Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 16 May 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 confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:

GB.10 RFT6-2023 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS SUPPLY / INSTALL / MAINTAIN / MANAGE

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

Attachment 1: Electric Vehicle Chargers RFT6-2023

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

Attachment 2: Electric Vehicle Chargers RFT6-2023

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 7

File: EM00041/3

Meeting held 18 April 2023

Minutes numbered 43 to 55

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 2022 - 2023 Budget Review - 3rd Quarter ended March 2023 20

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 March 2023.

Recommendation:

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

GB.2 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 3rd Quarter 2022 to 2023 45

File: FY00623/5

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2023.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 31 March 2023 be received and noted.

GB.3 Investment Report as at 30 April 2023 59

File: FY00623/5

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.4 Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble 67

File: S13905

For Council to consider whether to submit the private Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Recommendation:

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

GB.5 Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives 362

File: S13685

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.

Recommendation:

GB.6 Planning Proposal for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives - Pymble Golf Club 647

File: S12645

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives (Pymble Golf Club).

Recommendation:

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

GB.7 Consideration of Submissions - 10 Park Crescent, Pymble - Heritage Listing 889

File: S14024

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 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors as a local heritage item.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors as a local heritage item.

GB.8 Generic Plans of Management, Parks and Sportsgrounds - for adoption 1025

File: S13463

To have Council adopt the Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds & Parks, both dated April 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the final Generic Plan of Management – Parks & Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds, dated April 2023 in accordance with clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018.

GB.9 Policy for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on Public Land – for adoption 1393

File: S13127

For Council to consider the Policy for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on Public Land (updated in response to public exhibition comments), and to seek endorsement of the updated policy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Policy for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on Council Land.

GB.10 RFT6-2023 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS SUPPLY / INSTALL / MAINTAIN / MANAGE 1412

File: RFT6-2023/R

To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

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

RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage - Tender Evaluation Committees recommendation to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government Regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the Regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

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

Questions With Notice

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 18 April 2023

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor J Pettett (Chairperson) Councillors S Lennon & B Ward (Gordon Ward) Councillors S Ngai & A Taylor (Roseville Ward) Councillors C Kay & M Smith (St Ives Ward) Councillor C Spencer & K Wheatley (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:	General Manager (John McKee) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Director Corporate (David Marshall) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) Director Operations (George Bounassif) Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson) Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor) Group Lead Major Projects (Geoffrey Douglas) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Christopher M Jones) Acting Manager Finance (Mette Kofoed) Governance Support Officer (Nicole Kratochvil)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00PM

The Mayor offered the Prayer

Apologies

File: S02194

Mayor Pettett advised of an apology from Councillor Greg Taylor as remote audio-visual technology was not available at his location.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Pettett)

That the apologies be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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:

Memorandums:

Correction to Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Council – 16 March 2023

Memorandum from Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy to Councillors, General Manager and Directors regarding a correction to the minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of council held on 16 March 2023 for apologies.

CONFIRMATION OF ATTACHMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

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

GB.8 Active Transport Reference Committee – recruitment of members

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

Attachment 1: List of nominees, and recommended members

Attachment 2: Consolidated Submission Nomination Forms

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 16 March 2023

Minutes numbered 26 to 26

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/A. Taylor)

That Minutes numbered 26 to 26 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting, subject to the correction noted in the Memorandum.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 21 March 2023

Minutes numbered 27 to 42

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ward/Smith)

That Minutes numbered 27 to 42 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting 20 February 2023 Minutes from Meeting

File: S04141

Vide: GB.1

For Council to consider and adopt the minutes from Multicultural Advisory Committee meeting held on 20 February 2023.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That Council adopt the minutes from the Multicultural Advisory Committee meeting held on 20 February 2023.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Investment Report as at 31 March 2023

File: FY00623/5

Vide: GB.3

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for March 2023 received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

St Edmund’s College community fundraising event

File: S11703/5

Vide: GB.4

To advise Council of the opportunity to purchase tickets for St Edmund’s College’s community fundraising event (Eddie’s Big Night Out: Time to Shine) on 3 June 2023.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That:

A. Council purchase a sponsorship package for St Edmund’s College’s community fundraising event (Eddie’s Big Night Out).

B. Councillors interested in attending advise the General Manager by 21 April 2023.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Project Status Report - March 2023

File: FY00621/5

Vide: GB.5

To provide Council with the Project Status Report reflecting results for January, February, and March 2023.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That:

A. Council receive and note the Project Status Report for February 2023.

B. The Project Status Report be placed on Council’s website.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Car Share Policy - Post exhibition

File: S02527

Vide: GB.7

To consider submissions to the exhibition of the draft Car Share Policy

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

A. That the recommended amendments be made to the draft Car Share Policy, and that the policy be adopted.

B. That Council seek expressions of interest from car share operators.

C. That persons who made a submission during the exhibition be notified of Council’s decision.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

52	Resourcing Strategy 2023-2033, Delivery Program 2022-2026 and Operational Plan 2023-2024 File: FY00382/15 Vide: GB.2
	To obtain Council’s endorsement to place the revised Resourcing Strategy 2023-2033, revised Delivery Program 2022-2026 and draft Operational Plan 2023-2024 (incorporating the budget, capital works and fees and charges for 2023-2024) on public exhibition.
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley) That Council: A. Endorse the revised Resourcing Strategy 2023-2033, revised Delivery Program 2022-2026 and draft Operational Plan 2023-2024 (including Fees and Charges 2023-2024) for public exhibition for 28 days. B. Note that a report will be provided to Council in June 2023 for further consideration of any submissions and adoption of the plans. C. Note that the scenarios for special rate variations are preliminary examples only, based on the recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review. These scenarios are likely to change based on further analysis, future decisions by Council and extensive community consultation before settling on a way forward and making an application to IPART. The Marian St Theatre project is to be removed from Scenario 1 for a special rates variation.
	PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer) That the motion be put in seriatim (sequentially and voted on separately) as A to B, and C. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley) That Council: A. Endorse the revised Resourcing Strategy 2023-2033, revised Delivery Program 2022-2026 and draft Operational Plan 2023-2024 (including Fees and Charges 2023-2024) for public exhibition for 28 days. B. Note that a report will be provided to Council in June 2023 for further consideration of any submissions and adoption of the plans. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley) That Council: C. Note that the scenarios for special rate variations are preliminary examples only, based on the recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review. These scenarios are likely to change based on further analysis, future decisions by Council and extensive community consultation before settling on a way forward and making an application to IPART. The Marian St Theatre project is to be removed from Scenario 1 for a special rates variation. AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward) C. Note that the scenarios for special rate variations are preliminary examples only, based on the recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review. These scenarios are likely to change based on further analysis, future decisions by Council and extensive community consultation before settling on a way forward and making an application to IPART. Due to the occurrence of disorder, the Mayor adjourned the meeting and left the chair during debate on this item. A member of the public was expelled from the gallery. On reassembling, Council proceeded with business. PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Moved: Councillor Spencer) That the amendment be now put. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED: For the Amendment: Councillors Kay, Lennon, Ngai, A. Taylor and Ward Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Smith, Spencer and Wheatley The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED.
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley) That Council: A. Endorse the revised Resourcing Strategy 2023-2033, revised Delivery Program 2022-2026 and draft Operational Plan 2023-2024 (including Fees and Charges 2023-2024) for public exhibition for 28 days. B. Note that a report will be provided to Council in June 2023 for further consideration of any submissions and adoption of the plans. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward) C. Note that the scenarios for special rate variations are preliminary examples only, based on the recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Review. These scenarios are likely to change based on further analysis, future decisions by Council and extensive community consultation before settling on a way forward and making an application to IPART. For the Resolution: Councillors Kay, Lennon, Ngai, A. Taylor and Ward Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Smith, Spencer and Wheatley CARRIED

53	Marian Street Theatre - Project Update File: S12062-3 Vide: GB.6
	To review the intention to proceed with the Marian Street Theatre project as recommended by the January 2023 Financial Sustainability Review (FSR).
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward) That Council: A. Note that Council unanimously resolved in December 2022 to fund the repayment of the loan necessary to fund the construction of the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre (basketball courts) by a future Council rates increase (a special rates variation). B. Incorporate within that special rates variation an additional amount to fund the repayment of the loan to fund the construction necessary to revive the Marian Street Theatre. C. In parallel with the above, explore federal government, New South Wales state government, philanthropic, and public funding for repayment of the loan to fund the construction necessary to revive the Marian Street Theatre.
	AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith) A. That Council notes that due to the lack of an identifiable funding strategy to replace asset sales as a means of funding the Marian Street Theatre upgrade in the short term, the project will not commence in the 2022/2023 financial year. B. That Council notes that Delivery Program Term Achievement “P7.1.2: The renewal of Marian Street Theatre is substantially completed” will not be achieved even if a funding strategy to replace asset sales is identified in the short term, given the time required to recommence the project and revise and resubmit a further Capital Expenditure Review to the Office of Local Government for consideration. C. That Council notes that future funding for the Marian Street Theatre upgrade could be from an increase to rates via a special rates variation, possibly taking effect on 1 July 2025 if this is supported by Council and approved by IPART. D. That Council notes that development consent for the Marian Street Theatre upgrade was granted 20 August 2021 and will lapse in August 2026 in the event substantial commencement is not achieved. The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED: For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Ngai, Smith, Spencer and Wheatley Against the Amendment: Councillors Lennon, A. Taylor and Ward The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith) A. That Council notes that due to the lack of an identifiable funding strategy to replace asset sales as a means of funding the Marian Street Theatre upgrade in the short term, the project will not commence in the 2022/2023 financial year. B. That Council notes that Delivery Program Term Achievement “P7.1.2: The renewal of Marian Street Theatre is substantially completed” will not be achieved even if a funding strategy to replace asset sales is identified in the short term, given the time required to recommence the project and revise and resubmit a further Capital Expenditure Review to the Office of Local Government for consideration. C. That Council notes that future funding for the Marian Street Theatre upgrade could be from an increase to rates via a special rates variation, possibly taking effect on 1 July 2025 if this is supported by Council and approved by IPART. D. That Council notes that development consent for the Marian Street Theatre upgrade was granted 20 August 2021 and will lapse in August 2026 in the event substantial commencement is not achieved. For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Ngai, Smith, Spencer, A.Taylor and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillors Lennon and Ward CARRIED

Active Transport Reference Committee - recruitment of members

File: S02696

Vide: GB.8

To consider nominations for community representatives to the Active Transport Reference Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That Council:

A. Re-advertise calling for external nominations for the active transport reference committee and encourage applications from a broad cross section of the community.

