unaffordable. In the following years some of the assets proposed for sale did not achieve the desired zoning outcome from planning processes, leading to significantly reduced value. More recently, Council has made decisions that terminate or will delay processes that may lead to the sale of two major assets.

The asset sales strategy was not intended to remedy all of Council’s future financial challenges, but to deliver some key improvements over the short to medium term. An alternate approach is now required.

While Council’s current financial position is sound, with the Statement of Performance Measures in the 2021/22 Financial Statements all exceeding benchmark, infrastructure asset indicators fall short. Like any business there are challenges to meet in the future and decisions are required about the revenue and expenditure pathway amid changing circumstances.

The Resourcing Strategy identifies a number of financial challenges and risks facing Council, including:

· the impact of the rate peg (the maximum amount by which a council may increase its general income for the year as determined by IPART)

· reliance on property asset sales to fund new capital works and infrastructure renewal

· insufficient funding to sustainably manage and improve existing infrastructure assets and meet community expectations

· reliance on loans, asset sales and a special rate variation to fund the construction of the Marian Street Theatre and St Ives Indoor Sports Centre.

These challenges and risks have become more apparent over the past year, exacerbated by increasing project, maintenance and operating costs and increasing demands for infrastructure and services. In response to these challenges and to ensure Council’s financial strategy is sustainable in the long-term, Council commissioned an independent, high-level review to provide advice on the following fundamental questions:

· Are the objectives and assumptions underpinning Ku-ring-gai Council’s resourcing strategy sound?

· Is Council’s resourcing strategy sufficient to maintain its asset and infrastructure portfolio, and deliver its 10-year capital works plan and planned services?

· What viable options does Council have to increase revenue, reduce expenses and/or revise its delivery programs to deliver these commitments and maintain intergenerational equity?

comments

The report of the Financial Sustainability Review is attached (Attachment A1), and includes the following findings:

Long-Term Financial Plan

· The assumptions in the current Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) were satisfactory at the time of preparation and consistent with industry good practice.

· The Resourcing Strategy signalled several risks associated with the LTFP forecasts. A number of these risks have now eventuated, and the LTFP no longer provides a sustainable funding strategy for the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Capital Works Program.

· The Resourcing Strategy needs to be reviewed to reflect financially sustainable scenario(s).

· Either new funding sources are required, or expenditure on new assets needs to be deferred.

Asset Management Strategy

· The spending requirements in the current Asset Management Strategy seem reasonable but require updating as they may no longer reflect current asset issues, condition and costs.

· High service level expectations from the community require increasing expenditure on maintenance.

· Depreciation is fully funded and seems a reasonable estimate, although slightly lower than comparable benchmark councils.

· The funding gap for maintenance and renewals is estimated at between $64.7 million and $81.2 million over 10 years.

· Funding closing the gap cannot be achieved without a Special Rates Variation (SRV).

Capital works program

· Community feedback indicates that most residents are satisfied with the provision and condition of community assets, except for roads and footpaths.

· Based on current information, the Lindfield Village Hub can be funded from the future sale of the existing Lindfield Library, contribution of Council land on the development site and development contributions

· The NSW Office of Local Government (OLG) has approved the St Ives Capital Expenditure Review which is premised on funding from asset sales and loans until an SRV is available. An SRV for St Ives is likely to be at least 2 years away – depending on when the NSW Government enacts amendments to the Local Government Act that allow a special rate to be levied for intergovernmental projects.

· The cost of capital work costs substantially increased in 2022.

Asset recycling strategy

· The asset sales strategy has become politically sensitive and at the time of preparing this report, significant asset sales did not appear to be favoured by the elected Council.

· The strategy is suitable for funding new assets or reducing the backlog, but not sustainable for renewals or Council operations. Council can only sell or swap assets once.

· Of $111 million required in the LTFP, the majority was proposed to come from realisations of sale proceeds from two bowling clubs, Pymble Town Hall and the Lindfield Library. Other sales would be harder to realise or have required preconditions.

· Asset sales will need to be replaced by loans and an SRV to repay these loans.

Benchmarking

· On average, Ku-ring-gai residents are in a better position to fund additional costs and user charges due to higher levels of income (noting that the ability to pay does not necessarily align with willingness to pay).

· While Ku-ring-gai has a wealthy community, the Council resources do not match. Total operating expenditure per capita is below the average for similar councils.

· Council’s performance compares favourably to benchmarks and similar councils, including (at a high level) the efficiency of service delivery.

· When coupled with lower operating expense per resident and lower increases in operating expenditure of the past 5 years (2020/21 financial statements), it suggests Council has been on an improvement path and further opportunities for improvement may be limited.

· A scan of LTFPs of similar North Shore councils found that over the 10-year period, about half of councils (including Ku-ring-gai) were forecasting a decline in operating performance. All councils forecast a decline in the renewal expenditure ratio below the benchmark, while maintenance expenditure against benchmarks is predicted to remain static. All councils forecast increasing infrastructure backlogs.

Funding gap

The report estimates the following funding gaps:

· If the scenario includes increased operational and asset renewal costs (100-year stormwater asset life) plus the St Ives and Marian St Theatre major projects, the funding gap would be in the order of $14 million p/a. Should council fund it solely from rate increases, the estimated SRV would be 20%.

· If the scenario includes asset renewal (150-year stormwater asset life) and the St Ives and Marian St Theatre major projects, the funding gap would be in the order of $11.7 million p/a. Should council fund it solely from rate increases, the estimated SRV would be 16.7%.

· The Marian Street Theatre project would require additional rates revenue of $3.4 million p/a through an SRV of 4.9% and the St Ives project additional rates revenue of $1.8 million p.a. through an SRV of 2.6% (included in estimated rate increases above).

· The impact of potential reduction in development contributions (s7.11/12) and additional rates revenue required has not been included in the estimates (see table below). It is assumed that funding / expenditure can be otherwise resolved.

The following table summarises these scenarios.

	*Low estimate*	*Higher estimate*
Increase in Asset Maintenance of $110k p.a.	$0.11m	$0.11m
Option 1 - Increase in asset renewal (assuming current stormwater asset life of 150yr remains) and removal of $37m funding from asset sales for renewal over 10 years.	$6.35m	-
Option 2 - Increase in asset renewal (including revised stormwater asset life 100yr) and removal of $37m funding from asset sales for renewal over 10 years.	-	$8.0m
Removal of asset sales funding for St Ives Indoor Courts and Marian St Theatre and replaced by loans. Loan repayments - St Ives funding impact approximately $1.8m p.a. & Marian Street funding impact approximately $3.4m p.a.	$5.2m	$5.2m
Reduction in development contributions revenue (s7.11/12) if development controls are not changed in the future (estimate $11.5m p.a.) and asset sales of $7.6m required to part-fund s7.11 projects)	n/a	n/a
Increase operating costs $635k p.a. for additional general inflation allowance.	-	$0.64m
Total	$11.66m p/a	$13.95m p/a

Recommendations

The final report outlines a number of recommendations to provide Council with a path to financial sustainability, noting that:

Ku-ring-gai Council’s long-term financial sustainability requires an agreed plan along with actions to ensure the challenges noted in this report are addressed. The situation is not dire but serious and requires attention. The Council should agree on a strategy that can be implemented over the next two years.

*Recommendation*	*Completed by*
Revisit the capital works program to ensure proposed capital works are affordable and achievable.	Dec 2022 – Feb 2023
Review the intention to proceed with the St Ives and Marian St Theatre projects. If to proceed, these be largely funded by loan and SRV.	Dec 2022 – Feb 2023
Undertake a program of service reviews including reviewing service levels and efficiencies and effectiveness.	Priority services in 2023 - 2025
Reconsider alternative funding strategies including fully commercial lease returns and other revenue from fees and charges such as parking.	March 2023
Review LTFP assumption to better align with the current economic circumstances.	June 2023
Further work and investigation be undertaken to confirm asset condition, useful lives and asset backlog for roads, buildings and drainage. Once complete, funding be reallocated between asset classes and the remaining gap addressed.	March 2024
Review Section 7.11/7.12 plans and contributions.	March 2024
Reconsider a sustainable funding strategy, loans, special rate variation options, amend Resourcing Strategy and engage community.	June 2024
Undertake special rate variation application process.	February 2025

Management has reviewed the report and is supportive of the findings and recommendations, noting that significant further work is required, and matters relating to changes to programs, services and Council’s funding strategy need to be informed by community consultation and/or further Council decisions.

Next steps

A workshop has been arranged for Councillors and senior officers in early February to consider the findings and recommendations from the Financial Sustainability Review. This is intended to inform amendments to the 10-year Resourcing Strategy and the Delivery Program and Operational Plans for 2023/24. These will be considered by Council for public exhibition and community consultation in April 2023.

In line with its commitment to community engagement, Council will seek feedback on proposed changes likely to impact on the community, including services and program planning, policy changes and any increases to rates.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1: Council rigorously manages its financial resources, to sustainably deliver assets and

facilities to maximise delivery of services.

L2.1.1: Council takes action

towards financial sustainability.

L2.1.1.1: Review the Long Term Financial Plan in consultation with Councillors each year.

L2.1.1.2: Review Council rates with a view to seeking special rates variations.

L2.1.1.3: Ensure Council meets planned budget performance objectives.

L2.1.3: Council’s income and expenditure meets the

requirements of the adopted

Delivery Program and Operational

Plan and the Resourcing Strategy

L2.1.3.1: Monitor expenditure to ensure it is in accordance with adopted plans.

L2.1.3.2: Review fees to identify sustainable increases to Council’s income

Governance Matters

Under section 8B of the Local Government Act, Councils are expected to follow principles of sound financial management, including that:

· Council spending should be responsible and sustainable, aligning general revenue and expenses

· Council should invest in responsible and sustainable infrastructure for the benefit of the local community

· Council should have effective financial and asset management.

In developing the long-term financial plan under the integrated planning and reporting framework, due regard must be given to promoting the financial sustainability of Council through:

· the establishment of a clear revenue path for all rates linked to specific expenditure proposals

· ensuring that any proposed increase in services and assets is within the financial means of Council

· ensuring the adequate funding of infrastructure maintenance and renewal.

The key underlying assumptions in the long-term financial plan should be updated annually, alongside projected income and expenditure and cashflow statements.

Risk Management

The Financial Sustainability Review was commissioned to test and validate the risks and assumptions underpinning the resourcing strategy, long-term financial plan, asset management strategy and capital works program. Findings and recommendations will inform changes to these plans and Council’s risk register.

Financial Considerations

The outcomes and recommendations of the financial sustainability review are expected to inform Council’s 2023/24 budget development and long-term financial plan.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Council’s Community Engagement Policy outlines how Council engages with the Ku-ring-gai community and stakeholders to better understand community views, expectations and inform better decisions. Community engagement will be undertaken when Council considers that a decision or project is likely to have a direct or indirect impact on either whole or part of the community. This includes:

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

· in planning the strategic direction of Council, and/or

· when required by law, policy or agreement with a government agency or statutory body.

Internal Consultation

The Financial Sustainability Review included engagement and consultation between the consultants, management and other key staff in order to facilitate exchange of information and validation of preliminary findings. Councillors were also invited to provide feedback to inform the review.

Summary

In response to continuing financial challenges and other external factors impacting on Council and local government more generally, the organisation commissioned a financial sustainability review.

The review suggested that Council’s resourcing strategy and long-term financial plan (LTFP) be updated to reflect recent changes in funding strategy, cost increases in major projects, other economic factors and updated information on the condition of assets and projected maintenance and renewal costs.

It also made recommendations relating to Council’s capital works program, funding the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre and Marian Street Theatre projects, service reviews, alternative funding strategies and adjusting rates to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Council while meeting community needs and expectations.

The review will inform Council’s next 10-year Resourcing Strategy and the Delivery Program and Operational Plans for 2023/24. These will be considered by Council for public exhibition and community consultation in April 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. note the findings and recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review (see Attachment A)

Christopher M Jones

Manager Governance & Corporate Strategy

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Ku-Ring-Gai Council: Financial Sustainability Review (Final Report)

2023/030234

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	S09112/11
	23 January 2023

2022 - 2023 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of report:	To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2022/23 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022.

background:	Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current financial year.

comments:	Budget adjustments proposed in this review will improve the net operating result (excluding capital grants) by $858k. This is mainly due to additional income from investments (partly restricted to external reserves) and other minor adjustments. After adjusting for capital and operational grants, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital will increase by $199k mainly due to additional income from investments.

recommendation:	That the 2022/23 December Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

Purpose of Report

Background

In accordance with Part 9, Division 3, Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (“The Regulation”):

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

The Office of Local Government has developed a set of minimum requirements that assists councils in meeting their obligations as set out in legislation.

At the Council meeting held on 28 June 2022, Council adopted the Revised Delivery Program 2022-2026 & Operational Plan 2022-2023, which incorporated the Annual Budget for 2022-2023.

Comments

This review analyses Council’s financial performance for the second quarter of 2022/23 and forecasts an end of financial year position by recommending budget adjustments to operating and capital budget.

Budget adjustments proposed in this review will improve the net operating result (excluding capital grants) by $858k. This is mainly due to additional income from investments (partly restricted to external reserves), minor adjustments in recurrent budget and budget transfers to/from capital projects.

From a funding position, after adjusting for capital and operational grants movements, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital will increase by $199k mainly due to increased income on investments.

Proposed adjustments to forecast budget

Operating Income

The proposed increase to the operating income of $1.26m is mainly from increased interest on investments (partly externally restricted), operating grants and contributions received and other revenue:

· Net decrease in user fees ($46k) mainly due to a decrease in car parking fees ($58k), hoarding permit fees, partly offset by increases in building certificate fees ($28k) and Art Centre income (transfer only of kids voucher income from operating grants) ($20k).

· Net increase in other revenue ($202k) due to:

o Other partner Councils contributing to better business partnership program ($130k),

o Area rangers fines ($121k) and animal control fines ($18k),

o Animal control registration ($26k),

o Partly offset by a decrease in fire safety fines ($70k) and legal costs recovered ($23k).

· Increase in interest and investment income ($800k) due to larger than forecast investment portfolio and more competitive interest rates, of which ($495k) is restricted to S7.11 reserves and ($119k) to Infrastructure & Facilities internal reserve.

· Net increase in operating grants and contributions ($306k) mainly from:

o Turramurra local centre activation – Streets as Shared Spaces grant ($250k),

o Insurers WHS contribution ($76k),

o Partly offset by budget transfer of kids voucher income to user fees ($20k).

Operating expenditure

The change (net increase) to the operating expenditure ($404k) is mainly due operational project expenditure funded from grants and other revenue and other adjustments in materials and contracts as detailed below:

· Net decrease in materials and contracts ($78k):

o Decrease mainly due to a budget transfer of ($85k) from the library recurrent budget to a capital project intended for Gordon library refurbishment (funded by State library subsidy) and a transfer to subscriptions in other expenses ($14k),

o Decrease in compliance legal fees ($42k),

o Increase in building unit contractors ($35k),

o Increase in DWM contractors – general ($29k) funded from the EPA grant.

· Increase in other expenses ($14k) due to:

o Increased licence & subscription costs funded from a budget transfer from materials and contracts.

· Net increase to operational projects expenditure ($468k) mainly due to:

o Increased Turramurra local centre activation ($250k) funded from grant,

o Increased better business partnership program ($130k) funded from contributions from partner councils,

o Increased WHS project ($76k) funded from insurer’s WHS incentive,

o Increased energy management project ($42k) funded from capital projects,

o Decreased ($29k) - transfer to DWM recurrent budget funded from grants.

Capital Budget

Major adjustments to the capital budget are due to:

· Allocation of expenditure for capital grants and contributions received ($2.08m), mainly for traffic facility grants ($1.37m) and local roads and community infrastructure (LRCI) grant ($707k),

· Increase to playground program ($300k) funded from S7.12.

· Transfer from recurrent budget ($87k) to capital budget (Library refurbishment project referred above)

· Transfer to operational projects ($42k) from capital budget (sustainability project).

Other budget adjustments to capital projects are detailed further in the report and listed in Attachment A2.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS)

The Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) as prescribed by the OLG guidelines are composed of the following budget review reports:

· Operating and Capital Budget Review Statement (Table 1)

· Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Adjustments by Resource Group (Table 2)

· Income and Expenses Statement by Theme (Table 3)

· Cash and Investments position (Table 4)

· Contracts and Consultancy Expenses (Table 5)

· Capital and Operational Projects Summary (Table 6)

· Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer

These statements are shown below.

Proposed Budget Adjustments

The table below lists the proposed budget adjustments, including comments for the December Quarterly Budget Review.

Attachment A2 summarises all proposed budget adjustments for Projects.

The table below splits the current budget by six themes identified within Council’s Delivery Program 2022 – 2026. These themes are used as a platform for planning our activities to address the community’s stated needs and aspirations.

Cash and Investments position

Restricted funds are invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Total investments portfolio as at the end of December quarter is $229.75m.

A detailed Restricted Assets Report as at December 2022 (Actual) is shown in Attachment A1.

Contracts and Consultancy Expenses

Capital & Operational Projects Summary

Actual expenditure for capital and operational projects for the period ending 30 December 2022 is ($21m) against the full year revised budget of ($142m). The December review increases the forecast project budget by ($2.9m), the increase is mainly due to projects funded from new grants received ($2.4m), additional reserve funding allocated to projects ($300k), contributions from partner councils ($130k) and insurer’s WHS incentive ($76k).

The table and chart below show the YTD actual project expenditure against 2022/23 full year revised budget and projected forecast.

The proposed budget changes to operational and capital projects represent an increase of ($2.9m). The most significant variations and projects proposed for adjustment are listed below:

· Allocation of expenditure budget due to capital grants and contributions received from the Federal and State government ($2.4m), mainly for:

o Traffic facility program ($1.37m),

o Local Roads and Community Facilities ($707k),

o Turramurra Local Centre Activation (250k),

o Insurer’s WHS incentive ($76k).

· Project funded from unallocated S7.12 funds:

o Playground Programme ($300k).

· Projects funded from other revenue:

o Better business partnership program ($130k).

· Projects funded from/to recurrent budget:

o Gordon library refurbishment ($85k),

o Partly offset by transfer of unspent EPA grant to recurrent for waste education project ($11k).