B. Advise the current applicants that their nominations will be kept on file and used when council staff recommend a future list of committee members.

C. Contacts and requests nominations from the following groups that were approved at the October 2022 meeting: Peloton Sports Inc, Northern Suburbs Triathlon Club, Northern Sydney Cycling Club, Knights of Surburbia, Veloroos.

D. That Council seek further nominations from community members with an emphasis on encouraging more women to apply and a wider geographical representation.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

55	Lindfield Village Hub site - Analysis of trees and habitat File: S10973 Vide: NM.1
	Notice of Motion from Councillors Smith and Pettett dated 31 March 2023 As Ku-ring-gai Council plans to potentially build its largest ever major project being the Lindfield Village Hub on the site of the car park at Woodford Lane, Lindfield, it is important to the community that they are informed of what is being lost on this site. Over 40 trees are to be removed resulting in the potential loss of a number of critically endangered trees as well as native habitat. It is important to do this assessment now rather than later so that councillors and the community are aware of what is onsite in order to assess whether they feel this project is appropriate or not at this location. The project is no longer a self-funding project as it appears to require at least one additional asset sale, being the sale of the old library site, to make up for the shortfall of funds. In Ku-ring-gai we have seen a rise in illegal tree removal and destruction, and it is important that Council takes the lead in ensuring that we do our best to preserve the tree canopy we do have. We, therefore, move: That a report to Council be prepared to include but not be limited to the identification and cataloguing of the trees and habitat onsite and the opportunities to relocate or use in any subsequent redevelopment of this site
	Councillor Spencer left Chambers between 8:45pm- 8:47pm during the discussion of NM.1 MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Smith/Pettett) That a report to Council be prepared to include but not be limited to the identification and cataloguing of the trees and habitat onsite and the opportunities to relocate or use in any subsequent redevelopment of this site.
	Amendment: (Moved: Councillors A.Taylor/Ngai) That Council staff report back to council on available options for environmental offsets including reasonable restoration of the locally indigenous canopy onsite, in line with the existing process and timeline for the project. The Amendment was put and declared LOST For the Amendment: Councillors Lennon, Ngai, and A.Taylor Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Kay, Smith, Spencer, Ward and Wheatley
	amendment: (Moved: Councillors Ngai/A.Taylor) That: A. A report to Council be prepared to include but not be limited to the identification and cataloguing of the trees and habitat onsite and the opportunities to relocate or use in any subsequent redevelopment of this site. B. Council staff report back to council on available options for environmental offsets including reasonable restoration of the locally indigenous canopy onsite, in line with the existing process and timeline for the project. PROCEDURAL MOTION: [Moved: Councillor A. Taylor] That the Amendment be now put. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED: For the Amendment: Councillors Kay, Lennon, Ngai, A.Taylor and Ward Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Pettett, Councillors Smith, Spencer and Wheatley The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Ngai/A. Taylor) That: 1. A report to Council be prepared to include but not be limited to the identification and cataloguing of the trees and habitat onsite and the opportunities to relocate or use in any subsequent redevelopment of this site. 2. Council staff report back to council on available options for environmental offsets including reasonable restoration of the locally indigenous canopy onsite, in line with the existing process and timeline for the project. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Meeting closed at 10:00PM

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 18 April 2023 (Pages 1 - 19) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 16 May 2023.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	S09112/11
	18 April 2023

2022 - 2023 Budget Review - 3rd Quarter ended March 2023

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 March 2023.

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 $507k. 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 remain unchanged.

recommendation:	That the 2022/23 March 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 third 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 $507k. This is mainly due to additional income from investments (partly restricted to external reserves) and minor adjustments in recurrent budget.

From a funding position, after adjusting for capital and operational grants movements, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital will remain unchanged.

Proposed adjustments to forecast budget

Operating Income

The proposed increase to the operating income of $6.4m is mainly from operating grants and contributions received, increased interest on investments (partly externally restricted) and other revenue:

· Decrease in other revenue ($151k) due to an adjustment to parking fines.

· Increase in interest and investment income ($1.2m) due to larger than forecast investment portfolio and more competitive interest rates, of which ($743k) is restricted to S7.11 reserves and ($178k) to Infrastructure & Facilities internal reserve.

· Net increase in operating grants and contributions ($5.36m) mainly from:

o Regional Roads Repair grant ($5.17m),

o Loan interest subsidy ($102k),

o Community development grants (90k),

o West Pymble Community Garden grant ($6k),

o Partly offset by decrease to Insurers WHS contribution ($13k).

Operating expenditure

The change (net increase) to the operating expenditure ($5.9m) is mainly due operational project expenditure funded from grants and other revenue and other adjustments in materials and contracts as detailed below:

· Net increase in materials and contracts ($214k):

o Increase due to fuel expenses ($231k)

o Decrease due to Library transfer to other expenses ($17k),

· Increase in other expenses ($17k) due to:

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

· Increase in depreciation ($400k), mainly due to:

Timing adjustments to current year depreciation due to early revaluation.

· Net increase to operational projects expenditure ($5.3m) mainly due to:

o Increased Regional and Local Roads Repair ($5.17m) funded from grant,

o Increased community development ($90k) funded from grants,

o Increased community garden project ($24k) funded grants,

o Decreased WHS project ($13k) funded from contribution from insurer,

o Decreased ($5k) – net transfer to capital projects.

Capital Budget

Major adjustments to the capital budget are due to:

· Decrease due to deferral of Marian Street Theatre Upgrade to future year ($22m)

· Allocation of expenditure for capital grants and contributions received ($2.4m), mainly for footpath and traffic facility grants ($974k), walking track grants ($636k), Hassall Park grant ($600k), Warrimoo Oval Lighting Upgrade ($148k) contribution from St Ives Football Club, ($45k) for Wahroonga SES shade structure from SES, ($32k) for shade sail at St Ives Village Green from Lions Club and $18k grant for Turramurra Lookout community garden.

· Increase to Lindfield Village Hub Car Park ($38k) funded from unexpended grant reserve.

· Net transfer from operating projects ($5k).

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 March 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 March quarter is $227.16m.

A detailed Restricted Assets Report as at March 2023 (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 31 March 2023 is ($35m) against the full year revised budget of ($145m). The March review decreases the forecast project budget by ($14.3m), the decrease is mainly due to deferral for Marian Street Theatre upgrade to a future year partly offset by projects funded from new grants received ($7.7m) and funding from unexpended grants brought forward ($38k).

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 a decrease of ($14.3m). The most significant variations and projects proposed for adjustment are listed below:

· Allocation of expenditure budget due to operating grants and contributions received from the Federal and State government ($5.38m), mainly for:

o Regional and local roads repair grant ($5.17m),

o Unsung heroes – community volunteer grant ($50k),

o Community Builders Transition grant ($40k),

o West Pymble community garden grant ($6k),

o Partly offset by decreased WHS contribution ($13k).

· Deferral of Marian Street Theatre upgrade funded from loan ($22m),

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

o Footpath program ($652k),

o Traffic facility program ($322k),

o Hassall Park master plan implementation ($600k) from Office of Sport,

o Caley’s Pond and Banks track boardwalk (572k),

o Two Creek walking track upgrade ($60k),

o Warrimoo Oval lighting upgrade ($148k),

o Wahroonga SES shade sail structure ($45k),

o St Ives Village Green shade sail ($32k),

o Turramurra Lookout community garden ($18k).

· Project funded from unexpended grant brought forward:

o Lindfield Village Hub Car Park ($38k).

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 March 2023 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 remain unchanged.

Recommendation:

That the March 2023 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes be received and noted.

Ann Wang

Acting Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accountant

Attachments:	A1 ⇩	Attachment A1 - Restricted Assets Report - March 2023		2023/139810
	A2 ⇩	Attachment A2 - Summary of Capital and Operational Projects Budget Adjustments - March 2023		2023/139671

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	FY00623/5
	16 April 2023

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 3rd Quarter 2022 to 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2023.

background:	A person may commence proceedings in the Land and Environment Court in relation to a development application which has either been refused by Council or is deemed to have been refused. An appeal may also be commenced in relation to conditions of development consent and the issue of building information certificates and orders.

comments:	For the 9 months ended 31 March 2023, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to the Land and Environment Court were $1,098,781. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

recommendation:	That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 31 March 2023 be received and noted.

Purpose of Report

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2023.

Background

A person may commence proceedings in the Land and Environment Court in relation to a development application which has either been refused by Council or is deemed to have been refused (a development application is deemed to have been refused if it has not been determined within a period of 40 days or such longer period that may be calculated in accordance with the Act). An appeal may also be commenced in relation to conditions of development consent and the issue of building certificates and orders. Council is a respondent to such proceedings.

Comments

Appeals Lodged

In the quarter ended 31 March 2023 there were 10 new appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court. The number of appeals received in prior years is as follows:

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 March 2023)	23

The appeals commenced during the quarter to 31 March 2023 concerned the following subject matters:

· Single dwelling

· Multi-dwelling housing

· Subdivision

· Modification of development consent

Council was also in receipt of appeals against a Development Control Order, and against the deemed refusal of a building information certificate.

costs

For the quarter ended 31 March 2023, Council made payments of $1,098,781 on appeals and associated expenses in relation to Land & Environment Court matters. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

In addition to expenditure on appeals, a further amount of $14,371 was spent in obtaining expert advice regarding development assessment matters.

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 (23 appeals lodged)	$1,098,781	$324,397	$300,017	$474,367	$0

* Costs reported to Council in previous reports

The costs incurred in the period to 31 March 2023 represent 83.57% of the annual budget of $1,315,300. In recent reported periods, there has been a trend of increasing numbers of appeals.

The commencement of appeals does not lie within the control of Council, however there a number of factors that appear to have influenced the volume of appeals:

· Amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act made in 2013 and then reintroduced in 2022 reduced the timeframe for lodgement of an appeal from twelve months to six months. This had the effect of applicants for more substantial and complex development proposals lodging appeals for no other reason than as a mechanism to preserve early appeal rights. The number of development applications received by Council in recent periods has itself been high.

· In addition, the prospect of changing economic market conditions in recent periods appears to have led to urgency on the part of developers, with a particularly high number and proportion of appeals commenced at an early stage on the basis of deemed refusal. As a result, Court listings are currently heavily booked and long delays for several months for the holding of both mediation conferences and hearings are occurring. Most recently, this situation has been exacerbated as a result of disruption caused by measures associated with COVID-19.

· Due to the abovementioned delays in the listing of Court-convened mediation conferences, the Court has in some matters required parties to participate in without-prejudice meetings in the meantime. These meetings have tended to result in additional iterations of amended plans being provided by applicants during the appeal process and therefore, additional costs.

· The additional pressure on application processing times arising from the Statement of Expectations issued to all NSW councils by the Minister for Planning in December 2021.

Notwithstanding these factors, Council’s overall success rate in appeals has been high.

In relation to costs recovered, the amount of $83,500 had been recovered as at the end of the quarter to 31 March 2023 compared to an annual budget for costs recovered of $107,400.

Outcomes

At an early stage of each appeal, Council as respondent, is required to file with the Court a Statement of Facts and Contentions outlining the grounds which Council asserts as warranting refusal of a development, or alternatively, that may be addressed by way of conditions of consent.

In cases where issues raised by Council are capable of resolution by the provision by the applicant of additional information or amendment of the proposal, it is the Court’s expectation that this should occur. The Court’s current practice of listing appeals for a preliminary mediation conference before a Commissioner of the Court pursuant to section 34 of the Land & Environment Court Act, strongly encourages this.

In this context, any of three outcomes can be regarded as favourable, namely:

1. If the appeal is in relation to a deemed refusal of an application which, upon assessment, is appropriate for approval: that the development is determined by Council, allowing the appeal to be discontinued by the applicant and avoiding as much as is practicable the incurring of unnecessary legal costs;

2. If the issues raised by Council are capable of resolution by the applicant providing further information, or amending the proposal: that this occurs, so that development consent should be granted, either by Council or the Court;

3. If the issues raised by Council are either not capable of resolution or the applicant declines to take the steps that are necessary to resolve them: that the appeal is either discontinued by the applicant, or dismissed (refused) by the Court.

Four matters were concluded during the quarter. A favourable outcome was achieved in all matters:

· one appeal was discontinued;

· two appeals were dismissed by the Court;

· one appeal was resolved by agreement in relation to an amended proposal.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial

resources and assets to maximise delivery of

services.

Achieve financial sustainability targets

identified in the Long Term Financial

Plan.

Undertake quarterly reporting to Council on the financial performance of the

organisation.

Governance Matters

Under Section 428 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to report legal costs, and the outcome of each case in its Annual Report.

Risk Management

Quarterly reporting of legal costs to Council together with information about the number, character and outcomes of proceedings enable ongoing oversight of this area of Council’s activity.

Financial Considerations

Land & Environment Court legal costs form part of Council’s recurrent operating budget.

Social Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Environmental Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

This report has been developed with input from Council’s Corporate Lawyer, Director Corporate and Director Development & Regulation.

Summary

For the quarter ended 31 March 2023, Council made payments of $1,098,781 on Land & Environment Court appeals. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 31 March 2023 be received and noted.

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Jamie Taylor

Corporate Lawyer

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Individual Case Summary March 2023 - Land and Environment Court Costs

2023/143967

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	S13905

Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider whether to submit the private Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

background:	A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 28 July 2021. A follow up pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 24 February 2022. The Planning Proposal was submitted in September 2022. The Planning Proposal was incomplete and additional information was required. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees in October 2022, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 14 October 2022. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 5 December 2022.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use; and specifically exclude the site from inclusion in Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontages. Specialised Retail Premises are now permissible in the new E3 Productivity Support Zone which commenced on 26 April 2023. Therefore, this additional permitted use is no longer required and all references should be removed from the planning proposal.

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

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider whether to submit the private Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Background

Planning Proposal and the Proposed Amendments to the KLEP 2015

The Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble that was submitted to Council for assessment seeks to:

· amend Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use; and

· specifically exclude the site from inclusion in Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontages as proposed by the Employment Zone Reforms for all land to be zoned E3 – Productivity Support.

A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 28 July 2021. A follow up pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 24 February 2022.

The Planning Proposal was submitted in September 2022. The Planning Proposal was incomplete and additional information was required. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees in October 2022, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 14 October 2022. The Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A1 and the appendices to the Planning Proposal are included at Attachment A2 – Attachment A16.

Site Description and Local Context

This Planning Proposal applies to land at 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble and is legally described as Lot 41 in DP 630346. The site is located within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA) in the southern half of the Pymble Business Park. The site has an area of 2,873sqm with a 50m frontage to Bridge Street and a 60m site depth. The site is situated 660m south-east of Pymble Train Station, 3.95km north-east of Macquarie Metro Station, 6.2km north-west of Chatswood CBD, and 14.3km north-west of the Sydney CBD.

The site has a varying topography with an approximate 4.9m cross fall along the Bridge Street frontage from north-east to south-west. There is also a 7m slope towards the rear of the site from the north-west corner to the south-east corner. Mature perimeter trees are currently located on the site; however, the south-western boundary is dominated by at-grade parking and presents limited planting.

The site currently comprises a three-storey building comprising approximately 2,473sqm of low-grade commercial office floorspace with basement parking. Existing access to the subject site is via Bridge Street only. The driveway and at-grade parking is located along the southern boundary and includes access to the basement parking. The site to the rear comprises the newly completed Bunnings Pymble Hardware Store (Bunnings). Access driveways to the new Bunnings from Bridge Street are located immediately adjacent to both side boundaries.

The site’s immediate local context is characterised primarily by office uses within the business park setting. Building heights along Bridge Street are typically 2-5 storeys but appear larger due to several of these buildings having exposed basement parking that is visible from the street. Residential uses are located to the north-west of the business park and are separated by a heritage conservation area. Residential uses are also located to the south and east, separated by Ryde Road and Pacific Highway, respectively.

Employment Zones Reform

As part of the broader planning reform program that is being undertaken by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Employment Zones Reform was announced in November 2020. The reforms apply to all Councils and seeks to:

· Reduce the number of existing business and industrial zones;

· increase flexibility by expanding the land uses permitted; and

· support productivity and job creation.

A report detailing the Employment Zones Reform was received and noted by Council on 15 March 2022. The new employment zone amendments commenced on 26 April 2023

Under the reform, the existing B7 Business Park zoning withing the Pymble Business Park has been translated to the E3 Productivity Support Zone. The E3 Zone includes Specialised Retail Premises as a permissible use and the application of Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage has been extended to apply to E3 Productivity Support street frontages.

Comments

Merit

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

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the site specific and strategic merit of the proposed amendments. The following is an assessment of the relevant merits of the Planning Proposal: The detailed Table of Assessment is included at Attachment A17

Site Specific Merit

Urban Design

Architectural Plans and an Urban Design Study have been submitted with the Planning Proposal and are included at Attachment A2 and Attachment A3.

· Bulk and scale

Section 9C.8 of the KDCP states that:

“5. Monolithic structures with repetitive elements are to be avoided by segmenting building facades into vertical elements with individual modulations.

6. Building elements are to be expressed through use of rhythm and patterns of windows, material, colour and texture to create dynamic facades.

7. The building layout or structure is to be expressed within the facade.”

The proposed development demonstrates inadequate articulation to mitigate the perception of building bulk. The excessive bulk and scale on the western elevation adjoining Bridge Street is overwhelming in scale due to the long façade with limited articulation and poor design quality.

Figure 1. Excerpt from Urban Design Study - Lower Bridge Street Perspective

The apparent size and scale of building must be modulated by stepping down a portion of the facade from the predominant building height. This will provide the opportunity to organize a long building into two sections which will reduce the visual bulk and scale and avoid the appearance of a “block-long building.”

Recommendation: It is recommended that the design of the proposed development be amended to comply with Building Form and Facade controls within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

· Active street frontages

Section 9C.10 of the KDCP states that, “Ground floor frontages are to provide for active uses that contribute to the active street frontage”.

Section 14G.5 of the KDCP states that:

“Buildings are to be designed in accordance with Figure 14G.5-1.

1. Provide active street frontages along Pacific Highway, Bridge Street, Suakin Street and West Street in line with Part 9C.10 of this DCP.

2. Ground floor frontages are to provide for active uses that contribute to the active street frontage.

3. Building slabs are to be stepped on sloping sites to ensure ground floor level does not exceed 0.3m above or below finished footpath level. Note: Variations may be permitted on very steep streets.

4. Building entries to each individual commercial premises are to be level with adjoining footpaths, with openings (doors and windows) that allow a direct visual connection between the building and the street. Note: Variations may be permitted on very steep streets.”

Figure 2. Excerpt from the KDCP - Built Form Plan

The KDCP Controls require active street frontages within Pymble Business Park. Under the Employment Zones Reforms the application of the KLEP 2015 Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage have been extended to apply to E3 Productivity Support and will apply to the site. The proposal, however, does not appear to provide active frontage to 80% of the length of the building facade at street level. The submitted architectural plans indicate a split frontage whereby the northern half of the frontage is provided as a 5m landscaped setback fronting the car park on upper ground level. The southern half is provided as active frontage with level pedestrian entrance from the adjacent footpath and active uses (café) and public seating provided.