All Proposed Budget adjustments for each Project and explanation for the changes are detailed in

Attachment A2 – Summary of Capital and Operational Project Budget Adjustments

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Ku-ring-gai Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2022 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2023 will be satisfactory, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 6: Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

L2.1.2 Council’s financial services provide accurate, timely, open and honest advice to the community.

Manages financial performance to achieve targets as defined in the Long Term Financial Plan.

Governance Matters

Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current financial year.

Risk Management

Income and expenditure is managed through the quarterly budget review process. Although some income and expenditure cannot be directly controlled, it can be monitored, and action taken to mitigate potential financial or budgetary risk. Further, Council staff utilise monthly management reporting for managing operational and project income and expenditure, and any budget variations are reported to the Director. The executive team are also provided with monthly financial reports that allow Directors to make informed decisions and plan ahead to ensure budget targets are met.

Financial Considerations

Financial impacts from recommended budget adjustments are discussed in detail in other sections of this report.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

Not applicable.

Internal Consultation

Finance met with directors and managers as part of the Quarterly Budget Review process to ensure departmental budget targets reflect current forecasts.

Summary

After adjusting for capital and operational grants and restricted items, the net working capital will increase by $199k mainly from investments income.

Recommendation:

That the December 2022 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes be received and noted.

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accountant

Kelly Wu

Management Accounting Officer

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment A1 - Restricted Assets Report - December 2022		2023/017888
	A2 ⇩	Attachment A2 - Summary of Capital and Operational Projects Budget Adjustments - December 2022		2023/018711

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.11 / 1

Item GB.11	S13626

Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) and to determine whether to forward the matter to the Minister for a Gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

background:	The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 2 May 2022 following an adequacy test and the payment of fees. The Planning Proposal has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and independent urban design consultant due to part of the site being in Council ownership. It was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for comment on 5 December 2022. The KLPP did not support the PP and recommended that it not be submitted for a Gateway Determination.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to: · Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys) · Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1 · Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1. · Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)), and · Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

recommendation:	That the Council resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the reasons outlined in this report.

Purpose of Report

Background

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct the assessment of the subject Planning Proposal as Council is the landowner of part of the site (car park site). An independent urban design assessment has also been prepared by Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo. Other assessments including biodiversity, heritage and traffic and transport have been carried out internally by Council’s specialists.

The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council on 2 May 2022 following an adequacy test and the payment of fees. Following review by the independent planning and urban design consultants, issues were identified, and a meeting was held with the Proponent on 26 October 2022 to advise that the Planning Proposal was not supported due primarily to excessive height, bulk and scale particularly given:

· the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-ring-gai centres hierarchy;

· the relationship of the proposed development with the surrounding context and its environmental impacts; and

· the location of the site outside of the core redevelopment priority sites of the Turramurra Local Centre.

The Proponent was given the opportunity to amend the Planning Proposal request to address issues raised but requested that the application be reported to the LPP as submitted. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal has been assessed and reported to the LPP as originally submitted.

A copy of the Planning Proposal and appendices is included at Attachments A2-A13.

The Proponent seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015):

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys);

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1;

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1;

· Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)); and

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the subject site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015.

As outlined in the Planning Proposal request report prepared for the Proponent by Mecone Pty Ltd, the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015 are intended to “embrace the opportunity to provide a contemporary ‘signature’ to the Turramurra Local Centre and will provide the impetus for its revitalisation.” The proposal seeks to:

facilitate a mixed use development on the landmark site within Turramurra Local Centre that reinvigorates the public amenity of the centre and aligns with key State, regional and local strategic planning priorities.

The Planning Proposal report claims that the proposal will deliver a number of key benefits including:

· Revitalise the site into a lively mixed use precinct which will provide a supermarket, a medical centre and retail, restaurant and café offerings that spill out onto the through site links.

· Create a village atmosphere through the provision of public open spaces (a new park and through site link) which promote social interaction between community members.

· Amalgamate a number of sites to allow for a consolidated planning approach for the precinct.

· Protection of the Granny Springs Reserve and ensure the development addresses the Reserve.

· Facilitate an appropriate massing which will create a landmark building whilst respecting the context of the site with respect to the surrounding neighbours, heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

· Improve pedestrian permeability within and around the precinct by creating a new through site link and upgrading Stonex Lane.

· Provision of additional employment opportunities and residential accommodation within a Local Centre and close to public transport.

· Improve traffic flow around the site with a new road (Stonex Street), proposed road widenings and road upgrades.

The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice at its meeting of 5 December 2022 as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The LPP did not support the Planning Proposal and recommended that Council not submit that matter for a Gateway determination. A copy of the KLPP minutes including resolution in relation to Planning Proposal is provided at Attachment A14. The advice of the LPP is addressed in detailed below.

Reference Scheme

The Planning Proposal is supported by a reference scheme prepared by DKO Architecture which, as described in the Planning Proposal request report, comprises:

· Demolition of all existing buildings;

· Construction of a new 14 storey (Note: notwithstanding PP illustrates 15 storeys) mixed use development comprising a maximum height of 48.8m (RL222.5) comprising 4 storey podium and two towers equal height above;

· 34,822m2 of GFA (Note: Urban Design report refers to 34,876m2) with retail and commercial floor space in the podium and 248 residential apartments above;

· 5 basement levels accommodating parking for up to 650 cars, bicycle and motorbike parking and loading (Note: 4 basement levels accommodate parking with supermarket on basement level B1);

· Construction and dedication of a new public road (Stonex Street) connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street;

· Dedication of land for a new public park; and

· Dedication of land for road widening including widening of the Pacific Highway to 8 lanes and new dedicated left turning lane from Kissing Point Road.

The purpose of the reference scheme is not to accurately represent the final development but rather to demonstrate that a scheme which represents the proposed maximum height and FSR can readily be accommodated on the site and can comply with applicable controls and requirements without resulting in any unreasonable environmental impacts.

Image 1 – Reference Scheme Masterplan (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

Image 2 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Pacific Highway (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

A picture containing schematic

Description automatically generated

Image 3 – Reference Scheme E-W section (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

Image 4 – Design response proposed use diagram (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

As identified by the Proponent the proposed public benefits of the Planning Proposal are as outlined below:

Proposed Public Benefits of Planning Proposal
Public Benefit	Amount (approx.)
Land Dedication (new road, new park, road widening)	2,915m²
New Community Park	850m²
New Road (Stonex Street)	2,900m²
Kissing Point Rd Upgrades	1,300m²
Pavement Upgrades	1,250m²
Pacific Highway Fence Upgrade	96m length
Public Parking	30 Council car spaces in basement (Offsets Council car park spaces to be acquired)
New through-site link	575m²
Stonex Lane Upgrade	250m²
Supplementary Street Trees	As per Public Domain Plan
Upgraded Bus Stop	1
New Bicycle Racks (on-street)	2 areas
Upgraded Street Lighting	Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road

Note land dedication figures outlined above are as included in the PP however have not been verified

Site Description and Local Context

The site is located in the Turramurra Local Centre to the south of the Pacific Highway and on the corner of the Highway and Kissing Point Road. It is approximately 130m to the south west of Turramurra Station and has frontage to the Pacific Highway.

Turramurra Local Centre is largely characterised by its early 20th Century federation houses, significant private gardens and established large canopy trees, shop top housing in the retail heart of the centre and prominent elevated topography. Turramurra’s topography features two prominent ridges, with its urban centre focused along the higher points. The elevated ridge-line topography creates opportunities for views into and beyond the suburb, while dense tree canopies and deep valleys screen lower density development. The main ridge rises from the south-east and runs north-west, parallel to the Pacific Highway. The landscape falls steeply to the west of this ridge. Falls to the north and east are relatively gentle.

The Pacific Highway and the North Shore rail line intersect at Turramurra. The impact of the road and rail upon the locality is the division of its centre into four constituent parts. The amenity and accessibility of the centre is significantly affected by the Pacific Highway, which carries almost 65,000 vehicles per day, and the rail corridor line which both act as significant physical barriers whilst providing good transport accessibility.

Image 5 – Turramurra Local Centre segment parts (Source: LSPS)

For pedestrians and cyclists, the approach from the southern catchment to the centre is met by a steep climb up to the ridge. There are only 3 pedestrian crossings within the Local Centre. They are at the Pacific Highway’s intersection with Ray Street, Kissing Point Road and Rohini Street. The result is that the railway and highway form a physical and psychological barrier for pedestrians approaching the Local Centre from the south. A pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway to improve connectivity does not form part of the Planning Proposal. It is however understood that Council has previously advised against such a proposal due to issues with identifying an appropriate landing site on the northern side of the Highway.

The subject site is located in the southern quadrant of the Local Centre and is irregular in shape with frontages to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Pont Road (refer Image 6 below). A car park access road (Stonex Drive) enters the site from the south east to the car parking area at the rear of the north facing retail shops. The site is also connected via Stonex Drive to Duff Street to the west.

Image 6 – Aerial photo, site outlined in red (Source: Planning Proposal report, Mecone, April 2022)

The site is generally known as the Turramurra Plaza shopping centre (and adjacent land) and has a combined area of approximately 8,485m². It comprises the following landholdings:

· 1396 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 629520) – private land

· 1392 Pacific Highway (Lot 2 DP 16463) – private land

· 1390 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 550866) – private land

· 1380-1388 Pacific Highway (Lot 101 DP 714988) – private land

· 1370-1378 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 500077) – private land

· 1364 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 656233) – private land

· 1A Kissing Point Road (Lot 2 DP 500077, Lot 2 DP 502388 and Lot 2 DP500761) – Council land

· 1 Kissing Point Road (Lot 1 DP500761) – private land

· 3 Kissing Point Road (Lot B DP 435272) – Council land, and

· 3A Kissing Point Road (Lot A DP 391538) – Council land.

The Planning Proposal identifies that 6,116m² of the site is in private ownership with the remaining 2,271m² in Council ownership however this cannot be verified from the survey information provided. The application seeks to amend Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015 to reclassify the Council owned land (1A, 3 and 3A Kissing Point Road being Lot 2, DP 500077; Lot 2, DP 502388; Lot 2, DP 500761; Lot B, DP 435272; Lot A, DP 391538) from community to operational land in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Surrounding development is as follows:

· North: Directly to the north of the site is the Pacific Highway and across the highway are a range of 1-3 storey buildings with retail, commercial and food & beverage uses;

· East: Directly to the east of the site is Kissing Point Road and across the road are range of 2 storey commercial properties and 1-2 storey residential buildings which form a heritage conservation area, and which also includes a number of individual listed heritage items;

· West: Directly to the west of the site is Stonex Lane with a petrol station further to the west; and

· South: Directly to the south is the Granny Springs Reserve which is a bushland that contains some of the largest Blue Gum trees in the district and is home to the threatened Powerful Owl. The Reserve is listed as an endangered ecological community under the provisions of the NSW Threatened Species Act 1995 and is critically endangered under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. The site is also adjoined to the south by 5 Kissing Point Road which is a small 3 storey residential flat building.

Map

Description automatically generated

Image 7 – Site context (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

As noted above the site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Image 8 – Zoning map extract KLEP 2015

The objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are:

· To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To provide for residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities.

· To encourage mixed use buildings that effectively integrate suitable commercial, permitted residential development and other development.

Permitted land uses in the B2 Local Centre zone (with development consent) include:

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes (permanent); Hostels; Home-based child care; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

Notably residential accommodation is prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone however ‘Shop top housing’ which is defined as “one or more dwellings located above the ground floor of a building, where at least the ground floor is used for commercial premises or health services facilities” is permitted with consent. The reference scheme which comprises a mixed use development of commercial / retail with residential above would therefore be permissible with consent.

Comments

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Plan Making Guideline’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed amendments to a local environmental plan have strategic and site specific merit. A detailed evidence-based assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies has been conducted. In summary it has been concluded that the Planning Proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has neither strategic nor site-specific merit in its current form. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is not supported in this instance.

The following is a summary assessment of the key planning issues and relevant merits associated with the Planning Proposal.

Strategic Merit

Regional Plan

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with a number of objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities, including:

· Objective 4 – Infrastructure use is optimised

· Objective 7 – Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply

· Objective 11 – Housing supply is more diverse and affordable

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

· Objective 22 – Investment and business activity in centres, and

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

A Metropolis of Three Cities outlines that liveability incorporates access to housing, transport and employment as well as social, recreational, cultural and creative opportunities. Improved health, public transport and accessibility outcomes are achieved through the provision of schools, recreation, transport, arts and cultural, community and health facilities in walkable, mixed-use places co-located with social infrastructure and local services. Mixed-use neighbourhoods close to centres and public transport improve the opportunity for people to walk and cycle to local shops and services. Enhancing the safety, convenience and accessibility has many benefits, including healthier people, more successful businesses and centres. The proposal is therefore consistent with these principles.

Turramurra is located within the Eastern Harbour City and is identified as a local centre. The Plan sets the principles for Housing Strategies to be prepared by councils for a local government area or district and to be given effect through amendments to local environmental plans. The principles note that among other matters housing strategies should respond to amenity i.e. opportunities that improve amenity including recreation, the public realm, increase walkable and cycle friendly connections to centres. Further the Plan notes that the District Plans guide housing strategies in particular in ensuring key aspects of development are addressed, that is: capacity, viability, good design, environment, mix, supply, affordable rental housing, local character, etc. As discussed in further detail below it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the capacity of the site and the local character and has not demonstrated the achievement of good design.

Objective 12 of the Plan – “Great Places that Bring People Together” provides that place based planning should be adopted to provide:

· Well-designed built environment: great places are enjoyable and attractive, they are safe, clean and flexible with a mix of sizes and functions.

· Social infrastructure and opportunity: great places are inclusive of people of all ages and abilities, with a range of authentic local experiences and opportunities for social interaction and connections.

· Fine grain urban form: great places are walkable of human scale, with a mix of land uses including social infrastructure and local services at the heart of communities.

As outlined in detail below it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with this objective or the strategies which underpin it as the reference scheme does not provide for a well-designed built environment that is attractive and high amenity (refer below for further detail).

Objective 22 - Investment and business activity in centres also points to the importance of local centres and a centres hierarchy. It notes that:

The management of local centres is best considered at a local level. Developing a hierarchy within the classification of local centres should be informed by a place-based strategic planning process at a council level including an assessment of how, broadly, the proposed hierarchy influences decision-making for commercial, retail and other uses.

As detailed below the proposed height and FSR is inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy adopted in December 2020. This Strategy identifies Gordon as the Ku-ring-gai LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). The proposed 50m (approx. 15 storey) height limit exceeds the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m or approx. 10-11 storeys) which is intended, going forward, to be the major centre. Further the maximum permitted height allowed elsewhere in the other primary local centres is 32.5m (approximately 9 storeys) as incorporated into KLEP 2015 by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with Objective 22.

Having regard to the above it is considered that whilst the Planning Proposal is consistent with a number of objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan it is also inconsistent with a number of key objectives and the overall intent of the Plan which is to provide for high-quality development in appropriate locations consistent with the capacity of the site and whilst ensuring a high level of design quality and amenity both within the development and for existing neighbourhoods.

North District Plan

The North District Plan made in March 2018 highlights that the North District will continue to grow over the next 20 years with demand for an additional 92,000 dwellings. The five-year target (to 2021) for Ku-ring-gai is to provide an additional 4,000 dwellings. Additional housing is to be provided in locations which are linked to local infrastructure. The focus of growth is therefore on strategic centres and areas close to transport corridors. Whilst the subject site is not within a strategic centre it is in an area close to transport corridors including the Pacific Highway (adjacent) and the North Shore Railway Line.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following planning priorities of the North District Plan:

· Planning Priority N1 – Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

· Planning Priority N4 - Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

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

· Planning Priority N12 – Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city, and

· Planning Priority N21 – Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently.

The Planning Proposal will allow for a mixed-use development providing a new park, retail and commercial development and approximately 248 new dwellings in a well-located site within the Turramurra Local Centre, in close proximity to public transport and a major transport route (Pacific Highway). The co-location of residential dwellings, social infrastructure and local services in centres provides for a more efficient use of land and enhances the viability of the centres and public transport. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan strategy which is to focus growth in areas close to public transport as well as with the concept of a 30-minute city.

However, the North District Plan also includes Planning Priority N6 which seeks to create and renew great places and local centres, and to respect the District’s heritage and local character. The Planning Proposal as presented seeks to provide for new planning controls (height and FSR) that would result in an overdevelopment of the site and that would be inconsistent with the site’s capacity, the role of the Turramurra Local Centre in the Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres hierarchy, and that would not deliver a development that is compatible with the existing character of the area. Further as represented in the submitted reference scheme, the scale of the proposal would not demonstrate a high quality development resulting in poor amenity to units and the proposed public space (plaza and new park).

Further Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space would not be achieved by the proposal. The reference scheme submitted with the application illustrates that the proposed massing and built form would substantially overshadow the proposed plaza area and new public park which are identified as key public benefits of the proposal. This matter is discussed in further detail below.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

Council adopted its Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) on 17 March 2020. The LSPS draws together the priorities and actions for future land use planning from Council’s existing land use plans and policies and presents an overall land use vision for Ku-ring-gai.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following planning priorities of the LSPS:

· K1 Providing well planned and sustainable infrastructure to support growth and change

· K2 Collaborating with State Government Agencies and the community to deliver infrastructure projects

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

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

· K5 Providing affordable housing that retains and strengthens the local residential and business community

· K6 Revitalising and growing a network of centres that offer unique character and lifestyle for local residents

· K10 Promoting Turramurra as a family focussed urban village

· K17 Providing a broad range of open spaces, sporting and leisure facilities to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs

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

· K22 Providing improved and expanded district and regional connection through a range of integrated transport and infrastructure to enable effective movement to, from and within Ku-ring-gai

· K23 Providing safe and convenient walking and cycling networks within Ku-ring-gai

· K25 Providing for the retail and commercial needs of the local community within Ku-ring-gai’s centres

· K26 Fostering a strong local economy that provided future employment opportunities for both residents and workers within key industries

· K27 Ensuring the provision of sufficient open space to meet the need of a growing and changing community

· K34 Improving connections with natural areas including river and creek corridors, bushland reserves and National Parks

However, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the following planning priorities:

· K7 Facilitating mixed-use developments within centres that achieve design excellence

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

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

· K32 Protecting and improving Green Grid connections

· K40 Increasing urban tree canopy and water in the landscape to mitigate the urban heat island effect and create greener, cooler places

These matters are discussed in further detail below.