Figure 3. Excerpt from the Urban Design Study

Despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the DCP’s active frontage controls and proposed Employment Zones Reform, this variation is supported because of the following reasons:

1) Significant Level Changes across the Site

The site is subject to significant topographic variations ranging from RL116.5m in the northern boundary down to RL109.5 on the southern boundary which constitutes a level change of 7m. The steep topography of the site and the length of frontage to Bridge Street will pose a significant challenge in achieving a continuous active frontage along this street. In such a scenario, a split-level approach to the ground plane treatment is an acceptable design solution for this site.

2) Surrounding Context

Based on the visual assessment of the existing character of the Bridge Street, it has been observed that there are limited active edges along the extent of this Street. Multiple pedestrian/vehicular access points and above ground parking areas further exacerbate the fragmentation of the active edges. The slope of the Bridge Street and existing local context warrants an alternative approach to be considered for the treatment of ground plane of buildings along this street, particularly on steeply sloping sites.

· Above ground car park

As per Section 9B.2 of the DCP, the Car Parking Design is to comply with the following controls:

“1. All car parking areas are to be provided within the basement of development.

2. Basement car parking areas are to be consolidated under building footprints. Note: Basements may be permitted to extend under the space between buildings on the same site.

3. The basement car park is not to project more than 1m above existing ground level to the floor level of the storey immediately above. See Figure 9B.2-1

5. Multi-storey car parking above ground level may be permitted where it is housed within the building and concealed behind office or other active uses, so that the parking structure is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. Refer to Figure 9B.2-1 and 9B.2-2”

Figure 4. Excerpt from KDCP – Figure 9B.2-1 Controls for basement car park to facilitate active street frontages

Figure 5. Excerpt from KDCP – Figure 9B.2-2: Multi-storey car park is housed within building projection above existing ground level.

The submitted architectural drawings indicate the provision of a car on the upper ground floor level, with access off Bridge Street. The proposed location of the carpark does not meet the requirements for car parking provision as stated in the KDCP. It has also been observed that the car parking area on UG Levels has not been included in the FSR Calculations.

Figure 6. Excerpt from Urban Design Study

Recommendation: It is recommended that the floor plans must be amended to comply with the requirement of Section 9B.2 of the DCP. If the location of the above ground car parking area is not amended, then the following requirements will have to be complied with:

1) Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

2) Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· Communal open space

Section 9C.7 of the DCP provides the controls related to the provision of a Communal Open Space Area as follows:

“1. An area of communal open space is to be provided for staff recreation, appropriate to the needs of the particular premises.

2. Communal open space is to be located at ground level behind the building line or on roof terraces and podiums.”

Recommendation: It has been observed the proposed architectural drawings do not indicate the provision of a separate communal open space area. It is recommended that the proposed design scheme be updated to reflect the same.

· Setbacks, landscape and existing trees

Section 14G.4 of the DCP provides the Setback controls for the Pymble Business Park

“1. All buildings within the Pymble Business Park must comply with the setback controls illustrated in Figure 14G.4-1.

2. Setbacks on properties adjacent to the Heritage Item must comply with the controls in Part 19 of this DCP.

3. Building setbacks stipulated in Figure 14G.4-1 respond to the location within the business park. They are:

i) zero setbacks to sites that are constrained or where an urban frontage would benefit the location;

ii) landscaped setbacks to sites where a landscaping element within the setback is required to enhance the character of the streetscape.’

Figure 7. Excerpt from KDCP

As mentioned above, the KDCP requires 5m setbacks on front, rear and side boundaries. However, the Planning Proposal seeks a variation to the setback controls as follows:

§ Bridge Street (west): 5m

§ North: 2.5m

§ Rear (east): 7m

§ South: 1m

Figure 8. Excerpt from Urban Design Study

The following justification has been provided in the Planning Proposal for the proposed variation to the setbacks:

1. “By virtue of the adjoining use of land surrounding the site, these setbacks will serve little purpose other than to restrict development of the site, particularly given the proposal complies with the minimum building separation requirements and the side boundaries directly abut driveways associated with the Bunnings development. The location of the adjacent access driveways necessitates a site-specific response to the side setbacks given the change in urban context which enables the site to be viewed as integrated into the Bunnings precinct rather than a separate, isolated site.

2. The design also requires variation to the lower-level side setbacks to achieve the required floor plates for specialised (large format) retail, basement carparking, building core, lobbies and internal circulation areas.”

It is acknowledged that “the setbacks prescribed by the KDCP 2021 were intended primarily for standard business park uses and are not suitable for larger format retail floor plates as sought by the Planning Proposal. The reduced setbacks do not result in amenity impacts to adjacent land given the use of the site and distance to the nearest buildings on Bridge Street to the north-east and south-west.” Details regarding tree retention will be subject to Ecological and Arboricultural assessment during the development assessment process and may result in a variation to setback controls. In addition, it is also recommended that Greenweb mapping be incorporated the DCP support specific tree retention. This is discussed further in the biodiversity assessment below.

Urban Design Review Summary

While a Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment and cannot be tied to a specific development outcome, it is important that the urban design study supporting the Planning Proposal presents a concept development scheme that is compliant with Council’s DCP and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as well as responds to any specific development constraints on the site. An analysis of the Concept Architectural Plans and Urban Design Study has been undertaken by Council’s Urban Design Project Officer and is included in Table of Assessment at Attachment A17. This analysis identifies the following required amendments to the concept plans and Urban Design Study:

· Amend the urban design of the proposed plan to comply with the controls for façade and articulation within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

· Amend the floor plans to comply with the requirement of Section 9B.2 of the DCP. If the location of the above ground car parking area is not amended, then the following requirements will have to be complied with:

o Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

o Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· It has been observed the proposed architectural drawings do not indicate the provision of a separate communal open space area. It is recommended that the proposed design scheme be updated to reflect the same.

Biodiversity

A Landscape Plan (Attachment A4), an Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report and an Ecological Constraints Assessment were submitted with the Planning Proposal. Council’s Natural Areas Program Leader has reviewed the documents, identifying a number of errors and omissions. Following further consultation with the proponent, revised documentation was submitted. The revised Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report and an Ecological Constraints Assessment are included as, Attachment A10 and Attachment A13 respectively. Council’s Natural Areas Program Leader’s assessment of the revised documents is as follows:

· Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report

The Arborist report erroneously states that none of the subject trees are identified as threatened species or elements of endangered ecological communities.

Trees 10 and 11 (both recommended for removal) are Eucalyptus scoparia, listed as a threatened species under both the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This species does not occur naturally in the Sydney region but is commonly planted as a street and garden tree. The protections conferred by the threatened species listings may not apply to planted trees outside the natural range. Any required statutory assessment of these trees under the BC Act and EPBC Act will occur at the DA stage.

The Ecological Constraints Assessment determines that vegetation at the rear of the site comprises Blue Gum High Forest, a Critically Endangered Ecological Community. The table below lists trees on site that are characteristic of this community:

Tree ID No.	Species	Retention Value	Recommendation
19	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
20	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
22	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
23	Pittosporum undulatum	M	Retain
24	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
25	Pittosporum undulatum	M	Retain
26	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
27	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
30	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain
31	Angophora costata	H	Remove
32	Eucalyptus saligna	H	Retain

The Landscape Significance scores, and in turn Tree Retention Values, of Trees 10 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 and 32 may be affected by the legal status of these trees as threatened species or elements of an endangered ecological community. However, any alteration of these trees’ Retention Values would be unlikely to alter the recommendation to remove or retain trees.

The Arborist Report identifies 48 trees within the subject Lot. The Report finds that retention of 35 trees is not viable under the proposed development. In most cases this is due to the footprint of the proposed development encroaching on trees’ TPZs beyond 10%. An increase in setbacks would result in increased scope to retain and replace trees. For example, increasing setbacks to 5 m on the north-eastern, north-western, and south-western boundaries (as per Standard DCP controls) would likely facilitate retention of an additional 14 trees.

The proposed development is likely to result in net loss of tree canopy cover within the subject Lot. The proposal retains an area of deep soil on the south-eastern boundary, facilitating the retention of thirteen large trees. Additionally, the proposed development retains an area of deep soil on the north-western boundary, facilitating replacement of two large trees in this area. However, replacement of all trees proposed for removal with vegetation of similar size is not feasible due to limited available soil volumes.

It is noted that net loss of tree canopy is a likely outcome of redevelopment of the site within existing development controls and the amendments to the KLEP that the Planning Proposal seeks are not likely to result in additional losses.

· Ecological Constraints Assessment

The Ecological Constraints Assessment determines that Blue Gum High Forest occurs on the site. The Blue Gum High Forest vegetation on the site is likely to have been planted and is in poor condition. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 lists ‘Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community, however the EPBC Act listing only applies to remnant patches that meet specific condition criteria, including patch size and canopy cover. Vegetation within the subject site does not meet these criteria and therefore is not recognised under and protected by the EPBC Act 1999. The protections conferred by the BC Act listing do apply to the area of the subject site occupied by BGHF.

The Ecological Constraint Assessment identifies eight Eucalyptus saligna as comprising the occurrence of BGHF on the site, however three additional trees characteristic of the community occur within the same patch of vegetation: one Angophora costata and two Pittosporum undulatum. The Angophora is recommended for removal due to the proposed building footprint encroaching on its crown. Statutory assessment of impacts to BGHF vegetation will need to be completed at the DA stage.

The Ecological Constraints Assessment does not address the presence of Eucalyptus scoparia, a threatened species, on the site. This species does not occur naturally in the Sydney region but is commonly planted as a street and garden tree. The protections conferred by the threatened species listings may not apply to planted trees outside the natural range. Any required statutory assessment of these trees under the BC Act and EPBC Act will occur at the DA stage.