The LSPS identifies the Planning Priority for Turramurra as K10 - Promoting Turramurra as a family-focused urban village. The priority is intended to support the growth and revitalisation of Turramurra Local Centre as a community hub for local residents living in the north of Ku-ring-gai. Turramurra is to become a well-connected and attractive place to live, work and shop. The centre’s village atmosphere will be enhanced through the provision of new parks and public spaces, as well as a new library and community centre, where local families can meet and spend leisure time.

A key principle for the Centre (relevant to the subject Planning Proposal) is to “Retain the low scale, fine grained character of the main street shops on the Pacific Highway and Rohini Street and to “encourage infill developments with fine grained commercial and retail street frontages.”

Further it identifies the priority for development as shown in Image 9 below:

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Image 9 – Local Centre consolidation priority (Source: LSPS)

The LSPS therefore clearly identifies the need to consolidate the Turramurra Local Centre on the northern side of the Pacific Highway by prioritising expansion of uses in this location. It is therefore considered that the highest density of development should be located in this area with adjacent developments being of a lower scale and intensity. This is inconsistent with the Planning Proposal which seeks to rezone land to the south of the Pacific Highway to a height and FSR significantly greater than allowed to the north of the Highway.

The Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (refer Image 10 below) identifies the site as suitable for mixed use development with a key landmark site identified in the centre of the site frontage to the north adjacent to the bend in the Highway . A new road is also identified connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street. The Planning Proposal is generally considered to be consistent with the Structure Plan however the proposal does not recognise the priority for development to the north of the Highway as outlined above. Further the reference scheme provides for two landmark towers (equal height) which is inconsistent with the identification of the key landmark in the central north of the site only. It is however noted that there is some inconsistency in Council documents as to where the landmark should be located with the DCP identifying it on the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway (refer below for further discussion).

Image 10– Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (Source: LSPS)

Having regard to the above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is partly consistent with the LSPS as it provides for the redevelopment of a significant site within the Local Centre however the scale proposed is inconsistent with the priorities identified for the Turramurra Local Centre.

Local Housing Strategy

The revised Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036 was adopted by Council in December 2020. The purpose of the Strategy is to identify how Council intends to response to the Greater Sydney Region Plan and District Plan and how it plans to deliver on housing targets. The Strategy identities that the District Plan sets a target of 4,000 new dwelling in Ku-ring-gai for the 5 year period from 2016 to 2021. It notes that more than half of the required housing supply quota has been met, with the remaining amount fully deliverable through current development approvals and existing capacity within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plans. It further states that “this means that the 0 - 5 year housing supply target of 4,000 dwellings is achievable under Council’s existing planning policies and no amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan is necessary”. It goes on to state:

The Greater Sydney Commission ‘Letter of Support’ issued March 2020 for the Ku-ring-gai LSPS outlined that the Housing Strategy is to show how Ku-ring-gai can meet an indicative draft range of 3,000 – 3,600 dwellings for the 6-10 year housing target. Correspondence from the Minister of Planning dated 8 September 2020 states ‘Ultimately, Council is responsible for deciding the number of dwellings in its local housing supply target’ and ‘the target discussed with the Greater Sydney Commission is not a legal requirement upon Council by the Government.’

Ultimately the Housing Strategy then proposes to achieve an increase in dwellings within the LGA to meet demand, as required by the Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan, through existing residual capacity supplemented by seniors housing and alternative dwellings where permissible. Council has not identified land for development uplift and does not consider this necessary to meet its dwelling target obligations.

Accordingly, the subject Planning Proposal which seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site to create additional capacity is inconsistent with the Housing Strategy which adopts a status quo approach.

Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy – Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021 – 26)

The Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) was prepared to support the Draft Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036. This Draft Strategy which proposed significant development uplift to meet State government housing targets was ultimately amended by Council prior to adoption as outlined above. The revised Strategy provides for additional housing capacity within the existing capacity allowable under KLEP 2015. Accordingly, it is understood that the Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) is no longer a relevant consideration and does not form part of the strategic context within which the subject Planning Proposal is to be assessed.

Notwithstanding it is noted that the Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) included a Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan which provided three growth scenarios for the centre exploring different building heights, typologies and extents of intensification as follows:

· Scenario 1 (“minimise height – maximise spread”) - proposes to minimise building heights across the centre by spreading new housing where constraints allow;

· Scenario 2 (“balanced option”) proposes an approach between the two extremes represented by Scenarios 1 & 3; and

· Scenario 3 (“maximise heights – minimise spread”) proposes to concentrate new dwellings as much as possible around the train station and main roads and seeks to minimise the spread of new housing into existing residential areas.

Scenario 3 provided for the subject land to be an Investigation Area: Mixed Use site with a potential height of 10-15 storeys. Land to the north of the Highway and adjacent to the railway station was similarly identified.

It is assumed that the Proponent’s proposed height of 15 storeys reflects the maximum potential height identified in this document. However, for clarity it should be noted that the Plan has no status and is not a current strategic document that can be relied upon for the purposes of the subject assessment.

Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

The Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy was received and noted by Council in December 2020. The Strategy notes that the population of Ku-ring-gai is estimated to increase to 154,500 by 2036 which will result in demand for an additional 37,100 sqm of retail floorspace. Further it notes an existing undersupply of 35,000 sqm or retail floor space potentially increasing to 58,000 sqm. The undersupply is noted to be mainly due to the undersupply of supermarkets, and lack of regional and sub-regional shopping centres in the LGA. The Planning Proposal provides for an additional 6,210m² of retail floor space including a new supermarket (as detailed in the reference scheme) which is consistent with the Strategy and which would assist to meet the existing and future retail demand in the LGA.

The Strategy identifies Gordon as the LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). However, the proposed 50m height limit exceeds the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m) which is intended to be the major centre for the LGA going forward. Further the maximum permitted height allowed in the other primary local centres is 32.5m (approximately 9 storeys) as amended by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal (Amendment 28 to KLEP 2015 made on 22 March 2022). Additionally, Clause 4.3 Height of buildings of KLEP 2015 includes the following objective:

(a) to ensure that the height of buildings is appropriate for the scale of the different centres within the hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai centres,

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed height is inconsistent with the scale of development envisaged under the Ku-ring-gai centres hierarchy and is also inconsistent with a key objective of the Height of buildings development control under KLEP 2015.

While it is noted that the Centres Strategy recommends that Council investigate increases in FSR and Building Heights within the B2 Local Centre zones to assist in meeting housing targets and to increase the viability of development, best practice planning dictates that this should be undertaken in response to site circumstances and opportunities and constraints. As currently proposed it is considered that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the site capability and position of Turramurra in the Centres hierarchy. Further the Strategy recommends that Council prioritise unlocking major developments of Gordon Centre and St Ives Shopping Centre. Accordingly, Turramurra is not identified as a major focus for development and is clearly lower in the Centre’s hierarchy than these centres.

The Strategy also includes specific recommendations and actions for each centre. For Turramurra it recommends:

· Improvement to the attractiveness of the retail offering

· Address the issues of deteriorating quality and escape expenditure

· Attract new retailers with diversified offering to capture escape expenditure.

Redevelopment of the subject site has the potential to be consistent with these recommendations however the Strategy goes on the identify key actions for the centre as:

· Provide orientation of mixed use towards the Turramurra Hub and away from the Highway

· Investigate opportunity for Council owned land in Gilroy Lane in conjunction with adjoining landowners to deliver a new and revitalised retail precinct

· Council to invest in infrastructure, streetscape, security and amenity.

In summary the recommendations include:

· Investigate increases of FSR within the B2 Local Centre zone to facilitate redevelopment of sites

· Investigate 9.5m Height of Building Control on Rohini Street, Turramurra to facilitate additional development

· Gilroy road prime for café/retail space - planning controls are restrictive

· Potential for outdoor cinema in summer in the new park to foster entertainment in centre

· IGA area - underdeveloped - restriction on commercial floorspace existing for adjoining corner site

· Hub area has restriction on commercial existing: Recommendation of deleting commercial restriction

· Encourage redevelopment of Pacific Highway shops northern side to face/activate the laneway to the north.

Accordingly, it is clear that the proposal is partly consistent with the Strategy as it would provide 6,210m² of additional retail floor space (including a new supermarket) which would assist to meet the existing and future shortfall. The Strategy recognises the need to potentially increase FSR’s in the Turramurra Local Centre (and in particularly on the subject site which includes the IGA) to facilitate the redevelopment of sites however is not clear on the scale of such an increase and further places the focus for development on land to the north of the Pacific Highway. This is particularly in relation to mixed use development and is consistent with the LSPS (refer above). In the context of this strategic framework the Planning Proposal proposed increase is considered to be excessive and unjustified.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site however is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development by virtue of its inconsistency with the Apartment Design Guide which underpins the SEPP. The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 9.1 Directions).

Strategic Merit Assessment Summary

In accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’, a Planning Proposal is deemed to have strategic merit if it:

· Gives effect to the relevant regional plan outside of the Greater Sydney Region, the relevant district plan within the Greater Sydney Region, and/or corridor/precinct plans applying to the site. This includes any draft regional, district or corridor/precinct plans released for public comment or a place strategy for a strategic precinct including any draft place strategy; or

· Demonstrates consistency with the relevant LSPS or strategy that has been endorsed by the Department or required as part of a regional or district plan; or

· Responds to a change in circumstances that has not been recognised by the existing planning framework

As outlined above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with some of the objectives, priorities and strategies of both the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan however not with others. Further while the Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad intent for Turramurra outlined in the LSPS and its supporting Centres Strategy, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Centres Hierarchy and the scale of development envisaged in the subject location in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy. Further the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Council’s adopted Housing Strategy. It is therefore considered that as currently proposed the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate strategic merit.

Site Specific Merit

The Planning Proposal seeks a substantial uplift in height (17.5 m to 50m) and FSR (2:1 to 4.2:1). While it is agreed that the site is suitable for redevelopment, and that some uplift is potentially justifiable, it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed height and FSR is appropriate having regard to the site’s strategic context (outlined above) and its site specific opportunities and constraints.

As part of this independent assessment Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was engaged to provide an urban design assessment of the proposal. Studio Zanardo’s advice is provided in full at Attachment A1. In summary it concludes that the Planning Proposal is not currently supportable from an urban design perspective. In addition to matters of detail with the Planning Proposal documentation, the urban design advice raises key concerns as follows:

· Zoning and Context

· Proposed Height of Buildings

· Proposed Floor Space Ratio

· Compliance with Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre

· Urban Design Considerations, and

· Compliance with the Apartment Design Guide

The advice provided by Studio Zanardo has informed the below assessment.

The following comments are made cognisant of the fact that 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 therefore needs to demonstrate that the proposed amendment itself is acceptable, with any future detailed design to be assessed at the later development application stage. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that a reference scheme has been put forward as part of the Planning Proposal to illustrate the potential future built form that could be permissible subject to approval of the LEP amendment. It is also noted that a DCP amendment is not proposed as part of the subject Planning Proposal. Assessment has therefore also been undertaken of compliance with the existing relevant DCP controls which apply to the site.

Height

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the permissible maximum height across the site from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys). As noted above the proposed height limit if agreed would be the greatest height limit allowed within any of the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres and would exceed the permissible height in Gordon, the LGA’s major centre, by some 11.5m or 4 storeys. Further the site would exceed the height for the second greatest height limit in the LGA local centres being the recently amended height of the Lindfield Village Hub site at a maximum of 34.5m (approx. 9 storey). Notably Lindfield is identified as being equivalent in the centres hierarchy to Turramurra similarly being a primary local centre. No convincing justification has been put forward that clearly justifies the proposed greater height limit on the subject site.

Studio Zanardo has provided advice that an alternative 34.5m (approx. 9 storey) height limit on the subject site as recently adopted for the Lindfield Village Hub site would allow for a compatible transition to surrounding 5 to 3 storey development (compared to 15 storeys). Further the advice indicates that Turramurra should not be taller than, or as tall as Gordon. This is illustrated in Image 11 below extracted from the Urban Design Report submitted with the Planning proposal by DKO Architecture.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Image 11 Local Centres Extents Diagram – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the height on the site to result in a convex local centre profile as shown in Image 12 below. This approach relies on adjacent sites also achieving an increase in height as shown dotted however this is not currently proposed. If this were not to occur an abrupt transition would result from 15 storeys to the existing allowable 5 storeys. No clear rationale is provided as to why the subject site has been selected as the ultimate highpoint in the centre particularly in light of Council’s articulated strategy, outlined in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy, that the priority and focus for the most intense development in the Turramurra Local Centre is to be to the north of the Pacific Highway and adjacent to the railway station.

Image 12 Proposed Turramurra Skyline – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

In addition to the lack of justification for the proposed height limit, it is also noted that the reference scheme submitted with the application fails to demonstrate that a scheme of this scale can readily be accommodated on site without resulting in unreasonable environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for the public domain, neighbouring properties and the proposed residential apartments. Notably the reference scheme results in:

· significant visual bulk and scale with the proposal reading as one large imposing building with:

o large floor plate towers

o no podium separation

o inadequate tower separation and variation in building height to ameliorate massing and view / visual impact and / or provide a single landmark building, and

o inadequate separation to Stonex Lane and sites to the west etc.

· significant overshadowing of the proposed new public park and through site link and plaza area with (most significantly) the plaza being entirely in shadow between 9am and 3pm in midwinter

· an inadequate number of the proposed units achieving the minimum 2 hours of sunlight to living rooms and principal private open space between 9am and 3pm in midwinter as required by the ADG

· a significant number of apartments with no direct sun to living rooms and principal private open space between 9am and 3pm in midwinter, and

· overshadowing of units within the adjacent RFB at 5 Kissing Point Road.

Floor Space Ratio

In terms of FSR a maximum FSR of 4.2:1 is proposed across the site where a maximum FSR of 2:1 currently applies. An estimated gross floor area of approximately 34,822m² (equating to an FSR of 4.1:1) has been calculated given the proposed land use mix illustrated in the reference scheme, as follows:

· GFA Residential = 24,869 m²

· GFA Retail = 6,210 m²

· GFA Commercial = 3,743m²

· Total = 34,822m2 / site area approx. 8,485m2 = approx. FSR 4.1:1

The Proponent appears to have ‘rounded up’ from the reference scheme in seeking a maximum FSR of 4.2:1.

Consistent with the discussion above in relation to height, the proposed FSR would be significantly greater than any other site within the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres including Gordon (at max. FSR 3.5:1) which is identified as the major centre. Further the reference scheme does not demonstrate that a scheme of this scale can be readily accommodated on site without resulting in adverse environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for both the public domain and the proposed residential apartments.

Studio Zanardo has advised that from an urban design perspective the maximum height and FSR permissible on the subject site should be equivalent to the maximum allowable in Lindfield which is the equivalent local centre in the centres hierarchy. In terms of height this equates to approximately 9 storeys and in FSR terms between 2:1 and 3:1 noting that the tallest site of the Lindfield Village Hub is mapped at an FSR of 2.31:1. The advice suggests that:

… the maximum floor space should be set as result of a revised reference scheme, which given a lower maximum building height, will likely be in the same range as those in Lindfield. Such a floor space ratio would be considered to have recent precedent within the Ku-ring-gai LGA, and recognise the strategic potential of the site for greater density, however is still capable of aligning with the relevant KLEP 2015 maximum floor space ratio development standard objectives to ‘enable development with a built form and density that is compatible with the size of the land to be developed, its environmental constraints and its contextual relationship’ and to ‘ ensure that development density is appropriate for the scale of the difference centres within Ku-ring-gai’.

The Planning Proposal also seeks to require a minimum commercial floor space of 1.0:1 where at present a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 applies to commercial development. It is considered that were the Planning Proposal to be supported a minimum commercial FSR would be appropriate but that the minimum should be established based on the reference scheme. The submitted reference scheme provides for 9,953m² GFA of retail and commercial uses. This would equate to an FSR of approximately 1.2:1. Setting the minimum commercial floor space at this level would avoid pressure for floor space which is justified as retail / commercial under a reference scheme to later be replaced at DA stage with residential floor space which potentially has poor amenity.

Compliance with Ku-ring-gai DCP

Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre applies to the subject site noting that the Planning Proposal does not seek to amend the DCP provisions. The site is located within Precinct T3 under the DCP (refer Image 13 below) where pedestrian through site links and road dedications and upgrades are required.

Image 13 Turramurra Local Centre Precinct Plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

The reference scheme appears to be generally in accordance with the DCP provisions providing for the required through site links, pedestrian and road upgrades and dedications, new park and new Stonex Drive. However, the proposed design of the new Stonex Drive does not comply with the DCP requirement of 15m width with two-way traffic, on street parking (one side) and footpaths both sides. Other inconsistencies with the DCP include:

· Land dedication – does not appear consistent – to be confirmed

· Rear alignment of Stonex Drive inconsistent

· Location of two landmark buildings equal height on site (Note: DCP provides for one landmark building only on the corner or Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway – refer Image 14 below)

· Proposal does not provide for public domain areas which are ‘an ideal location for outdoor dining and cafes overlooking the forest (KDCP 14B,10(1)(iv) given that the plaza area will be fully in shadow throughout the day in mid-winter

· Proposal is not consistent with KDCP 14B.5 Objective 4 which is to ‘encourage new infill development along the Pacific Highway which respects the existing characteristics of the street including finer-grained character of the original subdivision, setback, height and rhythm of facades and is sympathetic to the materials and detailing of the earlier facades.

· Proposal is not consistent with KDCP 8C.9.4 for the continuous length of the residential component of a building any elevation not to exceed 36m.

Image 14 Precinct T3 Built form plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

Image 15 Precinct T3 Key Community Infrastructure plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

In relation to the location of the landmark building, Studio Zanardo has advised that the built form should emphasise the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway with potentially a 9 storey building in this location with a second tower to the north west having a lower form of potentially 7 storeys. This variation in height would serve to accentuate the fall in the land along the Pacific Highway and would also relieve the monotony of the same tower heights on the skyline, particularly if the sites to the north west on the opposite side of Stonex Lane were to be redeveloped in a similar manner. A further transition to 5 storeys and then down to neighbouring residential development at 2-3 storeys is also identified as appropriate. This approach would also be consistent with the stated strategic intent that the most intense form of development in the Centre would be to the north of the Highway and adjacent to the Railway Station potentially at a height of 9 storeys across a greater portion of the development sites.

Compliance with Apartment Design Guide

An assessment of the reference scheme undertaken by Studio Zanardo has concluded that although the documentation claims that 195 of 248 apartments (79%) comply with the ADG minimum 2 hours of solar access requirement only 112 of 248 apartments (45%) appear to be capable of receiving the required 2 hours to living rooms and private open space between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. This does not meet the required 70%. Similarly, the number of units stated as having no solar access is 42 of 248 apartments (17%) where the ADG allows for a maximum of 15%. However, the Studio Zanardo assessment concludes that 116 of 248 (47%) units will receive no solar access (calculated to both living rooms and private open spaces). Further the minimum solar access required to be maintained to adjacent development (5 Kissing Point Road) similarly does not appear to comply.

Setbacks to Stonex Lane do not comply with the ADG separation distances to ensure visual privacy to both the development and any future adjacent development. Concern has also been raised regarding the potential for compliance with ADG natural ventilation requirements given the frontage of many units to the Pacific Highway and the associated noise.

Specialist referrals

Specialist referrals have been received from Council offficers in relation to heritage, biodiversity and traffic. These referrals indicate that the proposal is satisfactory although the traffic advice confirms that there is a need for further consultation with TfNSW in relation to traffic arrangements and land dedications. These matters could readily be addressed at a later stage of the process.

Miscellaneous Issues

A number of further issues have been identified with the proposal which are not considered to be determinative, but which would need to be rectified if the Planning Proposal was recommended for a Gateway Determination. These matters include:

· Site definition and area

· Required land dedications

· Variety of architectural expression

· Consideration of the remainder of the T3 Precinct as part of the Planning Proposal

· Need for views from the sun analysis

· Access arrangement from / to Kissing Point Road

· Tree planting, canopy coverage and deep soil areas

· View analysis, and

· Tree survey.

Site Specific Merit Assessment Summary

In accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’, a Planning Proposal is deemed to have site specific merit if it demonstrates that the proposal is suitable for the site and the site is (or can be made) suitable for the resultant development. It is to be assessed against the following criteria:

Does the proposal give regard and assess impacts to:

· the natural environment on the site to which the proposal relates and other affected land (including known significant environmental areas, resources or hazards)

· existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of land in the vicinity of the land to which the proposal relates

· services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision:

As outlined above it is considered that the documentation submitted does not demonstrate that the site is suitable for the Planning Proposal proposed controls as the reference scheme submitted with the Planning Proposal will result in significant adverse impacts and does not demonstrate that it is able to comply with relevant controls and/or achieve a high quality, high amenity development. Accordingly, it is considered that as currently proposed the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate site specific merit.

KU-RING-GAI LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

As noted above, the matter was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice on 5 December 2022 as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The report to the KLPP recommended as follows:

Having regard to the above assessment it is recommended that the Ku-ring-Gai Local Planning Panel advise Council that:

1. it does not support the Planning Proposal and therefore recommends that Council does not submit the matter to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination

2. the Proponent should be advised that it is considered that the site does not meet the strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as:

a. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-Ring-Gai centres hierarchy

b. the proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment, adjacent development and the surrounding context and does not provide for a high quality development on site, and

c. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the site location which is outside of the core redevelopment priority sites of the Turramurra local centre (to the north of the Highway) and which is where the most intense development in the centre is appropriately located.

3. It should advise the Proponent however that it considers that the site has the potential to demonstrate strategic and site specific merit, that could warrant amendment to the existing planning controls. It should therefore invite the Proponent to withdraw the subject application and continue to work with Council officers to identify an appropriate scale and massing for future development on site that is consistent with the centres hierarchy and site specific considerations with a view to resubmitting a revised proposal for assessment.

A copy of the KLPP’s meeting minutes is provide at Attachment A14. It should be noted that post finalisation of the report to the KLPP the Proponent submitted an additional reference scheme for its consideration which was intended to respond to the matters raised in the assessment report and to advise the KLPP that the Proponent sought to continue to work with Council officers and the independent consultants to resolve the matter raised. The Proponent also requested that the KLPP defer its consideration of the matter until this further collaboration had been undertaken. A copy of the revised submission is provided at Attachment A15 although for clarity it should be noted that this is not the subject of this assessment report.

The KLPP considered the Proponent’s request however decided not to defer the matter. Verbal advice provided to the Panel at the meeting by the independent consultants indicated that the revised scheme submitted did not adequately address the fundamental issues raised in respect of the Planning Proposal.

Following consideration of the Planning Proposal the KLPP made the following recommendations to Council (as outlined at Attachment A14):

A. The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal not be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

B. The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that any additional development yield on this site needs to be considered in a strategic context having regard to the hierarchy for centres in the Local Strategic Planning Statement and KLEP 2015, as any up lift (including, but not limited to, height, form and FSR) on a specific site may have implications on Council’s current strategies.

Accordingly, the KLPP agreed that the Planning Proposal should not be submitted for a Gateway determination and recommended to Council that any additional yield on site should be considered in a strategic context noting that any uplift may have implications for Council’s current strategies. Notably it did not adopt draft recommendations 2 and 3 as outlined above.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

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

Governance Matters

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

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 make a request to 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 it is forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The matter has been referred to the KLPP as outlined above and the Panel’s advice is considered herein.

Risk Management

This is a Planning Proposal initiated by a private landowner however affects land owned by Council and accordingly has been assessed by an independent planner. Council should, to determine its position on the matter, specifically consider whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination having regard to the Local Planning Panel’s advice and decide whether to 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 Fees and Charges Schedule. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal is considered to have positive social benefits including the delivery of a new public park, land dedications, pedestrian footpath and road upgrades, new roadway and additional housing choice.

Environmental Considerations

The potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment and it has been determined that the Planning Proposal should not be supported as it would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts of any specific development that may occur on the site as a result of the proposal would be considered in detail at the development application stage.

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is forwarded for a Gateway Determination, contrary to the recommendation in this report (and the advice of the KLPP) and granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Department of Planning and Environment’s publication ‘A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’.

The public exhibition would also be in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan 2020.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers. Further Council officers attended the site inspection with the independent planning and urban design consultants to provide a briefing.

Summary

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct an independent assessment of this Planning Proposal. Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was also engaged to provide an independent urban design advice. Assessment of traffic and transport, heritage and biodiversity issues have been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers respectively.

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for the Turramurra Plaza site (and adjacent land) which seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1

· Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)), and

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the subject site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015.

The subject assessment concludes that the Planning Proposal is not supported as it does not meet the established strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as:

a. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-Ring-Gai centres hierarchy

b. the proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment, adjacent development and the surrounding context and does not provide for a high quality development on site, and

c. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the site location which is outside of the core redevelopment priority sites of the Turramurra local centre (to the north of the Highway) and which is where the most intense development in the centre is appropriately located.

Further the KLPP has provided advice to Council recommending that the Planning Proposal not be submitted to the Minister for a Gateway Determination.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Accordingly, it is considered that the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate sufficient merit to enable the Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Minister for a Gateway Determination.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Ku-ring-gai Council:

A. note the advice of the KLPP in respect of the subject Planning Proposal

B. resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

C. advise the Proponent accordingly.

Helena Miller

Director, MG Planning Pty Ltd

Attachments:	A1⇩	Urban Design Review Prepared by Studio Zanardo - 16 October 2022		2022/348192
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal Prepared by Mecone (April 2022)		2022/345261
	A3	Appendix 1 - Urban Design Study	Excluded	2022/345265
	A4	Appendix 2 - Transport Impact Assessment	Excluded	2022/345266
	A5	Appendix 3 - Survey Plan	Excluded	2022/345268
	A6	Appendix 4 - Prelininary Need and Impact Assessment (Economic)	Excluded	2022/345274
	A7	Appendix 5 - Phase 1 Preliminary Investigation (Contamination)	Excluded	2022/345290
	A8	Appendix 6 - Arborist Report	Excluded	2022/345295
	A9	Appendix 7 - Bushfire Advice	Excluded	2022/345298
	A10	Appendix 8 - Statement of Heritage Impact	Excluded	2022/345299
	A11	Appendix 9 - Flora and Fauna Report	Excluded	2022/345302
	A12	Appendix 10 - Community Engagement Report	Excluded	2022/345312
	A13	Appendix 11- Letter of Process (Local Infrastructure Delivery and Council's Car Park)	Excluded	2022/345314
	A14 ⇩	KLPP Meeting Minutes 5 December 2022		2022/383392
	A15	Planning Proposal amendments submitted by Mecone post KLPP Report finalisation (1 Decemebr 2022) - Note: not assessed	Excluded	2022/383449

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.12 / 1

Item GB.12	S12249

Draft Pymble Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report the Pymble Public Domain Plan to Council for adoption.

background:	The Pymble Public Domain Plan (Pymble PDP) was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 10 October to 7 November 2022. Following exhibition, a revised draft of the Pymble PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved: “That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.” At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

comments:	Exhibition of the Pymble PDP was hosted on Council’s website which received 1,786 page views from 1074 unique visitors with 1,349 document downloads. A total of 40 people made submissions, 30 of these via Council’s Engagement Hub and the remaining via direct email. As a result of submissions two minor amendments have been made to address issues raised.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the draft Pymble Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

Purpose of Report

To report the Pymble Public Domain Plan to Council for adoption.

Background

The Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) has progressively been reported to Council since December 2020, a summary of the process is set out below:

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan	Document version	Meeting	Decision	Reason
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Drafts for exhibition	OMC December 2020	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post-exhibition	OMC June 2021	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- Turramurra PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post site inspection	OMC March 2022	Adopted as final
- Gordon PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC April 2022	Adopted as final
- Lindfield PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC July 2022	Adopted as final
- St Ives PDP	Draft for exhibition	May 2022	Adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Roseville PDP	Draft for exhibition	July 2022	Adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Pymble PDP	Draft for exhibition	September 2022	Adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- St Ives PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Roseville PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Pymble PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- St Ives PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Roseville PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Pymble PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending

Comments

A copy of the Pymble PDP is provided in Attachment A1.

The Pymble PDP provides concept plans for the Pymble 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 Pymble PDP was on public exhibition between 10 October 2022 and 7 November 2022. Submissions were received through Council’s Your Say webpage (30 submissions) or through direct email (10 submissions). The number of submissions received totalled 40. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2. Details of the community consultation process are provided in the Community Consultation section of this report.

Key issues raised in the submissions received during the public exhibition included car parking, the separated cycleway, requests for traffic calming and comments regarding tree planting.

Car parking

The Pymble PDP keeps the loss of car parking to a minimum within the commercial precinct. One carpark space will be removed to install a kerb ramp associated with a new pedestrian refuge at the northern end of Grandview Street. The creation of new outdoor dining areas along Grandview Street will not require the removal of car parking spaces. Due to the existing generous road reserve width, the kerb can be realigned to create a five-metre-wide footpath, providing ample space for outdoor dining without compromising pedestrian movement through the space. The planned redevelopment of the Grandview Lane car park will create an additional 25 car parking spaces. Overall, the plan proposes a net increase of 24 spaces.

Car parking vs separated cycleway

Concerns were raised regarding the loss of on-street parking spaces at the south-eastern end of Grandview Street because of a proposed separated cycleway. The separated cycleway is a long-term proposal that will form part of a greater cycle link that follows the train line from Hornsby to Chatswood. Various constraints (such provision of a safe crossing over Mona Vale Road) will have to be resolved to enable the link to be completed. It is envisaged that the Grandview Street cycleway could only be installed once the greater cycling network throughout Ku-ring-gai is more established, this is not anticipated within the next 5-10 years.

Safe separated cycleways provide an alternative option to car travel to residents for short distances to local centres and encourages those that are reluctant to ride due to a lack of safe and connected bicycle routes. Bicycle (active transport) networks benefit the environment and personal health and reduces the demand for car parking in the local centres. The ultimate plan is to have an interconnected bicycle network through the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

Traffic calming

Submissions requesting additional traffic calming measures have led to an amendment to the exhibited draft Pymble PDP. A wider pedestrian refuge island is proposed at the intersection of Station and Grandview Streets to make conditions safer for pedestrians. A review of pedestrian counts for this intersection indicates that a raised pedestrian crossing to this location is warranted to improve pedestrian safety.

Slowing traffic to improve pedestrian and driver safety is one of the objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan, including Pymble. Narrowing the carriageway, introducing kerb extensions (blisters) and new raised pedestrian crossings at Alma Street, Grandview Street, Avon Road, Everton Street and Station Street all work to reduce traffic speeds by design and improve pedestrian access around the local centre.

Tree planting

Comments relating to tree planting were mostly supportive of additional tree planting in the local centre. All trees are valuable in our environment, however native trees are best suited to our environmental conditions. Native trees provide shade, mitigate urban heat island effects, improve visual amenity and are important components of the Ku‑ring‑gai environment that is highly valued by residents. Refer to Environmental Considerations of this report for additional information regarding tree retention and planting.

Given the base information that has informed the Pymble PDP, the draft plan has largely remained as exhibited, with the following exceptions, listed in Table 1 – Amendments to the exhibited Pymble

Public Domain Plan.

Table 1 – Amendments to the exhibited Pymble Public Domain Plan

Summary of key submission comments requiring amendments	Response	Proposed amendment
Grandview Street, between Station Street and Wellesley Road should be designated a ‘Character Street’.	Noted. It is acknowledged that the northern side of Grandview Street forms part of a Heritage Conservation Area. Designating the northern side of the street as a ‘Character Street’ is supported.	Amend the Pymble Public Domain Plan to show the northern side of Grandview Street as a ‘Character Street’.
A raised pedestrian crossing is needed at Station Street where it intersects with Grandview Street.	A review of pedestrian counts for this intersection indicates that a raised pedestrian crossing to this location is warranted to improve pedestrian safety. A wider pedestrian refuge island is proposed to this location to make conditions safer for pedestrians.	Amend the Pymble Public Domain Plan to include a raised pedestrian crossing at this location.

Figure 1: Artist Impression – corner Grandview Street and Alma Street

The Pymble PDP proposes upgrades to local centre streets with new paving, additional tree planting, increased outdoor dining opportunities, new urban park and upgrades to existing parks, improved bicycle and pedestrian connections, underground powerlines and new street lighting.

The delivery of the public domain renewal projects will be led by Council and largely funded through development contributions. Funding is currently available for some projects identified in the Pymble PDP, 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 rely on redevelopment of adjoining sites with works completed 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. Improvement works to Grandview Street, between Pacific Highway and Station Street are programmed for delivery within the next five years. Upgrade works to Robert Pymble Park commenced in September 2022.

It must be noted that the plans presented in the Pymble PDP 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.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Focus area P4: Revitalising our centres

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.

P4.1.1.3: Actively engage with residents, key agencies, landholders, businesses and other stakeholders to assist with the delivery of the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.5: Prepare streetscape and park concept plans for identified precincts in St Ives, Pymble and Roseville local centres consistent with the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.7: 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

· Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Public Domain Plan 2010

· Access and Disability Inclusion Plan 2020 -2024

· Ku-ring-gai Council Climate Change Policy 2020 and

· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 1, Volume 2 and Volume 3.

Risk Management

One risk to the delivery of public domain improvements is the slowing of Development Contributions, and funding that may fall short of the cost of the proposed works in the Pymble PDP. 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 Pymble PDP rely upon redevelopment to deliver outcomes shown in the Plan. The Pymble PDP 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 Ku-ring-gai DCP.

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 2022-2025.

Local Centre Streetscape Improvements Program
	Location	Proposed works	funds (S 7.11)	Commence construction
Pymble	Robert Pymble Park	Upgrade of existing park Including new playground	Approx. $5.6M	Staged works commencing 2022 to 2025
	Grandview Street, Station Street, Alma Street, Post Office Street, Post Office Lane	Streetscape works, road modifications, new tree planting, underground power lines	Approx. $9.6M	2026
	Corner of Livingstone Ave and Everton Street	New local park	TBC	TBC

Consultant quantity surveyors will prepare preliminary cost plans of all the works proposed in the Pymble PDP, 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 costings will also guide the staging of the public domain works, ensuring the scope of the proposed streetscape works is consistent with the available budget.

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. Upgraded pedestrian movement corridors and crossing points will improve safety in the local centres.

Improved street environments and enabling increased outdoor dining will encourage residents and visitors to interact and linger around the retail core and eateries, on any day and night, activating the centres.

Improved links between the retail centre and the residential areas will improve social connections and community health.

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

Community consultation was undertaken through the public exhibition of the draft Pymble Public Domain Plan. The exhibition occurred between Monday, 10 October and Monday, 7 November 2022. The documents were hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website and the exhibition was promoted via:

· Ku-ring-gai E-news (Approx 14,000 Subscribers)

· Your Say Pymble and West Pymble E-news (169 subscribers)

· Council’s website

· Letterbox drop (300 metres)

· Council’s facebook

As a result, the Engagement Hub webpage received 1,786 page views from 1074 unique visitors with 1,349 document downloads.

Submissions were received through Council’s Your Say webpage (30 submissions) or through direct email (10 submissions). The number of submissions received totalled 40. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2.

The draft St Ives PDP was sent to government agencies and authorities including:

· Transport for NSW

· Transdev and Forest Coach Lines (operators of bus services on behalf of Transport for NSW)

· Ambulance NSW

· Northern Sydney Local Health District

· Ausgrid

· NSW Taxi Council

· Ku-ring-gai Chamber of Commerce

· NSW Fire Service

· NSW Member for Davidson

· NSW Police

· Bike North

Comments were received from Transport for NSW, Ausgrid and Northern Sydney Local Health District. From the comments received from authorities no amendments to the Plan were made.

Internal Consultation

Preliminary staff workshops were held, and comments have been accommodated in the draft document. During the exhibition period the Pymble PDP was distributed to the staff teams of Development and Regulation, Operations, Strategy and Environment for comment. Further workshops and presentations of the plan will be held if requested.