The Ecological Constraints Assessment identifies Grey-headed Flying-fox and Superb Fruit Dove, both threatened species, as having been recorded from within 1km of the subject site. The subject site contains several trees of species known to provide foraging resources to Grey-headed Flying-fox, including trees recommended for removal. The site may also contain foraging resources for the Superb Fruit Dove. Grey-headed Flying-fox are a highly mobile species with a diverse diet so it is unlikely that removal of forage trees on the subject site would have a significant impact on the species. The Superb Fruit Dove is an occasional visitor to Sydney and has not been recorded within the Ku-ring-gai LGA in over twenty years. Assessment of potential impacts to Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Superb Fruit Dove including their habitat will be required at the DA stage.

It is noted that potential impacts to biodiversity arising from redevelopment of the site is unlikely to be exacerbated by the amendments to the KLEP that the Planning Proposal seeks.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Council’s Greenweb mapping be updated to capture the occurrence of BGHF on the subject site, facilitating protection of the vegetation under Part 18 of the Development Control Plan at the DA stage. The vegetation does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Council’s Terrestrial Biodiversity map.

The recommended updated greenweb map for incorporation into the DCP is included as Attachment A19

Traffic and Transport

A Green Travel Plan and a Traffic Impact Assessment have been submitted with the Planning Proposal and are included at Attachment A6 and Attachment A8. Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has revied the documents and provided the following key points. A more detailed traffic and transport analysis is included in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A17.

· Transport Infrastructure Capacity

No assessment of bus stops or bus service capacity was undertaken in the GTP or TIA, probably due to low current usage. For Council’s review, the four nearest/most practical bus stops were considered, which are on Ryde Road and Pacific Highway. Since it is anticipated that a modest number of workers from the proposal would use a bus for journeys to work during the peak period, even if the targeted mode shift in the Green Travel Plan is achieved it is unlikely that there would be insufficient capacity on buses or at the stops to accommodate additional demand from the proposal.

In the shorter term, Transport for NSW have advised that prior to the last State election the Government made a commitment prior to 2023 to introduce new weekday peak hour express services between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park that bypass Gordon (known as the 197X Mona Vale – Macquarie Park service). These new services would save some travel time for passengers travelling between Macquarie Park and St Ives/Northern Beaches, as the service would not have to divert to Gordon station.

Improvements to bus services and new rapid bus services to Macquarie Park would improve public transport connectivity to the site for employees originating from Northern Beaches, St Ives or from the Macquarie Park/North Ryde area. The Future Transport Strategy identifies future rapid bus services between Mona Vale and Macquarie: At this stage, though, it is unclear from the Future Transport Strategy as to what form the public transport connection will take. Councils along the Mona Vale Road/Ryde Road/Lane Cove Road corridor are aligned in their support for improved services along the corridor and are advocating to Transport for NSW to bring forward planning for the initiative.

From the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Council has an action to advocate to Transport for NSW to increase the priority and accelerate the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified in Future Transport 2056 that connects Ku-ring-gai internally and with nearby centres, including improvements to bus connections from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park (followed by Bus Rapid Transit). In September 2022, the Greater Cities Commission released the Macquarie Park Strategic Infrastructure and Services Assessment ( SISA ) Final Report, which was prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to inform the Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Place Strategy (Place Strategy) and Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Strategic Master Plan (Master Plan). This report provides some clarity around timeframes for some projects that have been identified in TfNSW's Future Transport Strategy that are relevant to Ku-ring-gai, and in particular mentions the Mona Vale to Macquarie Park public transport improvements for rapid services, with a delivery timeframe of 2027–2036.

Section 8 of the Traffic Impact Assessment considers traffic generations and impacts to the road network. The above analysis takes into account the effects of the Bunnings Development as forecast in the lodged development application, although the analysis does not apply any reductions from the existing site. The result of the assessment is that nearby intersections currently operate at good levels of service, based on average delay per vehicle on all approaches. However Pacific Highway and Ryde Road carry the majority of traffic so the average delay for those approaches is relatively low compared to the side roads. Sidra intersection analysis provided in the TIA shows minimal delays and queues on West Street and Bridge Street approaches during the weekday PM peak hour.

However, internal observations show that on weekdays from 5pm, there are significant queues and delays both on Bridge Street and West Street from office staff leaving their workplace between 4pm - 5pm. The traffic generation and assignment in Section 8.3 of the TIA indicates that 75% of vehicle trips (or additional 84 vehicles) are directed to the West Street approach during the peak hour, which is likely to extend queues further at this location.

Council had investigated the potential for traffic signals at the intersection of Ryde Road and West Street, but these were not supported by Transport for NSW at the time of the Bunnings Pymble development application. Also, in the RMS/TfNSW response to the Bunnings Pymble development application, while TfNSW specifically did not support new signals at West Street/Ryde Road at that point in time, they were also silent on the proposed pedestrian facilities across Pacific Highway at the intersection with Bridge Street (which is infrastructure/works identified in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010).

Section 4 of the TIA notes that Transport for NSW was contacted by the proponent in relation to any existing and future Transport for NSW road widening and pinch points program requirements that may affect the proposal, and that a response was not received. There was no evidence provided of discussion with Transport for NSW regarding any potential alteration/expansion of bus services along the corridor.

If the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with State agencies. Therefore, any clarification regarding the potential for upgrades to the intersection of Ryde Road and West Street, as well alterations to the traffic signals at Pacific Highway at the intersection with Bridge Street to incorporate pedestrian facilities could be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process.

Traffic and Transport Review Summary

The Planning Proposal has the following favourable transport aspects:

· It is likely that a good proportion of future workers of the proposal would originate from the Ku-ring-gai LGA;

· The site has good access to local and regional public transport and has the capacity to take advantage of a future workforce that would be located with convenient public transport access.

· Given the relatively high number of future workers likely to be originating from the Ku-ring-gai LGA, the site is well placed to take advantage of encouraging walking as a mode of travel to work and increasing its share compared to other modes.

· Implementation of travel initiatives in a Green Travel Plan for the site would enhance walking, cycling and public transport access to the site, and potentially reduce traffic impacts particularly during the weekday pm peak

· It is anticipated that a modest number of workers from the proposal would use a bus for journeys to work during the peak period, and it is therefore unlikely that there would be insufficient capacity on buses or at the stops to accommodate additional demand from the proposal.

· Due to non-conflicting times of peak parking demand of the 2 proposed uses of the site (office, bulky goods), there is merit in considering reduced parking provision through the efficient shared use of the parking resource.

· The proposed bulky goods retail component has the potential to take advantage of future last mile freight operations, when/where available.

· Future improvements to bus services and new rapid bus services to Macquarie Park would improve public transport connectivity to the site for employees originating from Northern Beaches, St Ives or from the Macquarie Park/North Ryde area.

The following transport constraints were found with respect to the Planning Proposal:

· There are significant vehicle queues and delays in both on Bridge Street and West Street during the weekday pm peaks. Without any proposed upgrade of Bridge Street and West Street at their intersections with the surrounding arterial road network, the proposal is likely to extend queues and delays further at these locations.

· Heritage

A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted with the Planning Proposal and is included as Attachment A11. Council’s Heritage Specialist Planner has reviewed the document and provided the following key points.

The heritage impact statement by Design 5 Architects is considered an adequate assessment of heritage issues. The conclusions of this statement are supported. There are no current heritage issues for this site. The listing for the adjacent site of the “3M Building (former)”, at 950 Pacific Highway, is proposed for removal because the building has been demolished. It is agreed this listing is no longer a relevant heritage consideration for development in the vicinity.

The nearby Gordon Fire Station, at 966 Pacific Highway, Pymble, is listed on the NSW Fire and Rescue Section 170 register of State-owned heritage assets. Note this is erroneously entered in this register under the suburb of Gordon, like the building name, when it is located in Pymble. It is not currently listed a local heritage item on KLEP 2015, but is considered a potential local heritage item. This listed fire station has not been addressed in the submitted heritage statement. However, further assessment of the impacts on this building are not considered necessary as the fire station is situated on a corner site shares little visual relationship to the subject site that is located on the opposite side and further down the street.

The proposal does not alter building envelopes in a way that could potentially have more widespread impacts to extend into the view corridor of the fire station.

Draft Site Specific DCP

· Setbacks

The setbacks prescribed by the KDCP 2021 were intended primarily for standard business park uses and are not suitable for larger format retail floor plates as sought by the Planning Proposal. Given the context of the site which is constrained by the Bunnings access driveways immediately adjacent to north-east and south-west of the site, the only way to accommodate large format retail floor plates is through the reduction in the side setback requirements. Therefore, the proposed variation to the side setbacks is supported as it will facilitate the permissible land uses on the site without resulting in amenity impacts to adjacent land, given the use of the site and distance to the nearest buildings on Bridge Street to the north-east and south-west.

The proposed increase in rear setback is also supported as it will be beneficial in terms of tree protection. However, it should be noted that subject to the recommendations of the detailed Ecological and Arboricultural assessment at Development Assessment stage, larger site setbacks may be required.

· Active Frontage Requirements

The steep topography of the site and the length of frontage to Bridge Street will pose a significant challenge in achieving a continuous active frontage along this street. In such a scenario, a split-level approach to the ground plane treatment, as sought by the Planning Proposal, is an acceptable design solution for this site.

However, it is important to ensure that blank walls are not provided along the Bridge Street Frontage and any above ground car parking areas are appropriately screened. Detailed controls regarding the acceptable screening methods/ materials will be prepared by Council staff as a part of the Site Specific DCP to be exhibited with the Planning Proposal.

· Greenweb Mapping

The Ecological Constraint Assessment identifies eight Eucalyptus saligna as comprising the occurrence of BGHF on the site. Statutory assessment of impacts to BGHF vegetation will need to be completed at the DA stage. It is recommended that Council’s Greenweb mapping be updated to capture the occurrence of BGHF on the subject site, facilitating protection of the vegetation under Part 18 of the Development Control Plan at the DA stage.

A draft greenweb map for inclusion in the DCP is included as Attachment A19

Strategic Merit Assessment

· Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan

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

o Objective 4. Infrastructure use is optimised;

o Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected;

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

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

o Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres;

o Objective 24: Economic sectors are targeted for success;

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

o Objective 34: Energy and water flows are captured, used and re-used.