Summary

The Pymble PDP was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 10 October to 7 November 2022.

The documents were hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website which received 1,786 page views from 1074 unique visitors with 1,349 document downloads. A total of 40 people made submissions, 30 through Council’s Engagement Hub and 10 through direct email to Council.

Minor amendments have been made to the draft plan in response to comments received.

Following exhibition, a revised draft Pymble PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved to defer the matter for an inspection of the subject site.

At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the draft Pymble Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

William Adames

Community & Business Engagement Co-ordinator

Attachments:	A1⇩	Ku-ring-gai Local Centre Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 - Pymble		2022/347059
	A2⇩	Submission Summary Table - Pymble Draft Public Domain Plan Public Exhibition - November 2022		2022/352660

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.13 / 1

Item GB.13	S12249

Draft Roseville Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report the Roseville PDP to Council for adoption.

background:	The Roseville PDP (Pymble PDP) was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 15 August 2022 to 12 September 2022. Following exhibition, a revised draft of the Roseville PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved: “That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.” At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

comments:	Exhibition of the Roseville PDP was hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website which received 2,728 page views from 1,435 unique visitors with 2,392 document downloads. A total of 23 people made submissions, including 21 via Council’s Engagement Hub and the remaining via direct email. Minor amendments have been made to the draft plan in response to comments received.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the Roseville PDP as attached to this report.

Purpose of Report

To report the Roseville PDP to Council for adoption.

Background

The Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) has been progressively reported to Council since December 2020, a summary of the process is set out below:

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan	Document version	Meeting	Decision	Comments
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Drafts for exhibition	OMC December 2020	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post-exhibition	OMC June 2021	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- Turramurra PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post site inspection	OMC March 2022	Adopted as final
- Gordon PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC April 2022	Adopted as final
- Lindfield PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC July 2022	Adopted as final
- St Ives PDP	Draft for exhibition	May 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Roseville PDP	Draft for exhibition	July 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Pymble PDP	Draft for exhibition	September 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- St Ives PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Roseville PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Pymble PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- St Ives PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Roseville PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Pymble PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending

Comments

A copy of the Roseville PDP is provided in Attachment A1.

The Roseville PDP provides concept plans for the Roseville 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.

Figure 1: Artist Impression – corner Hill Street and Roseville Avenue

The Roseville PDP was on public exhibition between 15 August 2022 and 12 September 2022. A total of twenty-three submissions (23) were received including twenty-one (21) submissions received through Council’s Your Say webpage and two (2) submissions via direct email. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2. Details of the community consultation process are provided in the Community Consultation section of this report.

There are a broad range of issues raised in the public submissions and many supported the proposed upgrades described in the Roseville PDP.

Submissions raised concerns about loss of car parking in the local centre. Council understands the community’s concerns about the loss of car parking. Earlier in 2022, Council consulted with business owners on Hill Street, Roseville regarding a temporary installation that proposed the removal of a few carpark spaces, as reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 June 2022, GB19. The business owners and operators did not support the temporary proposal due to concerns about car parking loss. With this in mind, the Roseville PDP minimises the removal of car parking spaces. Car parking spaces are only removed if required for safety purposes or to meet the Standards regarding the introduction of pedestrian crossings. Additional car parking is proposed in the upgrade of the Larkin Lane car park however, this is dependent on land dedication that would only occur as part of any redevelopment of properties between Larkin Lane and Pacific Highway.

Another issue raised was the lack of public toilets in Roseville local centre. Toilets will be provided in the future as part of the redevelopment of the Roseville Lane/Lord Street carpark to become the Roseville Village Green.

Given the base information that has informed the Roseville PDP, the draft plan has remained as exhibited, with the following exceptions, listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Amendments to the exhibited Roseville PDP

Summary of key submission comments requiring amendments

Response

Proposed amendment

The layout of Hill Street is confusing where the large median opposite Bancroft Avenue splits the traffic lanes

The direction of traffic in this area is proposed to be changed to one-way northbound to the upper side of the median and one-way southbound to the lower side of the median.

The existing left turn only (buses excepted) from Bancroft Avenue to Hill Street will be retained. A marked bus only lane is shown to the lower section of Hill Street from Bancroft Avenue to reduce driver confusion.

Existing on-street parking will be retained in this area.

Amend the Roseville PDP to include explanatory text about the proposed traffic modifications to this area.

The Roseville PDP proposes upgrades to local centre streets with new paving, additional tree planting, increased outdoor dining opportunities, new urban park and upgrades to existing parks, improved bicycle and pedestrian connections, underground powerlines and new street lighting.

The delivery of the public domain renewal projects will be led by Council and largely funded through development contributions. Funding is currently available for some projects identified in the Roseville PDP, 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 rely on redevelopment of adjoining sites with works completed 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 Roseville programmed for delivery within the next five years include Hill Street, between Clanville Road and Victoria Street, and Roseville Memorial Park.

It must be noted that the plans presented in the Roseville PDP 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.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Focus area P4: Revitalising our centres

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.

P4.1.1.1: Implement the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan and Technical Manual and review and update as required.

P4.1.1.3: Actively engage with residents, key agencies, landholders, businesses and other stakeholders to assist with the delivery of the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.5: Prepare streetscape and park concept plans for identified precincts in St Ives, Pymble and Roseville local centres consistent with the Public Domain Plan.

P4.1.1.7: 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

· Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Public Domain Plan 2010

· Access and Disability Inclusion Plan 2020 -2024

· Ku-ring-gai Council Climate Change Policy 2020 and

· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 1, Volume 2 and Volume 3.

Risk Management

One risk to the delivery of public domain improvements is the slowing of development contributions resulting in a lack of funding to cover the costs of the proposed works in the Roseville PDP. 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 Roseville PDP rely upon redevelopment to deliver outcomes shown in the Plan. The Roseville PDP 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 Ku-ring-gai DCP.

Financial Considerations

Strategy and Environment staff have worked with the Finance and Operations Departments 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 2022-2025.

Local Centre Streetscape Improvements Program
Local Centre	Location	Proposed works	Funds (S 7.11)	Commence construction
Roseville	Roseville Memorial Park	Upgrade of existing park	Approximately $600K	2024
Roseville	Hill Street, between Clanville Road and Victoria Street	Streetscape works, road modifications, new tree planting, underground power lines	Approximately $7.5M	2029

Consultant quantity surveyors will prepare preliminary cost plans of all the works proposed in the Roseville PDP, 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 costings will also guide the staging of the public domain works, ensuring the scope of the proposed streetscape works is consistent with the available budget.

Social Considerations

Environmental Considerations

Community Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken through the public exhibition of the draft Roseville PDP which took place between 15 August and 12 September 2022. The documents were hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website and the exhibition was promoted via:

· Ku-ring-gai E-news (Approx. 14,000 subscribers)

· Direct email to local businesses

· Your Say Roseville and Roseville Chase E-news (138 subscribers)

· Council’s website

· Council’s Facebook page

As a result, the Engagement Hub webpage received 2,728 page views from 1,435 unique visitors with 2,392 document downloads. A total of 23 submissions were received.

Submissions were received through Council’s Your Say webpage (21 submissions) or through direct email (2 submissions). A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2.

The draft Roseville PDP was sent to the following government agencies and authorities:

· Transport for NSW;

· Transdev and Forest Coach Lines (operators of bus services on behalf of Transport for NSW);

· Ambulance NSW;

· Northern Sydney Local Health District;

· Ausgrid;

· NSW Taxi Council;

· Ku-ring-gai Chamber of Commerce;

· NSW Fire Service;

· NSW Member for Davidson;

· NSW Police; and

· Bike North.

Comments were received from Ausgrid only. No changes were made to the draft Roseville PDP as a result of the submission.

Internal Consultation

Preliminary staff workshops were held, and comments have been accommodated in the draft document. During the exhibition period the Roseville PDP was distributed to the staff teams of Development and Regulation, Operations, Strategy and Environment for comment. Further workshops and presentations of the plan will be held if requested.

Summary

The Roseville PDP was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks through August and September 2022. The documents were hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website which received 2,728 page views from 1,435 unique visitors with 2,392 document downloads. A total of 23 people made submissions, including 21 via Council’s Engagement Hub and the remaining via direct email. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2.

Minor amendments have been made to the draft plan in response to comments received.

Following exhibition, a revised Roseville PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved to defer the matter for an inspection of the subject site.

At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Roseville Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

William Adames

Community & Business Engagement Co-ordinator

Attachments:	A1⇩	Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan Volume 2 - Roseville - Final		2022/346234
	A2⇩	Submission Summary Table - Roseville Public Domain Plan Public Exhibition		2022/351436

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.14 / 1

Item GB.14	S12249

Draft St Ives Public Domain Plan - Post site inspection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report the St Ives PDP to Council for adoption.

background:	The St Ives PDP (St Ives PDP) was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 12 July 2022 and 15 August 2022. Following exhibition, a revised draft of the St Ives PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved: “That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.” At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

comments:	Exhibition of the St Ives PDP was hosted on Council’s website which received 8,327 page views from 4,256 unique visitors with 4,834 document downloads. A total of 105 submissions were received, including 81 via Council’s Engagement Hub and the remaining via direct email. As a result of submissions, several amendments have been made to address issues raised.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the draft St Ives PDP as attached to this report.

Purpose of Report

To report the St Ives PDP to Council for adoption.

Background

The Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (KPDP) has progressively been reported to Council since December 2020, a summary of the process is set out below:

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan	Document version	Meeting	Decision	Comments
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Drafts for exhibition	OMC December 2020	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Turramurra PDP - Gordon PDP - Lindfield PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post-exhibition	OMC June 2021	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- Turramurra PDP - Technical Manual	Revised drafts post site inspection	OMC March 2022	Adopted as final
- Gordon PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC April 2022	Adopted as final
- Lindfield PDP	Revised draft post site inspection	OMC July 2022	Adopted as final
- St Ives PDP	Draft for exhibition	May 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Roseville PDP	Draft for exhibition	July 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- Pymble PDP	Draft for exhibition	September 2022	adopted for public exhibition
EXHIBITION
- St Ives PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Roseville PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
- Pymble PDP	Revised draft post-exhibition	December 2022	Deferred	Deferred for inspection of the sites
SITE INSPECTIONS
- St Ives PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Roseville PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending
- Pymble PDP	Revised drafts post-site inspection	February 2023	Pending

Comments

A copy of the St Ives PDP is provided in Attachment A1.

The St Ives PDP provides concept plans for the St Ives 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 proposed traffic changes for the St Ives Local Centre align with Council’s endorsed traffic plan prepared in 2008 which was supported in principle by the then Roads and Maritime Services. A new transport study will be undertaken for St Ives Local Centre in 2023. It will inform any changes that may be required to the St Ives PDP at that time by testing the elements of the endorsed traffic plan and if required, recommend further modifications or new facilities. Any proposed changes to transport and traffic facilities until that time will be designed in conjunction with Transport for NSW, particularly regarding any works along Mona Vale Road and signalised intersections.

The St Ives PDP was on public exhibition between 12 July 2022 and 15 August 2022. Submissions were received through Council’s Your Say webpage (81 submissions) or through direct email (24 submissions). The number of submissions received totalled 105. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2. Details of the community consultation process are provided in the Community Consultation section of this report.

The St Ives PDP received the largest number of submissions of all the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan exhibitions. This is largely due to the announcement of the St Ives Shopping Village being listed for sale in the early days of the exhibition period which drew added interest in the St Ives PDP exhibition. Many community members mistakenly thought the sale of the privately owned shopping centre and the St Ives PDP were related. Many comments were received in relation to the sale of the shopping centre and redevelopment. It must be noted that the St Ives PDP relates to streetscapes and public spaces on publicly owned land. The St Ives PDP has no link to redevelopment of the shopping centre, nor can it control any proposed redevelopment of a private land holding.

Some of the comments received included:

“I love your plans. They will upgrade the area around the shops and make it a location to make a destination, a place to meet people and dwell for lunch, coffee, a picnic in the park”

“The plans are very exciting to see.”

“Yes! Finally! A plan to upgrade St Ives. Let's make our village and surrounding areas dynamic”

“Fantastic idea - cannot wait to see it finished. I believe St Ives has grown substantially over the last 10 years, with all the new apartments. I think the suburb desperately needs this upgrade, as does the shopping centre! I’m sure there will be a large amount of negativity, there always is. But please continue with the great job of bringing St Ives into the future!”

“The slowing of traffic and improved streetscape of Village Green Parade to allow for pedestrian and bicycles and promoting the street as a dining destination is a great idea.”

“The St Ives PDP released is a good step forward for improving the amenity of St Ives, especially for those outside of cars.”

Many submissions related to traffic issues. The St Ives PDP presented for public exhibition was based on the adopted Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Public Domain Plan, 2010 and Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 as well as previous traffic studies that underpin the current Local Environment Plan for Ku-ring-gai. Many of the proposed changes and upgrades to traffic facilities were part of the Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Public Domain Plan, 2020 that have been carried through to the draft St Ives PDP as they have long been the adopted position of Council. A new transport study will be undertaken in 2023 for the St Ives local centre. The key traffic issues raised in the submissions from the public exhibition will be tested in the new study. These include:

· Changing Rosedale Road between Mona Vale Road and Porters Lane to one-way southbound;

· Impacts the changes to Rosedale Road will have upon Shinfield Avenue;

· Current and future vehicular usage patterns on Shinfield Avenue;

· The proposed location of the signalised intersection outside the St Ives Shopping Village on Mona Vale Road;

· Changes to Killeaton Street at Link Road;

· The Killeaton Street and Cowan Road intersection;

· The Mona Vale Road and Cowan Road/Shinfield Avenue intersection; and

· The Mona Vale Road and Memorial Avenue/Rosedale Road intersection.

The new transport study may require changes to the St Ives PDP proposed traffic layouts. Should this be necessary, an amendment to the plan will be reported to Council with the proposed recommendations from the traffic study.

Given the base information that has informed the St Ives PDP, the draft plan has remained as exhibited, with the following exceptions, listed in Table 1 – Amendments to the exhibited St Ives PDP.

Table 1 – Amendments to the exhibited St Ives PDP

Summary of key submission comments requiring amendments	Response	Proposed amendment
Village Green Parade should remain two-way.	· Several respondents objected to Village Green Parade being one-way as they believed it would be one‑way the whole length of Village Green Parade. Submissions indicated this would make it harder to access St Ives Shopping Village from Memorial Avenue. The illustrative master plan shows Village Green Parade as one-way between Cowan Road and Denley Lane, and two-way between Memorial Avenue and Denley Lane. Access to St Ives Shopping Village would be retained from both Memorial Avenue and Cowan Road. · It is noted that this is consistent with the 2010 Town Centre Public Domain Plan and consistent with the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 - Urban Precincts and Sites	· Amend the St Ives PDP to clarify that Village Green Parade is proposed to be one‑way between Cowan Road and Denley Lane only. · Amend to show two-way movement at Cowan Road end. · The Village Green Parade will remain two-way between Memorial Avenue and Denley Lane.
A shared pedestrian / cycle path on Shinfield Avenue is not supported.	· The public domain seeks to improve access to the centre by bicycle, providing additional travel options for people within 5-10km to access schools, shops, workplaces, bus stops and community / recreation facilities rather than to drive. The width of the shared path can be reduced from 3m to 2.5m, which allows it to be better accommodated in the road reserve, with on-street parking retained on both sides towards the western end and generally where road space allows. Detailed design will consider effects around driveways.	· Amend the St Ives PDP to show 2.5m wide shared path on northern side (reduced from 3 metres).
The open space on Memorial Avenue near the bowling club could be improved.	· Improvement works to this area will be in accordance with the adopted St Ives Village Green Landscape Masterplan. · The Masterplan nominates this area for the staged removal of degraded existing species and replanting with Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest species to encourage understorey whilst maintaining open areas for safety and security. A 2m wide permeable path through the tree planting is proposed.	· The proposed improvement works shown on the St Ives Village Green Masterplan have been included in the St Ives PDP where appropriate.
A walking / cycle circuit path should be provided around St Ives Village Green.	· Improvement works to this area will be in accordance with the adopted St Ives Village Green Landscape Masterplan, which includes a shared pedestrian/cycle path system connecting all Village Green precincts.	· The proposed improvement works shown on the St Ives Village Green Masterplan have been included in the St Ives PDP where appropriate.
The vision for St Ives should refer to residents first and foremost, not short-term visitors.	· Noted.	· Amend the vision statement for the St Ives PDP to include residents.

Artist’s impression Mona Vale Road – south side retail strip

The St Ives PDP proposes upgrades to local centre streets with new paving, additional tree planting, increased outdoor dining opportunities, new urban park and upgrades to existing parks, new signalised intersections for improved safety, and improved bicycle and pedestrian connections, underground powerlines and new street lighting.

The delivery of the public domain renewal projects will be led by Council and largely funded through development contributions. Funding is currently available for some projects identified in the St Ives PDP 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 rely on redevelopment of adjoining sites with works completed 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 St Ives programmed for delivery within the next five years is the precinct bounded by Mona Vale Road, Stanley Street, Porters Lane and Memorial Avenue/Rosedale Road including Rotary Park, Memorial Park and the ‘Old School’ area on Stanley Lane.

It is noted that the plans presented in the St Ives PDP 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.

integrated planning and reporting

Focus area P4: Revitalising our centres

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 and shaded 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 progressively implemented and achieve quality design and sustainability outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

P4.1.1.1: Oversee and monitor the implementation of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan and Technical Manual, and review and update as required.

P4.1.1.5: Finalise Public Domain Plans for St Ives, Roseville, Lindfield and Pymble.

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

· 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

· Ku-ring-gai Council Climate Change Policy 2020 and

· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan, 2022 - Volume 1, Volume 2 and Volume 3.

Risk Management

One risk to the delivery of public domain improvements is the potential slowing of Development Contributions, and funding that may fall short of the cost of the proposed works in the St Ives PDP. 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 St Ives PDP rely upon redevelopment to deliver outcomes shown in the Plan. The St Ives PDP 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 Ku-ring-gai DCP.

Financial Considerations

Local Centre Streetscape Improvements Program
Local Centre	Location	Proposed works	LTFP funds (S 7.11)	Commence construction
St Ives	Bedes Forest Reserve corner Stanley Street and Yarrabung Avenue	Expansion and upgrade of existing park	Approximately $2.5M	2025
St Ives	Precinct bounded by Mona Vale Road, Stanley Street, Porters Lane and Memorial Avenue/Rosedale Road and including: - Rotary Park, Memorial Park - the ‘Old School’ area on Stanley Lane.	Streetscape works, park upgrades, new pedestrian precinct, road modifications	Approximately $10M	2027

Consultant quantity surveyors will prepare preliminary cost plans, of the proposed works to be undertaken in the St Ives PDP, 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 staging of the works will be prepared once a cost report has been completed by a quantity surveyor. This will ensure the scope of proposed streetscape works is consistent with the available budget.

Social Considerations

Improved public domain environments will encourage walking and cycling by residents that could potentially increase community physical and mental health and increase the chances of meeting and interacting with others in the community. Upgraded pedestrian movement corridors and crossing points will improve safety in the local centres.

Environmental Considerations

Additional tree planting will provide shade and add to the urban canopy of Ku-ring-gai. The shading from the trees will not only benefit users of the streets, but will cool the adjoining premises, potentially reducing cooling requirements and electrical bills.

Community Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken via public exhibition of the St Ives PDP which occurred between Monday 12 July and Monday 15 August 2022. The documents were hosted on Council’s Engagement Hub website and the exhibition was promoted via:

· Ku-ring-gai E-news (Approx. 14,000 Subscribers)

· Your Say St Ives E-news (200 subscribers)

· Council’s website

· Council’s Facebook

· Ku-ring-gai Post

The exhibition was also widely promoted on community Facebook pages and amongst community groups.

As a result, the Engagement Hub webpage received 8,327 page views from 4256 unique visitors with 4,834 document downloads.

Submissions were received through Council’s Your Say webpage (81 submissions) or through direct email (24 submissions). The number of submissions received totalled 105. A summary of the submissions and staff responses is provided with this report as Attachment A2.

The draft St Ives PDP was sent to government agencies and authorities including:

· Transport for NSW;

· Transdev and Forest Coach Lines (operators of bus services on behalf of Transport for NSW);

· Ambulance NSW;

· Northern Sydney Health District;

· Ausgrid;

· NSW Taxi Council;

· Ku-ring-gai Chamber of Commerce;

· NSW Fire Service;

· NSW Member for Davidson;

· NSW Police; and

· Bike North.

No comments were received from authorities that required changes to be made to the draft St Ives PDP.

St Ives Ward Councillors were briefed on the Plan on 29 April 2022.

Internal Consultation

Preliminary staff workshops were held, and comments have been accommodated in the draft document. During the exhibition period the St Ives PDP was distributed to the staff teams of Development and Regulation, Operations, Strategy and Environment for comment. Further workshops and presentations of the plan will be held if requested.

Summary

The St Ives PDP was publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 12 July 2022 and 15 August 2022.

The exhibition was hosted on Council’s website which received 8,327 page views from 4,256 unique visitors with 4,834 document downloads. A total of 105 submissions were received, including 81 via Council’s Engagement Hub and the remaining via direct email.

As a result of submissions, several amendments have been made to address issues raised.

Following exhibition, a revised draft St Ives PDP was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 12 December 2022. At the meeting it was resolved to defer the matter for an inspection of the subject site.

At the time of writing a site inspection is scheduled for the evening of 2 February 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the St Ives Public Domain Plan as attached to this report.

Maria Rigoli

Public Domain Co-ordinator – Local Centres

William Adames

Community & Business Engagement Co-ordinator

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan - Volume 2 - St Ives		2022/344268
	A2⇩	St Ives Public Domain Plan - public exhibition submissions summary and responses		2022/233482

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.15 / 1

Item GB.15	S13920

Post exhibition consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition for the Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area.

background:	In October 2022, Council resolved to adopt and submit the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination under section 3.34 of the EP&A Act 1979. A Gateway Determination was received on 18 November 2022. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 24 November – 9 December 2022. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition and recommends proceeding to heritage list both properties and to extend the boundary of the St Johns Heritage Conservation Area.

comments:	A total of four submissions were received from the community during the public exhibition period. All were in support of the proposal. Two State agency submissions were received raising no objections.

recommendation:	That the Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area proceeds and that Council resolves to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Purpose of Report

Background

This report provides an overview of the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to heritage list 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and extend the boundary of the St Johns Avenue Heritage Conservation Area. The Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A1.

The properties at 64 Rosebery Road, Killara (Lot 2 DP 1048632) and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon (Lot 2 DP183731) were the subject of independent heritage assessments commissioned by Council and completed by Hector Abrahams Architects. The final assessments for both properties were received in September 2022 and are included as Attachment A2 for 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and as Attachment A3 for 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon.

The Hector Abrahams Architects heritage assessments have been prepared in line with Heritage New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Heritage Council of NSW guidelines. Only one of potentially seven Heritage Council criteria needs to be satisfied to fulfil the threshold for heritage listing. The heritage assessments demonstrate that 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, meet the Heritage Council criteria of local heritage significance for local heritage listing for more than one criterion. As a result, the heritage assessments recommend both properties are listed as local heritage items and the St Johns Avenue Conservation Area is extended to include 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP 2015’).

In March 2022, Council staff were made aware of two potential heritage items at threat of harm. Following an external site inspection of the properties, preliminary heritage assessments were undertaken by Council staff and completed in March 2022. The preliminary assessments considered both sites to be of sufficient potential heritage value to warrant an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) to allow further heritage assessment to take place and prevent any harm to the sites in the interim. The sites were at threat of harm through development applications proposing demolition.

The sites were not protected under the heritage provisions of the KLEP 2015, other than part of the driveway and part of the detached garage of the 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon site, which is located within the St Johns Avenue Conservation Area, noting that the remainder of the site, including the dwelling, has no heritage protection. For this site, it was proposed that the IHO was to apply to the unlisted land only.

On 7 April 2022, the preliminary heritage assessment for both sites were presented and considered by Council’s Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’). The Committee recommended that Council make Interim Heritage Orders under s25 of the NSW Heritage Act for 64 Rosebery Road, Killara and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council (‘OMC’) on 26 April 2022, Council resolved to:

A. Place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on 64 Rosebery Road Killara, Lot 2 in DP 1048632 to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim.

B. Place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, part of Lot 2 in DP 183731 (excluding that part of the site contained within St John Avenue Heritage Conservation area C16B) to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim.

The IHOs were published in the NSW Government Gazette on 29 April 2022 and are included as Attachment A4.

On 18 October 2022, Council considered the proposed heritage listing and heritage conservation area extension and resolved:

That:

A. A Planning Proposal be prepared to include 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, as local heritage items in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and to extend St Johns Avenue Conservation Area to include 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon.

B. The Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination.

C. Council request the plan making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act for this Planning Proposal.

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

The Council report and resolution from the October OMC 2022 is included as Attachment A5.

A Gateway Determination was received on 18 November 2022, authorising Council to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal if resolved to do so. The Gateway Determination is included at Attachment A6.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination and the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan between 24 November 2022 - 9 December 2022.

Comments

Heritage Significance

Heritage Significance of 64 Rosebery Road, Killara

Hector Abrahams Architects concludes that 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, meets four criteria for local heritage listing for its associational, aesthetic, rarity, and representative value. The summary statement of significance is as follows:

64 Rosebery Road is a highly intact English domestic style house with a distinctive arrangement of external elements and dramatic ground floor plan. Designed by Frank l’Anson Bloomfield, it exhibits a high degree of architectural ambition and successful resolution in blending modern planning with English domestic elements and is among the most distinctive of the architect’s domestic work.

The houses interior is designed to have a constant connection with exterior spaces, most notably the ground floor axial arrangement that creates a planned vista from the sitting room to the courtyard. Despite later alterations including the enclosure of the loggia, the courtyard and this visual relationship is generally intact. Throughout the house there is a high degree of integrity particularly joinery, cornices and skirting boards. Some notable intact elements include the upstairs 1930s bathroom, archways, porcelain laundry skins and timber fold down table. These elements demonstrate the aesthetic qualities of the house.

It is an expensive and ambitious house that on its elevated siting prominently displays the wealth of its owners. Its less distinctive architectural elements, namely the service quarters, are highly intact and have historical significance by demonstrating the live-in services of an upper-middle class household.

The elevated terraced garden is also distinctive and typical of expensive architecturally designed houses.

Heritage Significance of 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon

Hector Abrahams Architects concludes that 64 St Johns Avenue Gordon, meets three criteria for local heritage listing for its historic, aesthetic and representative value. The summary statement of significance is as follows:

With its historical connection to the development of a distinctive street in Gordon, following its subdivision in 1912, this house is a good and intact example of an interwar to mid-century middle-class house on Sydney’s North Shore. Its English Cotswold form mixed with good colonial revival and art deco detailing is highly intact and representative of housing trends amongst the middle class in the area. Likely designed in the interwar period but built post war the house is of an excellent quality despite supply shortages of the time. The house demonstrates technical achievement in its well-resolved centralised plan.

It has a strong historical relationship to Nos. 66 and 58 St Johns Avenue which were owned and built by Colin Campbell Jnr’s brother and parents respectively. The proximity of the family to each is demonstrative of a common practice in the North Shore where the parents bought land, in close proximity to their own, that they later transferred to their children.

The previous ownership, subdivision pattern and house design of 64 St Johns Avenue is representative of the historical social context of the North Shore. The place has aesthetic and representative significance.

Public Exhibition

A total of six (6) submissions were received during the public exhibition period, including two (2) state agency submissions. The Submission Summary Table is included as Attachment A7.

Support

All four (4) of the submissions received from the community were in support of the Planning Proposal. Three (3) of these submissions were made specifically in support of heritage listing 64 Rosebery Road, Killara. The submissions outlined a desire for the property to be protected and to preserve the significant heritage value of the site

One (1) of these submissions was made specifically in support of heritage listing 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon. The submission provided historical information regarding 66 and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon and indicated that the architect is ‘Ashton’ of Mosman. This historical information has been referred to a member of the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society and the Heritage Reference Committee. Once verified, some of this information may be included in the inventory form that will support the Planning Proposal.

A state agency submission was received by Heritage NSW which encouraged the identification and listing of this new local heritage item. A state agency submission was received by Crown Lands which acknowledged that the properties proposed for heritage listing are on privately owned land therefore no Crown land is understood to be associated with the properties.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

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

Cultural and heritage assets in open space areas are protected, preserved, restored and maintained.

Governance Matters

The preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Under the Ministerial Direction Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals and the delegations granted to the General Manager, this matter was not required to be referred to Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on the basis the proposed heritage listing is for two existing houses within established low density residential zones and the proposed heritage listings will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment or adjoining land.

Council’s resolution from OMC 18 October 2022 requested that Council be authorised as the local plan-making authority to exercise the functions under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise the Planning Proposal. In issuing the Gateway Determination on 18 November 2022, the DPE considered the nature of the Planning Proposal and conditioned the Gateway determination for Council to be authorised as the local plan-making authority.

This report addresses the post exhibition stage of the planning proposal process, to consider State agency and stakeholder feedback. Council can resolve to make the plan in accordance with section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act and liaise with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required Local Environmental Plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal, as well as the Ministers function in making the plan.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai local government area will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk to Council and its reputation if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.

Social Considerations

The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s historic landscape and the garden suburbs that are valued by the community.

Environmental Considerations

Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s local environmental heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist Council in meeting this requirement. The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places include the substantial reduction in building, demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 24 November 2022 – 9 December 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination and Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan. The affected property owners and 89 adjoining property owners were notified of the public exhibition in writing and had the opportunity to provide feedback during the formal exhibition period. The Office of Premier and Cabinet – Heritage NSW was notified in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination. The Planning Proposal and supporting information was made available on Council’s website and was available to be viewed at the customer service desk in accordance with Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan.

As a result of the public exhibition, a total of four (4) submissions were received from the community. All of the submissions were in support of the proposal. Two (2) submissions were received from state agencies, with no objections made regarding the planning proposal. All persons who made a submission were notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with the relevant internal sections of Council has been undertaken where required for this report, in particular, Development and Regulation. Council’s Heritage Reference Committee supported the Interim Heritage Order in April 2022.

Summary

On 18 October 2022, Council resolved to prepare the Planning Proposal to include 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, as local heritage items in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and to extend St Johns Avenue Conservation Area to include 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon – and to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

A Gateway Determination was received on 18 November 2022. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 24 November 2022 – 9 December 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination and the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan. Four (4) submissions were received from the community and two (2) submissions were received from state agencies.

It is recommended that Council proceeds with the Planning Proposal to include 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, as local heritage items in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and to extend St Johns Avenue Conservation Area to include 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon – and to resolve to make the Plan under section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopt the Planning Proposal to include 64 Rosebery Road, Killara, and 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon, as local heritage items in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan2015 and to extend St Johns Avenue Conservation Area to include 64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon.

B. That Council proceed to make the plan, using its delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That those who made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

Angela Smidmore

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Planning Proposal	2022/296390
	A2⇩	64 Rosebery Road, Killara – Heritage Assessment – Hector Abrahams Architects – September 2022	2022/274204
	A3⇩	64 St Johns Avenue, Gordon – Heritage Assessment – Hector Abrahams Architects – September 2022	2022/274203
	A4⇩	Interim Heritage Orders – NSW Gazette	2022/279491
	A5⇩	Council Report and Resolution – October 2022	2022/296379
	A6⇩	Gateway determination - 18 November 2022	2022/349160
	A7⇩	Submission Summary Table	2023/011587

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.16 / 1

Item GB.16	S13022

8a, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara
Consideration of Submissions
Exhibited Planning Proposal and DCP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, and an associated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, for rezoning of land at 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara.

background:	The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 26 October 2020. Following submission of revised documentation, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 3 August 2021. On 27 June 2017 Council resolved to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination. The Gateway Determination was issued on 5 July 2022 enabling the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal and the associated Development Control Plan amendment were placed on public exhibition from 8 September 2022 to 10 October 2022. On 13 December 2022 Council resolved to defer the matter to enable a site visit by Councillors.

comments:	In response to the public exhibition, a total of 17 submissions were received from the community. Comment was also received from 4 State Agencies. All community submissions and State Agency responses have been assessed for Council’s consideration. Issues raised in correspondence received outside the exhibition dates have also been considered in this Report. The Councillor site visit is scheduled to be conducted on 1 February 2023.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone land at 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara and make the associated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

Purpose of Report

Background

The site

The Planning Proposal applies to the following three land parcels referred to as “the site”:

Site	Lot	Area
8A Buckingham Road, Killara	Lot 2 DP414101	1,404 sqm
14 Buckingham Road, Killara	Lot 4 DP520573	1,492 sqm
16 Buckingham Road, Killara	Lot 3 DP520573	2,093 sqm
		Total – 4,989 sqm

The site comprises three battle-axe allotments each with a dwelling with individual driveway access.

The surrounding area is characterised by 1-2 storey houses to the north and west, 4-5 storey residential flat buildings to the east, and the Killara Golf Course to the south (which has recently been partially rezoned to 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.

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

8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Rd – Location Plan

The Planning Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) as outlined in the below table. This amendment will enable the provision of approximately 36-40 new dwellings.

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015)
EXISTING	PROPOSED
Zoning Map
R2 - low density residential	R4 - high density residential
Height of Buildings Map
J2 - 9.5m	RL110.5 (centre) and RL115.5 (east + west)
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map
A3 - 0.3:1	H - 0.7:1
Lot Size Map
S - 840 sqm	Area 2 - 4300 sqm
Clause 6.6 of the KLEP 2015
n/a	(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.

Process

Key milestones in the Planning Proposal are as follows:

· 26 October 2020 – application submitted to Council

· 3 August 2021 – formal assessment commenced

· 14 March 2022 - referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP)

· 26 April 2022 - reported to Council which resolved:

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.

Gateway Determination

In accordance with the Council resolution, on 31 May 2022 the Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). On 5 July 2022, a conditional Gateway Determination (Attachment A1) was received from DPE to proceed to public exhibition and complete the process within 12 months, by July 2023. All conditions of the Gateway Determination were met prior to exhibition of the Planning Proposal and its associated Development Control Plan (DCP).

Councillor Site Visit

On 13 December 2022 Council resolved to defer the matter to enable a site visit by Councillors. At the time of writing the site visit was scheduled for 1 February 2023. The meeting notes from the site inspection will be provided to Councillors by memorandum.

Comments

Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal and associated draft site specific DCP were placed on public exhibition from 8 September 2022 to 10 October 2022, and in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan. A copy of the exhibited Planning Proposal and its appendices are included at Attachment A2.

Submissions to the exhibition were received from the community and from State Agencies. The submissions have been assessed to determine the Planning Proposal continues to have merit; however, some changes to the DCP are proposed as a result of the submissions. These are described below and in detail in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

Submissions – Community

A total of seventeen submissions were received from the community, including four late submissions, one in support and sixteen in objection. The submissions were predominantly made by neighbouring property owners, some of whom engaged private planning consultants.

Key issues are listed below with detailed response presented in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

A. Support for the Planning Proposal

One submission, from the owner of a parcel of land subject of this Planning Proposal, supports the proposal. It centres on the changing fabric of the surrounding area and related impacts on their property.

Key points of the submission include:

· interface impacts of high density development on adjacent low density dwellings;

· impacts of future high density development at Killara Golf Club; and

· amendments made to the original Planning Proposal to accommodate site specific issues.

Ø Comment:

In 2011 the Draft Ku-ring-gai interface study assessed the potential impact of high density zoned land adjacent to low density zoned land, including to 8A Buckingham Road. The potential impact was considered significant, with high overlooking and overshadowing impacts likely from the adjacent development at 8 Buckingham Road. Amendment to zoning of such low density impacted sites was proposed to enable site consolidation and redesign to medium density to ameliorate impact.

Council acknowledges that the proponents have made significant amendments to their original proposal to address bulk and scale impacts to adjacent properties The proposal has reduced building height from 5 storey to 3 storey to the east and west, with a small portion to the eastern corner at 4 storey due to fall in land, and provision of 2 storey to the centre of the site. Council also acknowledges that the proposal has both strategic merit assessed at the application stage of the proposal, and site specific merit as the DCP has included multiple controls to protect the on-site and adjacent assets (trees and heritage).