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

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

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

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

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

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) came into effect on 17 March 2020 and provides a 20 year vision and local planning priorities and associated actions for land use planning in Ku-ring-gai. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following local planning priorities:

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

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

o K26. Fostering a strong local economy that provides future employment opportunities for both residents and workers within key industries

o K36. Enhancing the liveability of Ku-ring-gai’s urban environment through integrated water infrastructure and landscaping solutions

o K37. Enabling water resource recovery through the capture, storage and reuse of water, alternative water supplies and increased water efficiency

o K41. Reducing the generation of waste

The current provision of large format retail floorspace across Pymble is approximately 25,000sqm, indicating an undersupply of around 51,000sqm. The proposal will provide for almost 7% of the current undersupply, contributing to the strong need for large format retail floorspace. The proposal is estimated to generate 313 ongoing jobs and 166 jobs during the construction phase, directly creating a total of 479 jobs. Overall, the development will directly and indirectly result in a total of approximately 1,043 jobs from multiplier effects flowing through the local economy.

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

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) applicable to the site. Many of these SEPPs contain detailed provisions and controls which would only apply at the Development Application stage.

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

- 5.1 Integrating Land Use & Transport

- 7.1 Business and Industrial Zones

· Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

The ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy’ (AEC,2020) was received and noted by Council in December 2020. The Strategy identifies a significant undersupply of large format retail floor space within Ku-ring-gai. Even taking into consideration the approx. 15 000 sqm of floorspace in the recent Bunnings development, there is projected to be an undersupply of approx. 91 600 sqm large format retail floorspace by 2036. However, it is also noted that, while locating large format retail facilities in Pymble Business Park would add destinational appeal for cross-shopping purposes, it may be at odds with the employment uses within this precinct and there is limited other significant commercial and related employment lands across the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

The ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy’ also notes that, whilst Council’s current planning controls for the Pymble Business Park align to the North District’s Plan to retain and protect employment lands from more financially attractive uses, the lack of development, low take-up rates and deteriorating quality of buildings within the Park indicates that a change in the land use should be considered to better accommodate growth in the LGA. The Strategy recommends to allow ‘Specialised Retail Premises’ as a specific land use within the B7 Business Park Zone as it would allow for Bulky Good Retailing to occur to complement the approved Bunnings Warehouse. However, it also recommends that Council should undertake further investigations into Pymble Business Park to determine the opportunities, trade-offs and ultimate impacts of allowing specialised, large-format retail and/or mixed-use residential developments for this precinct.

Based on the findings of the proponents Retail and Economic Impact Assessment (Attachment A9) and the ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy, the proposal to permit Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use is supported.

It is noted that Specialised Retail Premises are now permissible in the new E3 Productivity Support Zone which commence on 26 April 2023 under the state government’s employment zones reforms. Therefore, this additional permitted use is no longer required and all references should be removed from the planning proposal.

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice

In accordance with Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) on 5 December 2022.

The KLPP provided the following advice (Attachment 18):

“The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advises Council that the Planning Proposal, amended as per the Table of Assessment at Attachment A17, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

The Panel advises that it supports the recommendation to proceed to Gateway subject to the changes to the supporting documentation as identified under Attachment A17.

The Panel advises that the ecological constraint assessment issues should be addressed prior to the Council’s endorsement of this planning proposal and that any recommendations associated with that assessment, including any further LEP amendments, be incorporated in this planning proposal.

It is noted that the Council’s DCP will need to be amended to reflect the set backs proposed as per this planning proposal.”

Voting: Unanimous

The KLPP support for the submission of the Planning Proposal, subject to the changes to the supporting documentation outlined in Attachment A17, for a Gateway Determination is noted.

In alignment with the KLPP advice, the proponent has amended the Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report (Attachment A10) and the Ecological Constraints Assessment (Attachment A13) according to Council Officers advice prior to this report to Council. The assessment of these revised documents is addressed under the Biodiversity section of this report above.

Amendments required to be made to the Planning Proposal and the supporting documentation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has found that there are several inconsistencies and elements that do not comply with Ku-ring-gai’s Development Control Plan, that require adjustment.

The key recommended change to the planning proposal is as a consequence of ‘Specialised Retail Premises’ now being permissible in the new E3 Productivity Support Zone which commence on 26 April 2023 under the state government’s employment zones reforms. Therefore, this additional permitted use is no longer required, and all references should be removed from the planning proposal. The planning proposal should focus on the proposed exemption from the application of Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage.

The Table of Assessment included at Attachment A17 details the required amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal if Council is to support it being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained	P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character	P1.1.1.1 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained

P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

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

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

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

P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

Governance Matters

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

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

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on the matter as to whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal will not result in any adverse social impacts.

Environmental Considerations

The Ecological Constraint Assessment identifies the occurrence of BGHF on the site. Statutory assessment of impacts to BGHF vegetation will need to be completed at the DA stage. It is recommended that Council’s Greenweb mapping be updated to capture the occurrence of BGHF on the subject site, facilitating protection of the vegetation under Part 18 of the Development Control Plan at the DA stage. The vegetation does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Council’s Terrestrial Biodiversity map.

Community Consultation

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

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included internal consultation with Council’s staff with expertise in planning, urban design, traffic and transport and biodiversity and has informed the recommendations of this Report.

At the time of finalising this report, a Councillor site inspection was being organised for early May.

Summary

The Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble that was submitted to Council for assessment seeks to:

· amend Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use; and

· specifically exclude the site from inclusion in Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontages as proposed by the Employment Zone Reforms for all land to be zoned E3 – Productivity Support.

Specialised Retail Premises are now permissible in the new E3 Productivity Support Zone which commence on 26 April 2023 under the state government’s employment zones reforms. Therefore, this additional permitted use is no longer required, and all references should be removed from the planning proposal. The planning proposal should focus on the proposed exemption from the application of Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed and found to have sufficient strategic and site-specific merit to enable it to proceed to Gateway Determination and public exhibition, subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A10 including the following:

Planning Proposal (Attachment A1)

· Amend the planning proposal to remove the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use;

Architectural Plans and Urban Design Report (Attachment A2 and A3).

· Amend the design of the proposed development to comply with the controls for façade and articulation within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

o Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

o Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· Amend the proposed design scheme to be consistent with the architectural drawings regarding the provision of a separate communal open space area.

Draft Site Specific DCP

A site specific DCP is recommended for the site facilitate the orderly development of the site and address identified site constraints. The key elements of the site specific DCP should address the following:

· Setbacks

The setbacks prescribed by the KDCP 2021 were intended primarily for standard business park uses and are not suitable for larger format retail floor plates as sought by the Planning Proposal. The proposed variation to the side setbacks is supported as it will facilitate the permissible land uses on the site without resulting in amenity impacts to adjacent land.

· Active Frontage Requirements

· Greenweb Mapping

A draft greenweb map for inclusion in the DCP is included as Attachment A19.

Recommendation:

A. That the Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this report and Table of Assessment (Attachment A17).

B. That the Planning Proposal (as amended) be submitted to the NSW 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 Assessment (Attachment A17) 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 by Council in accordance with the details in this report and paid for by the proponent in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

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

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

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Planning Proposal - amended following KLPP Advice		2023/044325
	A2	Appendix A - Architectural Plans	Excluded	2022/336581
	A3 ⇩	Appendix B - Urban Design Report		2022/336583
	A4	Appendix C - Landscape Plan	Excluded	2022/336584
	A5	Appendix D - Environmentally Sustainable Development Report	Excluded	2022/336587
	A6	Appendix E - Green Travel Plan	Excluded	2022/336588
	A7 ⇩	Appendix F - Draft Site Specific DCP		2022/336589
	A8	Appendix G - Updated Traffic Report	Excluded	2022/336591
	A9	Appendix H - Economic Report	Excluded	2022/336593
	A10 ⇩	Appendix I - Arborist Report - amended following KLPP Advice		2023/044329
	A11	Appendix J - Heritage Impact Statement	Excluded	2022/336597
	A12	Appendix K - Geotechnical Report	Excluded	2022/336599
	A13 ⇩	Appendix L - Ecological Constraints Assessment - amended following KLPP Advice		2023/144513
	A14	Appendix M - Noise Report	Excluded	2022/336605
	A15	Appendix N - Survey Plan	Excluded	2022/336606
	A16	Appendix O - Water Servicing Requirements	Excluded	2022/336607
	A17 ⇩	Table of Assessment		2023/144880
	A18 ⇩	Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Minutes - 5 December 2022		2023/044997
	A19 ⇩	Proposed DCP Greenweb Map		2023/144310

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	S13685

Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	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.

background:	A pre-planning proposal meeting was held on 15 December 2021. The Planning Proposal was submitted on 31 March 2022. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation, the assessment of the Planning Proposal commenced on 15 June 2022. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 19 September 2022 for advice. At the OCM of 18 October 2022, Council resolved to defer the matter for a site inspection, which was held on 9 November 2022. The matter was reported to Council at the 15 November 2022 OMC, where no decision was taken as the lost Motion was not substituted with an alternative. The matter was next reported to Council at the 13 December 2022 OMC alongside a supplementary report. Council resolved that the proponent amend the supporting documentation and for Council staff to reassess the Planning Proposal.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 as follows: · Rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to R4 High Density Residential; · amend Height of Buildings development standard to provide a maximum building height of 17.5m; and · amend Floor Space Ratio standard to provide a maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1. Amendments to the Planning Proposal are recommended, including amendments to the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

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

Purpose of Report

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

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 18 October 2022, Council resolved that the matter be deferred pending a site inspection. A Councillor site inspection was held at the site on 9 November 2022. The matter was reported to Council at the 15 November 2022 OMC, where Council voted against the officer’s recommendation. Council did not put forward an alternative motion which would have been to not support or refuse the planning proposal. The matter was reported to Council at the 13 December 2022 OMC alongside a supplementary report. Council resolved for the proponent be requested to amend the supporting documentation and for Council staff to reassess the Planning Proposal.