B. Objection to the Planning Proposal

The objecting submissions raise a number of common issues. These are listed and summarised below with a full detailed response provided in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

· Traffic and parking

The submissions raised the following key issues:

- the capacity of Buckingham Road and surrounding streets to safely accommodate increased traffic;

- impeded performance of intersections at Pacific Highway;

- impacts on neighbouring properties of the proposed vehicular access point into the site;

- threat to Blue Gum High Forest trees located within the access handle into the site;

- under-provision of on-site parking that will result in increased kerbside parking on Buckingham Road, reducing that street to single lane width.

Ø Comment:

The additional traffic generated by the site during the morning and evening peak hours (approximately 11 vehicles per hour, or an average of 1 vehicle every 5-6 minutes) is modest, and unlikely to impact significantly to traffic conditions in Buckingham Road. The additional traffic generated on adjacent and surrounding streets is minimal and unlikely to cause significant additional impacts.

While the performance of the intersection of Pacific Highway and Spencer Road was not specifically analysed, the proponent provided information relating to the impacts to Spencer Road, and other surrounding roads, as part of the response to Council’s letter seeking clarification.

In Spencer Road, Council’s most recent traffic counts were undertaken in 2019, where an average of 225 vehicles per hour were recorded in the weekday am peak, and 190 vehicles per hour in the weekday pm peak. The additional trips during the peak hour at this location would result in an average of 1 additional vehicle every 10 minutes traveling along Warwick Street, Norfolk Street and Spencer Road, which is unlikely to cause significant additional impacts.

Up to 100 car parking spaces for residents and visitors would be provided on-site, in accordance with development standards.

It is acknowledged that vehicular access to the site would require detailed consideration of the Blue Gum trees located in the access handle. It is also acknowledged that there will be more traffic volume to the west of the site between 12 and 18 Buckingham Road where the single vehicular access in/out of the site is proposed, and that there is the option to utilise both access handles to the west and east of the site entry for vehicular access.

Ø Recommendation:

It is recommended that the exhibited draft DCP be amended to

- split access in and out of the site across both access handles through a single lane one-way loop road system to reduce the concentration of vehicular movement volume to the western entry point between 12 and 18 Buckingham Road;

- include provisions to require the single lane between/past the identified significant trees to ensure design and location of works protects those trees;

- provide landscaping to the boundary with the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road to screen the item from passing traffic.

· Pedestrian access

The public submissions focus on the unformed roadway at Buckingham Road and lack of a direct and safe footpath enabling use by prams and mobility impaired people. The submissions point out that the lack of suitable footpath impacts the entry into the site.

Ø Comment:

The exhibited DCP indicated a single vehicle access point at the western with the eastern access point to be dedicated to pedestrian access. The proposed amendment would require the pedestrian entry to be moved to the eastern access handle as only that entry is wide enough to accommodate both a path and a vehicular driveway.

It is acknowledged that there is no public footpath outside the site entry; however there is a footpath on the opposite side of the road that is accessible from the site exit point.

The topography of the public verge outside the site, in front of 10 and 12 Buckingham Road, precludes the provision of a footpath as the steep land would result in unacceptable gradients.

Ø Recommendation:

It is recommended that the draft DCP relocate the pedestrian entry to the wider western access point into the site in order to accommodate the one way vehicle access system. The footpath exit at the western access handle would be located directly across, and easily accessible from, the footpath on the northern side of Buckingham Road.

· Biodiversity and Wildlife

Submissions raised the following key issues:

- setbacks do not provide a sufficient Tree Protection Zone for the Sydney Blue Gum on the boundary between 16 and 22 Buckingham Road;

- potential damage by vehicular access in close proximity to the Structural Root Zones of the two Blue Gums growing in the accessway; and

- loss of onsite trees will result in habitat loss for associated fauna.

Ø Comment:

The site contains biodiversity and includes Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine species. The protection and retention of these trees through the construction and new site use is important and requires emphasis in the draft DCP. Further, the site has mature planting to boundaries that affords privacy and separation to neighbouring properties. This established vegetation, especially canopy trees, is proposed to be retained through the provision of a landscape buffer. The landscape buffer is proposed to be extended to ensure deep soil planting and protection of Tree protection Zones to all boundaries with adjacent properties.

Native fauna species observed on site consist of urban-adapted species that are locally abundant. The Ecological Constraints Assessment identifies vegetation and habitat features on the site that support biodiversity, facilitating design solutions to avoid and minimise adverse impacts.

The Indicative Landscape Plan submitted with the Planning Proposal demonstrates that canopy and other vegetation can be replenished through planting along the eastern boundary of the subject site. This vegetation will provide habitat for native fauna.

Ø Recommendation:

It is recommended that the draft DCP include controls to prevent encroachment on Tree Protection Zones within the boundary setbacks and through a deep soil landscape buffer preventing earthworks or hard surfaces in those areas, thereby sustaining existing and new planting that will continue to support local fauna. Further, these protections would also be afforded to trees outside setback and buffer areas.

It is recommended that the draft DCP include specific controls to ensure the retention of the two Blue Gums within the 14/16 Buckingham Road access corridor.

· Heritage

The submissions predominantly raise concerns regarding the proposed building height and overlooking impact to heritage items at 10 Buckingham Road and 22 Buckingham Road, and obstruction of views to the Killara Golf Course.

Ø Comment:

Any future development in the vicinity of 10 and 12 Buckingham Road will be required to consider Part 19F of the DCP. This is standard across the Ku-ring-gai LGA and includes upper storey setbacks above 8m (2 storey). Further, the proposed building heights have been reduced from 5 storeys in the original Planning Proposal application to 2-3 storeys and a small portion of 4 storey adjacent to 8 Buckingham Road.

In addition, the site specific DCP requires open space heritage setbacks, deep soil landscape buffers and planting to enable meaningful planting to boundaries and protection of existing trees, including to the length of the access handle boundary to 10 Buckingham Road.

Ø Recommendation:

It is recommended

- that the draft DCP include a note to emphasize the controls of DCP Part 19F Development in the Vicinity of Heritage Items or Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs), and in particular provisions of 19F.2 Building Setbacks that require built form to be set back above an 8m (2-storey) height;

- to insert a control which considers the Tree Protection Zone along the boundary with 22 Buckingham Road, and generally extend the deep soil landscape buffer to ensure tree planting can be sustained to boundaries shared with heritage items;

- to require landscaping adjacent to the boundary of 10 Buckingham Road to provide screening from the access handle site vehicular access.

· Amenity -overlooking and loss of views

In addition to submissions from owners of heritage listed properties at 10 and 22 Buckingham Road, submissions were received from:

- 18 Buckingham Road, a single detached dwelling: raising concern about overlooking and loss of privacy from future built form and driveway access as the property sits at a lower level than the site, and through the potential tree removal on the boundary.

- 8 Buckingham Road, a 5 storey apartment building: submissions state the proposal will have privacy impacts and apartments were purchased because of views to the golf course that will be blocked.

Ø Comment:

18 Buckingham Road

- This is a low density dwelling located to the north of the site with a frontage to Buckingham Road. The draft DCP makes provision for a 9m setback to the common boundary to enable separation, tree protection and deep soil planting for screen planting.

- To ensure the setback is able to sustain tree planting, including replacement planting to provide similar benefits as the Kaffir Plum, the setback could include a deep soil landscape buffer as provided to other common boundaries. In addition the reduction of vehicular movement along this access handle through the proposed one way loop road, plus requirements for Tree Protection Zones in that eastern access handle will reduce the impacts from those in the exhibited DCP.

8 Buckingham Road

- This is a 5 storey residential flat building. The 6m setback afforded to the common boundary provides the necessary separation to maintain privacy. Any future DA on the site will be required to comply with the privacy controls in the Apartment Design Guide.

- The opportunities for landscaping within 8 Buckingham Road is recognised, particularly as the limited width of the western access handle, with the required vehicular access and landscape screening to the heritage item at 10 Buckingham Road, has little opportunity to provide any substantial planting to the common boundary with 8 Buckingham Road.

Whilst the views from adjoining properties will change should the site be developed in the future, it is acknowledged that the views are not to the public domain, nor iconic, nor district views that would be protected through case law.

The views are landscape views across private property with no established propriety rights to the neighbouring properties. For this reason views do not present sufficient motive to dismiss consideration of rezoning to R4 (High Density Residential) via this Planning Proposal. Landowners are within their rights to apply for changes to development standards on their private land, and all due consideration is given to strategic and site specific merit in assessment of the proposal application prior to seeking a Gateway Determination.

Ø Recommendation:

It is recommended to amend the DCP part 14N.4:

- to extend the deep soil landscape buffer to the northern common boundaries with 10, 12, 18 Buckingham Road to enable tree retention and new planting; and

- to include upper level setbacks to building elevations facing 10, 18 and 22 Buckingham Road;

- to require landscape screening to 10 Buckingham Road for the duration of the vehicular access handle.

· Local Character

Submissions comment that removal of Blue Gums and understory will contribute to the loss of character of the area and that high density zoning is acceptable on or adjacent to the Pacific Highway but not this far into a suburban area.

Ø Comment:

The current and future character of this locality with buildings set within a landscaped setting will be maintained despite a change in built form. The site meets the location criteria of medium to high density development within an 800m radius to transport hubs as Killara station is located at 700m from the site, and therefore the proposal cannot be dismissed on locational grounds. Provisions are included in the proposed site specific DCP to retain and protect Blue Gum High Forest species and to ensure open space and landscaping to enable conservation of local character and tree canopy.

· Killara Golf Club

The submission from the Killara Golf Club opposes the current Planning Proposal in its entirety. It states that the proposal would impact current uses on the boundary and impact future amenity of the residential flat building on their land.

The submission suggests an inequitable practice as the 2019 Killara Golf Club Planning Proposal required a 9m setback with a 6m landscaped buffer, while the current Planning Proposal only requires a 6m setback, and consequently, the submission seeks increased setbacks to the boundary.

Ø Comment:

The Planning Proposal has considered impacts to the current and future use of the Killara Golf Club and determined the proposal will not negatively impact the Club lands, nor the current or future uses of the site.

There is no inequity in the consideration of setbacks as at the time of the Club’s proposal it bordered low density residential development and thus required the 9m setback. The current proposal has the same requirement to the low density development to its north.

· General Comments

Submissions state that the community was not consulted up until this point and that the proposal is no longer available for commentary on the Council website.

Comments are made that the proposal is not aligned with The Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and Local Housing Strategy (LHS).

Ø Comment:

Due process has been followed for this Planning Proposal. Community consultation can only commence once the Department of Planning and Environment have considered the application and issue a Gateway Determination enabling the public consultation. The proposal may still be viewed on Council’s website under the link “View closed exhibition pages”.

Increasing provision of housing in Ku-ring-gai aligns with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan which both speak to strategic merit of Planning Proposals. This site is also within the requisite 800m to transport hubs.

Refusal of Planning Proposals that demonstrate such strategic merit would likely be overturned in any appeal process. It is considered valuable to work with landowners to provide the best local outcomes where strategic merit is met, and enable those outcomes to address site specific issues.

Petition

A petition, at Attachment A4 opposing the Planning Proposal was received on 23 September 2022 and reported to Council on15 November 2022 . The Petition was mainly signed by residents of the adjacent apartment building at 8 Buckingham Road. The petition raised issues that have been included and addressed in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A3.

Submissions – State Agencies

The Gateway Determination required consultation with 5 State Agencies. This was done via the Department’s Planning Portal. A summary of the submissions is provided below. The Agency submissions may be viewed at Attachment A5.

· Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

TfNSW makes comment that:

- any future development application is to consider requirements under the Department of Planning’s Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines (2008);

- the site specific DCP should consider including maximum parking rates to reduce car transport as the site is within a 700m walking catchment to Killara station and bus stops on Pacific Highway are 200m walk north-east.

Ø Comment:

Given the site may be affected by the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (Amendment No 3), 2015, the minimum car parking requirements for residents and visitors under the SEPP is ultimately set out being either the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less. This would result in the following parking requirements:

· 0.6 spaces per 1 bedroom unit

· 0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

· 1.4 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

· 1 space per 5 units for visitor parking

Ø Recommendation:

To discourage the provision of excess car parking spaces, it is recommended that a clause be added to the DCP stating that any spaces provided which exceed the parking requirements in Council’s DCP or the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (which ever applies to the site) will be included as gross floor area.

· Environment and Heritage Group, Department of Planning and Environment (EHG)

EHG seeks clarification on certain aspects of the Planning Proposal, in particular the proposed removal of certain threatened species (Turpentine tree, Magenta Lilly Pilly); the possible presence of threatened fauna; inconsistency between the map in the Tree Report and the information in the Tree Removal and Retention Plan.

EHG raises concern regarding works within the vehicular accessway encroaching into the Tree Protection Zone of existing Eucalyptus Saligna trees, and suggests more specific controls be provided to guide the future development of the access way.

Ø Recommendation:

Council will request the proponent provide a revised Ecological Constraints Assessment addressing:

- whether Tree 23 forms part of the local extent of Blue Gum High Forest;

- addressing the presence of Magenta Lilly Pilly and identifying assessment requirements; and

- an appraisal of likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species and potential impacts to species deemed likely to occur from any future development.

Council will request the proponent review the Tree Report and the Tree Retention and Removal Plan and revise as appropriate.

It is recommended that the site-specific DCP include:

- a setback width enabling prevention of Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) encroachment (greater than 10%) for all trees with TPZs intersecting boundary setback zones;

- requirements for tree protection measures in the location and construction of driveways in proximity to Blue Gum High Forest trees.

· Heritage NSW

Heritage NSW recognises that the proposal is located near three Local Heritage Items, and given Council is the consent authority for those Items, assessment and consideration of any impacts on them rests with Council.

· Sydney Water Corporation

Sydney Water acknowledges that amplifications, adjustments, and/or minor extensions may be required to water and wastewater servicing of the site. These will be calculated and provided as part of any future development application on the site.

· Ausgrid

Ausgrid was consulted, however no response has been received. Ausgrid generally tends to respond when a development application is submitted with fixed dwelling numbers enabling determination of electrical facility requirements.

Conclusion

It is proposed to make amendment to the exhibited site specific DCP (Attachment A6) in response to material concerns raised in the submissions. The proposed post-exhibition DCP amendments may be viewed at Attachment A7.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

P2.1.1: Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

P2.1.1.2: Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

Governance Matters

The KLPP reviewed the Planning Proposal on14 March 2022. Council’s resolution of 26 April 2022 requested that Council be authorised as the local plan-making authority to exercise the functions under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise the Planning Proposal. In issuing the Gateway Determination on 5 July 2022, the Department of Planning and Environment considered the nature of the Planning Proposal and conditioned the Gateway Determination for Council to be authorised as the local plan-making authority.

This report addresses the post exhibition stage of the Planning Proposal process, to consider State agency and stakeholder feedback. Council can resolve to make the plan in accordance with section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act and liaise with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required Local Environmental Plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal, as well as the Ministers function in making the plan.

Site specific DCP controls are required to be consistent with the proposed LEP provisions contained in the Planning Proposal. Under Section 4.43(5)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979, a provision of a development control plan has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent or incompatible with a provision of the LEP applying to the land.

Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 sets out that after considering submissions on a draft DCP, Council may:

· approve the plan in the form in which it was publicly exhibited; or

· approve the plan with such alterations as the council thinks fit; or

· not proceed with the plan.

Council must publish notice of its decision on the draft DCP on its website within 28 days of the decision being made. The DCP comes into effect on the date that the notice is published on Council’s website, or on a later date specified in the notice. It is recommended that the DCP comes into effect as soon as practicable following its adoption.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated, applicant-led Planning Proposal. Following exhibition Council needs to determine its final position on the Planning Proposal. Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.

Social Considerations

The proposed rezoning of this site to a residential zone will assist in the provision of additional housing within Ku-ring-gai. The proposed DCP controls enable future housing development to integrate and be consistent with the existing built residential context.

Environmental Considerations

The current and historical use of the site has been for residential purposes with associated activities unlikely to have caused contamination of the land. The site can be made suitable for future residential uses, subject to further assessment, management and remediation.

The DCP controls require deep soil landscaping in public and private land to support the planting of new, and retention of existing canopy trees to promote environmental benefits, including reduction of heat island effects.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from Thursday, 8 September 2022 to Monday, 10 October 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan.

Notification letters were sent to properties in the vicinity and the exhibition material was made available on Council’s website and on the planning portal.

As a result of the public exhibition, a total of 17 submissions were received. One of the submissions was in support of the proposal and 16 submissions were in opposition. All late submissions were included in the assessment presented in this Report.

All persons who made a submission were notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal and submissions received in response to the public exhibition involved internal consultation with Council officers with specialisation in traffic and transport, planning, urban design, heritage and ecology.

Summary

The Planning Proposal and site specific DCP for 8A, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara were placed on public exhibition from Thursday, 8 September 2022 to Monday, 10 October 2022.

A total of 17 submissions were received, 1 in support and 16 in opposition to the Planning Proposal.

This report has considered the submissions received and recommends proceeding to rezone the site with associated standards; and, adopting a site specific DCP to guide future development on the site. The rezoning will facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of land that is/will be impacted by adjacent high density development.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopt the Planning Proposal to rezone land at 8A, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara, including the associated amended height, FSR and lot size standards.

B. That Council proceed to make the plan, using its delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That Council adopt the amended Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan incorporating amendment to Part 14 to include site specific provisions for 8A, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road, Killara as at Attachment A6 and A7 to this Report.

D. That notification of the DCP be made in accordance with the requirements of the EP & A Act 1979 Regulations.

E. That delegation be given to the General Manager and Director Strategy and Environment to correct any errors or inconsistencies in the Planning Proposal and its associated DCP prior to finalisation.

F. Those persons who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Gateway Determination		2022/354668
	A2	Exhibited Planning Proposal and attached studies	Excluded	2022/354662
	A3⇩	Summary of Submissions Table – 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Rd, Killara		2022/355596
	A4⇩	Petition to 8A, 14 and 16 Buckingham Road Killara (Redacted)		2023/033637
	A5⇩	State Agency Responses		2022/354701
	A6⇩	Exhibited DCP 8A, 14, 16 Buckingham Road, Killara		2023/009742
	A7⇩	Amendments to Exhibited DCP		2022/354592

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.18 / 1

Item GB.18	S13678-3

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GRANDSTAND AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES – NORTH TURRAMURRA SPORTING FIELDS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on a proposal by Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) to construct a new grandstand and associated facilities at the North Turramurra Recreation Area. A report is presented to Council at this point in time because of the time constraints NSFA has agreed to as part of its funding applications and the need to obtain Council in-principle support before negotiations on transaction documents proceed.

background:	The NSFA have planning permission (approved DA) and an Office of Sports Capital grant for (part) funding in place for the project.

comments:	Council is asked to consider the status of discussions with the NSFA contained within this report and consider if they (Council) wish to pursue or withdraw from the project.

recommendation:	If Council accept the current risks associated with project that Council continue to negotiate the terms of a Heads of Agreement with the NSFA.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on a proposal by Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) to construct a new grandstand and associated facilities at the North Turramurra Recreation Area.

Background

The North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) is part of the reimaging of the North Turramurra Golf Course as a regional sports and recreation facility. In 2009 Council adopted the site-specific plan of management based on the November 2007 adopted Masterplan. As part of the ongoing improvements to the site, the intent was to provide sports amenities to the north of the fields and the consolidation of community and club facilities in the same region.

In August 2014, Council was approached by the NSFA with a proposal to enhance the site and to provide Premier League Standard Facilities to the main field. In addition, the NSFA provided draft plans using an existing amenities design from Blacktown Olympic Park, which was deemed suitable for FNSW Premier League. Whilst some consultation between Council Officers and the NSFA has occurred, amendments to the Masterplan to upgrade the site from a community-based facility to a Premier League facility were never finalised for consideration by Council and subsequent public exhibition has not been endorsed by Council.

In September 2021, Council provided land owners consent for lodgement of a DA (by the NSFA) for a new grandstand and associated facilities on the subject site (DA0484/21). It was specified in the letter giving owners consent that “final consent of Council to commence construction of the project would be subject to separate resolution of Council and a licence or lease on terms consistent with Council’s Management of Community and Recreations Facility Policy being entered into in the first instance”.

Ordinarily the matter would have been reported to Council at that time, however Council was subject to caretaker provisions relating to what turned out to be shifting election dates. The granting of such owners consent was consistent with custom and practice at the time.

A development application was subsequently approved by the KLPP on 24 October 2022.

As part of the proposed multi-purpose facility and grandstand, in December 2021, Council provided the NSFA a Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining each party’s roles and responsibilities in the project. At this time, no agreement has been entered into between Council and the NSFA.

In February 2022, Council provided land owners consent for the lodgement of a grant application for the Office of Sports – Multisport Community Facility Fund (Round 1) for the construction of a multipurpose amenity facility at the NTRA. This application was unsuccessful.

In August 2022 a second application was submitted to the Office of Sports under the same funding scheme (Round 2). At this time Council did not provide land owners consent.

In November 2022 the NSFA was notified that the application was successful receiving $3,340,243 with the NSFA to provide a cash contribution of $2,000, 000. Under the grant application guidelines, the applicant was required to match 50% of the total project costs.

In November 2022 the NSFA also applied for an additional $500,000 in funding through the Office of Sports – Female Friendly Community Sport Facility Fund. As part of this application, the NSFA have identified the cash contribution for the project is $5,140,243, comprising cash and approved grants discussed above. Grant funding guidelines stipulate “The program will not fund the following projects or project components: Projects that have already been funded by the NSW Government unless significant new project scope is identified”.

Council did not provide land owners consent for the application at the time and the grant application round remains outstanding.

Comments

Project Status

The NSFA have successfully achieved development consent (approved DA0484/21) and secured a grant funding of $3,340,243 towards the project. The DA approved design includes a new grandstand plus amenities including office space, gymnasium, and café (see Images 1-5 below).

Council were not part of the development application or various grant applications at different points in time, other than to supply letters of consent.

Council Directors and staff recently met with the CEO and facilities Manager of the NSFA to discuss the way forward in the event that Council resolves to support the project in-principle by way of negotiating and finalising Heads of Agreement (HoA).

In order to continue working on the project Council will need to expend funds to cover staff, cost planning and legal costs through to finalisation of a HoA. It is intended that these costs be carried within existing budgets.

As is custom and practice, it is intended that both parties will cover their own costs in negotiation of a HoA. Beyond that, it is intended that the NSFA is responsible for covering all costs in progressing the project finalisation of legally binding Project Deed and Licence agreements (transaction documents), design documentation, tender and construction phases, and whole of lifecycle costs.

The current programme according to the facility grant requires the applicant to have awarded the tender mid this year (2023) with construction starting shortly thereafter. This programme is considered to be extremely tight and there is a risk to grant funds if the timeline is extended too far beyond the agreed milestone dates, particularly in light of a State Election in March 2023.

Image 1. Ground floor plan showing amenities such as office space, change rooms, gymnasium, and café.

Image 2. 1st floor plan showing tiered grandstand seating

Image 3. Elevations from the car park and playing field showing ground floor amenities and tiered seating.

Image 4. Sections through the building.

Image 5. Perspective views from the car park and playing field.

Project Cost

The current project budget inclusive of consultants is approximately $5.5 to $6 million. The parties’ funding commitments towards the project comprised of the following:

a. Up to $2 million in cash funds raised by NSFA;

b. $3,340,243 Office of Sports – Multisport Community Facility Fund grant;

c. NSFA intends to obtain further grant funds (e.g. $500,000 Office of Sports – Female Friendly Community Sport Facility Fund application yet to be determined);

d. Should NSFA be unsuccessful in obtaining grant/loan funding, it will arrange to raise the remainder of project funds through other means such as loans.

A HoA would be negotiated on the basis that the NSFA agrees to be responsible for all project costs in relation to the design and construction of the facility, including all fees paid or payable to contractors and consultants engaged by Council for the construction of the facility including project management fees, as well as whole of lifecycle costs.

In addition, the NSFA has advised they are prepared to accept responsibility for any project contingencies, variations required by them (but not by Council), and any cost overruns/escalation.

Previous Draft Memorandum of Understanding

As part of early discussions on progress of the proposed facility, in December 2021 Council provided to the NSFA a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlining each party’s anticipated roles, responsibilities, and obligations in relation to the project. NSFA resisted a number of core elements of a draft MoU/HoA at that time, leading to a cessation of negotiations. These roles, responsibilities, and obligations were based on similar documents then in negotiation for the St Ives High School Basketball Court. Now that transaction documents have been finalised for that project it is intended that they provide a template for transaction documents in this case, notwithstanding initial reluctance on the part of the NSFA.

Many of the above issues raised with NSFA at the time remain so there is a risk that agreement cannot be reached or that Council will be asked to take on additional risks associated with the project.

Heads of Agreement

It is anticipated that the terms of the HoA may still pose potential risk to Council. A summary of two key items is as follows:

· Exposure to Project Cost overruns:

NSFA would be required to pay all costs in relation to construction of the Facility (other than any Remediation Costs). At this time, Council does not know the exact amount of the Project Costs due to design documentation being only developed to ‘concept’ stage. As such, there may be a short fall between NSFA funds and the construction cost of the facility. In this event, Council would simply not proceed to call for tenders. Any costs incurred by Council in the negotiation of a HoA may be “sunk” if delivery of the project is unobtainable with the NSFA funds.

· Withdrawal of the Office of Sports Grant:

The Office of Sports Grant is currently tied to a project construction start date in July 2023. This date is extremely tight considering the current state of design documentation and negotiation on the terms of agreements between parties. There is a risk that the Office of Sport may withdraw the grant funding if significant progress is not made toward the start date milestone especially if there is a change of State Government.

integrated planning and reporting

The project is not currently listed in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Governance Matters

Continuing to work with the NSFA on this project is consistent with Council’s commitment to optimise the use of available public land for social infrastructure.

Should the project proceed, monthly project reports to the Major Project Steering Committee will be prepared in line with the approved Major Projects Governance Structure.

Risk Management

The following risks have been identified for the project:

· Council may not have the right to terminate the Project Deed after the Construction Contract has been entered into and therefore may be liable for cost over-runs if NSFA are unable to fund additional costs;

· Council may need to cover additional on-going maintenance and replacement costs if the NSFA do not get sufficient revenue from operating the facility; and

· the Office of Sport may withdraw the $3.3m funding grant if significant progress is not made toward construction by the middle of this year.

Financial Considerations

This proposal is not driven by financial outcomes, but rather the economic, social and environmental value offered to the football community, including the health benefits for players through increased activity and recreational outcomes.

Preparation of a business case in the context of a capital expenditure review is likely to determine that from a strictly financial perspective, the project is not financially feasible. In this respect, similar projects have carried the advice of both the Office of Local Government and the Major Projects Advisory Committee that Council should ensure that they are transparent in communicating this to the community.

In accordance with section 10.6 of the Office of Local Government Capital Expenditure Guidelines, Council would need to consider project costs from a ‘whole of life’ perspective. Section 10.6 provides:

Project costs should be considered from a ‘whole of life’ perspective. They should also be included in a Council’s long term financial plan as part of Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. These costs should include, but not be limited to:

(i) design costs

(ii) the costs of land acquisitions

(iii) the costs of land disposals

(iv) land and property development costs

(v) raw materials costs

(vi) maintenance and other ongoing operational costs

(vii) depreciation and/or provisions for replacement costs

(viii) labour costs

(ix) opportunity costs

(x) overhead costs, such as project management

(xi) payments and fees, including expenses and allowances, to external providers and Council’s consultants and advisers

(xii) loan and/or other financing establishment costs

(xiii) plant and equipment costs

· sourcing of funds:

(i) where funds are to be borrowed, Council must comply with Part 12, Chapter 15 of the Act and with the Ministerial Borrowing Order, which can be located in the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting on the Division’s website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au

(ii) where funds are to be sourced by way of internal loans, Council must obtain Ministerial approval and comply with s410(3) and s410(4) of the Act

(iii) where funds are to be sourced by way of a special variation, approval must be sought under Part 2, Chapter 15 of the Act

· identification of any potential increase in Council’s actual or prospective expenditures, whether in terms of one-off capital amounts or recurrent expenditures. This includes consequential recurrent costs such as maintenance, debt servicing, staffing, etc

· identification of systems in place to monitor and control increases in project costs

· identification of any potential loss in the value of Council’s assets or a potential loss in actual or prospective revenue

· consideration of the possible inability of Council to discharge its Charter obligations to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community

· cash flow analysis. This should detail Council’s ability to repay any loans required for the project. The cost of funds and the effect of debt servicing, including internal reserves, should also be considered

· Net Present Value calculations – cost/benefit. Break even analysis for best, worst and likely scenarios.

It is expected that in the capital expenditure review there will be a higher level of accuracy in relation to estimated costs than the preliminary business case. It is expected that the cost estimate in the capital expenditure review will be within 5% of the final cost.

When calculating future costs, it is appropriate that project costs are indexed based on prudent and reasonable assumptions. These assumptions should be documented and able to be provided on request or provided as part of the project’s capital expenditure review.

It is expected that in the process of negotiating transaction documents for this project with NSFA, all capital costs, operating costs, and lifecycle costs beyond preparation of a Heads of Agreement would be borne by NSFA.

It is anticipated that the broad allocation of risks and responsibilities reflected in transaction documents executed by Council in late 2022 for the St Ives basketball Courts would provide a template for equivalent documents in relation to this project, noting that Council sits in the opposite position in this case, being landowner and procurement authority.

Social Considerations

A long term objective of Council’s Community Strategic Plan is to ensure that recreation, sporting, and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations have been taken into account in the project design, documentation, and approval of the DA. It is not proposed to revisit these issues in the event Council resolves to proceed with the project.

Community Consultation

Communications for the project thus far is being coordinated by NSFA.

Statutory notification has also been carried out as part of the DA process. Considerable community objection was raised by the general public during the DA process with the following petitions raised:

· Petition of Objection – Presented by Councillor Cedric Spencer to Council 27 April 2022 – 960 Signatures

· Petition of Objection – Presented by Mr Peter Delaney to Council 22 August 2022 – 239 Signatures

· Petition of Objection organised by North Turramurra Action Group to Council 21 September 2022 – 1473 Signatures.

The project is not a Council initiated project and therefore is not specifically included in the Community Strategic Plan, Long term Financial Plan or Council’s current Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Consequently, Council would need to carry out community consultation in accordance with section 10.7 of the Office of Local Government Capital Expenditure Guidelines.

Section 10.7 provides:

Councils must undertake public consultation and engagement processes prior to making any commitment to the project. Like other aspects of Council business, Councils are strongly encouraged to involve the community in decision making around capital projects. It is a requirement under these guidelines, that Councils prepare a report on the public consultation process undertaken to bring the project to the review state as well as providing details on the process, for ongoing reporting on the project to the Council and the community. The report should include:

· how Council conveyed the social, economic, employment, financial and environmental impacts of the project to the community.

· confirmation that the project is included in the Council’s community strategic plan, delivery program and operational plan.

· details of the consultation processes Council has in place to allow participation by affected groups and consideration of their views.

· a public interest evaluation showing a positive outcome for the broader community, which includes but is not limited to; effectiveness, accountability and transparency, equity, public access, consumer rights, security and privacy.

· details of the methods used by Council to inform the broader community of the proposed project, its key elements and decisions made in relation to the project. This may include community newsletters, community surveys, newspaper or radio advertisements, etc.

· Council’s planning process to enable the community be provided with sufficient information to be adequately informed. To be considered sufficient the delivery program and operational plan should include:

o purpose of project and benefits to the community

o costs and funding sources, and

o construction time frames.

· details of the public reaction to the proposal including any statistics on the outcome of surveys, any correspondence received from the community, etc.

· details on any public meetings held in regard to the proposal.

Should Council resolve to engage further with the project, any media must be done in consultation with, and the concurrence of, Council.

Internal Consultation

The project has been discussed between the Strategy & Environment and Operations Departments and the Directors of the Departments have met with the CEO and Facilities Manager of the NSFA.

Summary

The NSFA have successfully achieved development consent (approved DA) and secured a grant funding of $3,340,243 towards a new grandstand plus amenities including office space, gymnasium, and café at the North Turramurra Recreation Area. Council were not part of the development application or various grant applications at different points in time, other than to supply letters of consent.

At this time, no agreement has been entered into between Council and the NSFA. Should Council resolve to support the project in-principle, the Parties will finalise working terms through negotiation of a Heads of Agreement (HoA).

The current project budget inclusive of consultant fees etc is approximately $5.5 to $6 million.

It is intended that both parties will cover their own costs in negotiation of a HoA. Beyond that, it is intended that the NSFA is responsible for covering all costs in progressing the project through finalisation of legally binding Project Deed and Licence agreements (transaction documents), design documentation, tender and construction phases, operating costs, and whole of lifecycle costs.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Receive and note updates contained within this report.

B. Note that while the project falls below the $10 million threshold for a formal Capital Expenditure Review to be prepared and submitted to the Office of Local Government, Council’s own recent practice is to prepare a Capital Expenditure Review for projects over $5 million.

C. Note that funds to pay Council staff, cost planning, legal fees and associated costs in the negotiation of a HoA will be covered by existing Council budgets.

D. Note that the project falls within the definition of a “major project” from Council’s own internal project management processes and would consequently fall under the oversight of the Major Project Steering Committee and Major Project Advisory Committee.

E. Note that transaction documents associated with delivery of the facility would be broadly based on equivalent document prepared for the St Ives High School Basketball Courts, with all capital costs, operating costs, and whole of lifecycle costs to be borne by the NSFA.

F. Note that this proposal is not driven by financial outcomes, but rather the economic, social and environmental value offered to the community, including the health benefits for players through increased activity and recreational outcomes. Further, from a strictly financial perspective, the project may not be financially feasible.

G. Accept the potential risks, costs and benefits associated with the project as discussed in this report at this point in time, and that a further report to Council outlining the terms of the HoA be presented to Council prior to execution.

H. Note finalisation of transaction documents associated with the project would also be referred to Council for consideration prior to execution.

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Craig Johnson

Strategic Recreation Planner

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

[1] From Remuneration of Public Offices: Part Time Offices Report, Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal (October 2013) (p. 3).

[2] From Local Government NSW – Submission to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (March 2021), referring to research undertaken by Mastertek Pty Ltd in December 2018 (p. 5).

[3] From Queensland Local Government Remuneration Commission Annual Report 2020-21. Note that for councillors in category 1 councils, a base payment of $36,794 is payable for the 12 months commencing on 1 July 2021. A meeting fee of $1,533 per month is payable for participation in scheduled meetings of council..

[4] Note: The national minimum wage is $812.60 per week for a 38-hour week (equivalent to $42,255 per year). In 2022/23, the annual fee for councillors in the Principal CBD category is $42,170.

[5] Now amended to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021; however, the relevant Clause remains the same.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	MM.1 / 1

Item MM.1	CY00811
	27 January 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	PT.1 / 1

Item PT.1	TM10/15

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	FY00275/15

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	FY00623/5
	11 January 2023

Land & Environment Court Costs 2018/2019 - 2022/2023
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2018/2019* (41 appeals lodged)	$1,648,229	$372,972	$491,788	$336,336	$447,133
2019/2020* (25 appeals lodged)	$1,892,040	$417,046	$446,071	$543,218	$485,705
2020/2021* ( 13 appeals lodged)	$1,512,459	$356,735	$501,925	$278,510	$375,289
2021/2022 * (18 appeals lodged)	$1,114,447	$402,328	$258,053	$226,500	$227,566
2022/2023 (13 appeals lodged)	$624,414	$324,397	$300,017	$0	$0

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2018/2019	44
2019/2020	25
2020/2021	13
2021/2022	18
2022/2023 (as at 31 December 2022)	13

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	FY00623/5
	11 January 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	FY00623/5
	13 January 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	FY00623/5
	29 January 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	CY00458/11

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	S02133
	12 January 2023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	GB.17 / 1

Item GB.17	CY00349/13

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 February 2023	NM.1 / 1

Item NM.1	CY00254/15