The proponent has resubmitted the requested documentation and Council staff has reassessed the Planning Proposal accordingly. This report outlines the assessment of the Planning Proposal with consideration given to the updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment and Arborist Report. The Table of Assessment and the proposed amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map and the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Greenweb Map have been updated and amended accordingly.

At the time of writing this report, an investigation is being undertaken into the circumstances and processes around the proponent’s submission of an erroneous Biodiversity Impact Assessment and Arborist Report with the original Planning Proposal.

On 28 April 2023, Council was notified by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) that a request for a Rezoning Review was submitted on the NSW Planning Portal on 6 April 2023 for consideration by the Sydney North Planning Panel. Council is invited to comment on the proposal and/or provide further detail on Council’s position within 21 days of the notification from DPE.

Site Description and Local Context

The site that is the subject of the Planning Proposal is 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives Lot 1 DP 748682. The site has an area of 2,803m2 with a frontage of 35m to Killeaton Street and a depth of 84m. The site currently contains a two-storey brick dwelling and is accessed from Killeaton Street to the north.

The site sits within an established residential area characterized by new residential flat buildings to the east and west on R4 High Density Residential zoned land and a two storey aged care facility that is currently under construction to the north of the site. The site adjoins the Corpus Christi Catholic Church and Primary School to the south-west and the Kehillat Masada Synagogue and College to the south-east on SP2 Educational Establishment zoned land.

Figure 1. Subject site aerial view

Figure 2. Subject site and existing surrounding context

Comments

Planning Proposal and the Proposed Amendments to the KLEP 2015

The Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives that was submitted to Council for assessment seeks to:

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Land Zoning Map for the subject site (Sheet LZN_013) to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to R4 High Density Residential;

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Height of Buildings for the subject site (Sheet HOB_013) to provide a maximum building height of 17.5m (P) consistent with the adjoining sites; and

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Floor Space Ratio for the subject site (Sheet FSR_013) to provide a maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1 (Q) consistent with the adjoining sites.

The Planning Proposal and supporting documentation is included as Attachments A2 to A9.

Merit

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

Site Specific Assessment

· Zoning – Surrounding context and proposed amendments

The subject site is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment), with R4 High Density to the east and west and SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to the south.

The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential. The proposed R4 High Density Residential zone is considered appropriate in the surrounding context.

Figure 3. Excerpt from Urban Design Study – Proposed Zoning Map

· Height, Built Form and Scale

Being currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) the Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio development standards do not currently apply to the site. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Height of Buildings development standard on the site to 17.5m and the Floor Space Ratio standard to provide a maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 4. Excerpt from Urban Design Study - Proposed Height of Buildings Map

Figure 5. Excerpt from Urban Design Study – Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

A picture containing outdoor, building, building material

Description automatically generated

Figure 6. Excerpt from Urban Design Study – concept massing

The Concept Architectural Plans are included at Attachment A4 and the Urban Design Study is included at Attachment A5. The massing proposes a 5-storey rectangular built form with the main part of the building aligned to an east-west orientation. Given the scale of the adjoining developments which comprise of 4-5 storey apartment developments, the proposed height of 5-storeys is a suitable response to this site and context.

While a Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment and cannot be tied to a specific development outcome, it is important that the urban design study supporting the Planning Proposal presents a concept development scheme that is compliant with Council’s DCP and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as well as responds to any specific development constraints on the site. An analysis of the Concept Architectural Plans and Urban Design Study has been undertaken by Council’s Urban Design Project Officer and is included in Table of Assessment at Attachment A10. This analysis identifies the following required amendments to the concept plans and Urban Design Study:

· amend the urban design of the proposed plan by varying the depth of the wall planes, supplemented with architectural elements;

· modify the western elevation of the building to comply with controls 16 and 17 of Section 7C.6 of the DCP;

· amend the design to ensure compliance with the top floor GFA allowance within the DCP;

· include a separate diagram showing Site Coverage Calculations required to be submitted; and

· amend the location of the driveway and the proposed basement layout to comply with the requirements of Section 7A.3 of the DCP as well as tree protection as noted in the comments provided on the Biodiversity Impact Assessment.

· Traffic and Transport

A Traffic and Transport Report has been submitted with the Planning Proposal and is included at Attachment A7.

Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has reviewed the documents and provided the following key points. A more detailed traffic and transport analysis is included in the Table of Assessment, at Attachment A10.

Public Transport and Journey to Work

An assessment of the 30-minute Public Transport Catchment and 2016 Census Journey to Work Data has determined that, overall, the subject site would provide relatively good access to jobs by public transport.

Walkability

Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001) suggests best practice is achieved when: “key land uses are located within walking distance of each other (e.g. shops, library, childcare centres, cinemas, bus/rail interchange)”. An assessment of the 10-minute Walking Catchment has identified that, while some nearby parks, child care centres, schools and churches are located within 10 minutes’ walk from site, other key services and facilities such as supermarkets, pharmacies, medical centres, open space/recreation and other schools are located some distance further. It is likely, therefore, that future residents of this site will likely (to a large degree) be using private cars to access basic day-to-day services and facilities.

Cycling Accessibility

An assessment of the 30-minute Cycling Catchment has determined that the bicycle network in the catchment is only somewhat developed. This catchment extends to Hornsby and most of the main centres in Ku-ring-gai along the T1 North Shore railway line. The site is located close to an existing shared user path which runs around the outskirts of the St Ives centre. Completion of missing links would provide better connections to Gordon, Wahroonga and the Barra Brui locality, as well as the St Ives centre itself (as part of the draft Public Domain Plan). Otherwise, the majority of current cycling activity is expected to be confined to either on-road/mixed use cycling or cycling on footpaths (where permissible).

Transport Infrastructure Capacity

There is a bus stop within 150m (2 minutes’ walk) from the site, on Mona Vale Road. The corresponding stop is on the opposite side of Mona Vale Road and is approximately 300m (4 minutes’ walk) from the site. These bus stops provide convenient access to routes 194 (St Ives to City), 194X (St Ives to City Express), 195/196 (Belrose and St Ives Chase to Gordon), 197 (Mona Vale to Macquarie University via Gordon) and 582 (St Ives Shopping Centre to Gordon) services. The stop on the eastern side of Mona Vale Road is equipped with a shelter, while the stop on the western side is provided with a seat and concrete pad.

To access the Hornsby strategic centre, bus stops on Killeaton Street near Memorial Avenue provide the closest access to the route 591 service, which connects St Ives and Hornsby. These stops are 550m (7 minutes) and 650m (9 minutes) walk from the site. These stops also provide access to the 594 service (North Turramurra to City). There are no dedicated passenger facilities (e.g. bench seats or shelters) at these stops.

Figure 7. Bus Stops and Service near the Site

Strategic Transport Planning

Improvements to the 194 service (St Ives – City) were made approximately 2 years ago, which include increased off-peak and weekend daytime service frequency, and extended span of hours later in the evening.

Transport for NSW have advised that prior to the last State election the Government made a commitment prior to 2023 to introduce new weekday peak hour express services between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park that bypass Gordon (known as the 197X Mona Vale – Macquarie Park service). These new services would save some travel time for passengers travelling between Macquarie Park and St Ives/Northern Beaches, as the service would not have to divert to Gordon station. To date, there has been no update from Transport for NSW regarding the 197X service.

The Traffic, Transport and Parking Report notes that Future Transport 2056 identifies a rapid bus line between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park by 2036. Other than acknowledge the future rapid bus line, the Traffic, Transport and Parking Report does not discuss its timing or present any discussion/consultation with Transport for NSW regarding timeframes or implementation. If the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with state agencies. Clarification regarding future upgrade to bus services and the Rapid Bus Line would be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process.

Councils along the Mona Vale Road/Ryde Road/Lane Cove Road corridor are aligned in their support for improved services along the corridor and are advocating to Transport for NSW to bring forward planning for the initiative. From the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Council has an action to advocate to Transport for NSW to increase the priority and accelerate the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified in Future Transport 2056 that connects Ku-ring-gai internally and with nearby centres, including improvements to bus connections from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park (followed by Bus Rapid Transit).

Travel time on Ryde Road/Lane Cove Road portion of the corridor (between Pacific Highway and Waterloo Road) during morning peak periods can be up to 30 minutes, and currently, journey times of buses travelling between St Ives and Macquarie Park are significantly impacted by these delays, resulting in travel times longer than timetabled. It is likely, therefore, that the new 197X Mona Vale – Macquarie Park service will be impacted by delays on the Ryde Road segment of the route. Bus service improvements along this corridor, including extension of operating times, bus priority measures and journey time reliability are important to ensure public transport is competitive with private vehicles, as well as enhance connectivity and bring significant Strategic Centres (such as Macquarie Park) and Health/Education Precincts within 30 minutes by public transport.

In recognition of this, one of the actions to address Planning Priority K2 of the LSPS (to provide housing close to transport, services and facilities to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community) is to: “Implement planning responses in St Ives subject to infrastructure improvements (medium-long term).”

Traffic generation and intersection analysis

Traffic surveys were undertaken by the proponent in February 2022 at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Killeaton Street during the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection operates as a left in/left out arrangement.

A traffic generation rate of 0.29 vehicle trips per dwelling during the AM and PM peak hours was used to assess the traffic impacts of the proposal. For an expected yield of 40 residential dwellings, this resulted in a traffic generation of 12 vehicle trips (two-way) during the AM and PM peak hours. These were distributed to the surrounding road network based on expected destinations guided by the Journey to Work data. The resulting levels of service at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Killeaton Street from the Traffic, Transport and Parking Report are shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. Excerpt from Traffic, Transport and Parking Report – SIDRA analysis

Given the low additional traffic generation at the intersection, the proposal has very minimal impacts to its operation, continuing to operate at Level of Service B. However, in the Traffic, Transport and Parking Report, there is no commentary or evidence of discussions with Transport for NSW regarding future proposals for the Mona Vale Road corridor in St Ives. If the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with state agencies. Any further details or clarification on planned upgrades to the Mona Vale Road corridor through St Ives would be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process.

Yarrabung Road has been identified as a road which would form part of a vehicle trip to access the site from the south. Yarrabung Road is a collector road in Council’s road hierarchy, and Council’s most recent traffic counts in Yarrabung Road were undertaken in 2016 and indicate average weekday traffic flows of 4,800 vehicles per day (two-way) and 85% traffic speeds of 54km/h. Indicatively, the peak hour traffic flows would be in the order of 450-480 vehicles per hour.

For residential collector roads, RMS (now Transport for NSW) guidelines indicate that traffic flows of 300 vehicles per hour is an environmental goal, and 500 vehicles per hour is a suggested maximum performance standard.

As a result of the proposal, traffic flows are expected to increase by up to 8 vehicle trips per hour in Yarrabung Road (which would occur in the PM peak period). This equates to an average of 1 additional vehicle trip in Yarrabung Road every 7-8 minutes which is a modest amount of traffic increase and unlikely to result in significant additional impacts.

· Biodiversity

This assessment considers the updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment and Arborist Report submitted to Council in February 2023. These reports are included as Attachment A6 and Attachment A9 respectively.

Arborist Report

The original Arborist Report dated 3 March 2022 identified 27 trees on the subject Lot as Flooded Gum (Eucalyptus grandis). An updated Arborist Report dated 7 February 2023 revises the identity of 26 of these trees to Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna).

The Tree Schedule in Section 5.0 of the updated Arborist Report incorrectly identifies the following trees:

· Tree 20 is identified in the Schedule as a Eucalyptus pilularis but is a Liquidambar, an exotic species likely to have been planted.

· Tree 75 is identified in the schedule as a Ficus rubiginosa but is a Callitris rhomboidea, a locally native species likely to have been planted. Callitris rhomboidea is not characteristic of STIF.

It is recommended that the identification of these two trees are corrected. Other values in the Tree Schedule and results of the VTA remain valid for Trees 20 and 75.

The following trees occur within adjoining lots and are likely to have TPZs extending into 130 Killeaton St:

	Species/Description	Location
A	Very large Eucalyptus microcorys	Within 263 Mona Vale Rd, located ~5 m south of the south-western corner of 130 Killeaton St.
B	Multi-stemmed Syncarpia glomulifera	ln the north-eastern corner of 263 Mona Vale Rd, ~0.5 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.
C	Multi-stemmed Syncarpia glomulifera	ln the north-eastern corner of 263 Mona Vale Rd, ~0.5 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.
D	Angophora costata	In the north-western corner of 9-15 Link Rd, ~1 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.
E	Syncarpia glomulifera	In the north-western corner of 9-15 Link Rd, ~1 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.
F	Melaleuca styphelioides	Within 132-138 Killeaton St, located ~20 m south of the north-east corner of 132-138 Killeaton St, approximately 2 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.
G	Melaleuca styphelioides	Within 132-138 Killeaton St, located ~20 m south of the north-east corner of 132-138 Killeaton St, approximately 2 m from the boundary of 130 Killeaton St.

Whilst these trees’ TPZs are likely to be within boundary setbacks, these trees should be incorporated into the Tree Schedule at the DA stage to facilitate complete assessment and appropriate protection.

The Arborist Report assesses the impact of the proponent’s concept development on trees. Recommendations relating to tree removals and tree protection should be reviewed against the final development plan at the DA stage.

Biodiversity Impact Assessment

Vegetation on the subject site is comprised of mostly planted trees and lawns of turf grasses and native groundcovers. The trees are predominantly Australian natives, including several locally native species.

An updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment dated 4 February 2023 assesses the vegetation based on the updated Arborist Report and specifically addresses the potential for Blue Gum High Forest to occur on the site. Despite the prevalence of Blue Gums across the site, the Biodiversity Impact Assessment determines that the vegetation is more closely aligned with Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF) than Blue Gum High Forest. This assessment was based on Biodiversity Assessment Method analysis of floristic data, remnant and naturally occurring vegetation on the site being highly characteristic of STIF, pre-European plant community type modelling, and analysis of the distribution of plant communities at the local landscape scale. This determination of vegetation communities on the site uses industry-standard methodology and makes sound findings based on accurate data.

The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 lists ‘Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community. The BC Act listing applies to all instances of vegetation within the area defined by the listing and with a species assemblage consistent with that described in the listing, regardless of size, condition, and/or method of vegetation establishment. Therefore, the protections conferred by the BC Act listing apply to the area of the subject site occupied by STIF.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 lists ‘Turpentine-Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community, however the EPBC Act listing only applies to remnant patches that meet specific condition criteria, including patch size and canopy cover. Vegetation within the subject site does not meet these criteria and therefore is not recognised under and protected by the EPBC Act 1999.

The vegetation on the subject site is not mapped as STIF or any other recognisable community in Ku-ring-gai or NSW databases, likely due to the presence of exotic and non-locally native canopy species obfuscating the identity of the small and discontinuous areas of STIF on the site. To facilitate accurate environmental assessment, it is recommended that Ku-ring-gai’s Terrestrial Biodiversity Map and Greenweb mapping be updated to include STIF vegetation on the subject Lot. STIF vegetation has been mapped for this purpose in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study Version 5 using methodology consistent with other Terrestrial Biodiversity and Greenweb mapping such as defining the extent of Key Vegetation Community patches by the canopy of tree species characteristic of the community as per the Final Determination.

The updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment identifies that 20 individual trees of 7 species within the site comprise STIF. However, the BIA does not identify 4 Eucalyptus pilularus amongst these (Trees 30, 43, 44, and 66). Eucalyptus pilularis is characteristic of STIF as per the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Final Determination 2019. Additionally, the BIA does not identify 3 Syncarpia glomulifera and 1 Angophora costata growing in adjoining Lots but with TPZs likely to extend into 130 Killeaton St. These trees form part of the local occurrence of STIF and should be captured in updated Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping on The KLEP 2015 and Greenweb mapping in the Ku-ring-gai DCP. This proposed mapping is included as Attachment A11 and Attachment A12 respectively

The Biodiversity Impact Assessment recommends that Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculate) be planted on the site to enhance foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes. The inclusion of this species in a planting plan is not supported as this species will not aid in the conservation of STIF and alternative STIF species can provide equal habitat value.

A floorspace ratio of 1.3:1 will likely result in some loss of STIF vegetation. The BIA calculates a loss of STIF totalling approximately 287 square metres resulting from the proposed development. Given the degraded condition of the STIF vegetation on site and its isolation from significant vegetation patches and corridors, this impact to STIF vegetation is considered acceptable with the proviso that losses are offset in accordance with relevant legislation and Council’s DCP requirements. It’s desirable that impacts to STIF be minimised, which would require redesign to reduce the number of STIF trees the building footprint encroaches on. In addition to minimising impacts to STIF, such a redesign would also support the retention of threatened species habitat on the site.

The proposed design does not identify utility locations. Utilities would need to be located within the driveway and building footprint to avoid further impacts to trees and biodiversity.

· Contamination

The Preliminary Site Investigation submitted with the Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A8. The report identifies a potential for contaminants that may present a risk to terrestrial ecosystems. However, the Preliminary Site Investigation assumes that the nature of the proposed development will result in loss of potential ecological receptors (i.e. fauna) from the site, and on that basis determines that further assessment of terrestrial ecosystem risks is not warranted. However, the recommendations of the Biodiversity Impact Assessment seek to retain biota comprising potential receptors on site. Therefore, potential contamination and associated terrestrial ecological risks should be characterised in a Detailed Site Investigation at the DA stage.

Strategic Merit Assessment

· Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan

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

- Objective 4. Infrastructure use is optimised

- Objective 10. Greater housing supply

- Objective 11. Housing is more diverse and affordable

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

- 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. Provision of housing close to public transport and services and facilities improves the opportunity for people to walk and cycle to local shops and services. The plan advocates for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity values. The proposal is consistent with these principles.

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

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

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

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

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

- Planning Priority N16. Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

The Planning Proposal will allow for additional residential land that can be developed to provide housing choice and supply for the existing and future population in the area. The site is located in an accessible area in proximity to a range of services, facilities and public open space as well as public transport. The Planning Proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan priorities to focus housing in locations that support the 30-minute city and provide access to jobs, services and public transport, as well as the priorities to protect biodiversity.

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

- 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;

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

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

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

While the Planning Proposal is consistent with the overarching local planning priority to provide housing close to transport, services and facilities, the LSPS provides specific details about each centre, its suitability for additional housing and timing. The LSPS sets out that the St Ives Primary Local Centre is suitable for additional housing as it contains a bus route on an arterial road corridor and meets the criteria for 30-minute access to a strategic centre, and is supported by Council’s community hub projects with retail services and community facilities. The LSPS outlines the timing for future housing delivery in the St Ives centre as 6-10 year (2021-2026) and 11-15 year (2026-2031) subject to the provision of priority bus infrastructure from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park.

This Planning Proposal seeks to allow for approximately 40 additional dwellings in the centre prior to the provision of the rapid bus line between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park, which is inconsistent with the LSPS. Should the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with state agencies. Clarification regarding future upgrade to bus services and the Rapid Bus Line would be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process. Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has reviewed the Transport and Parking Report submitted with the Planning Proposal, which indicates a modest amount of traffic increase as a result of the proposal which is unlikely to result in significant additional impacts. It is noted that Council’s LSPS includes an action to advocate to Transport for NSW to increase the priority and accelerate the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified in Future Transport 2056 that connects Ku-ring-gai internally and with nearby centres, including improvements to bus connections from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park (followed by the Bus Rapid Transit).

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

- Stage housing delivery around centres of retail and economic activity that are serviced by the North Shore railway line or major bus routes along arterial roads, including provision of housing diversity, affordability and accessibility.

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

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

o Heritage conservation areas.

o Areas of visual or aesthetic quality and character.

o Areas within or affecting scenic and cultural landscapes.

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

o Areas with multiple constraints including steep topography.

o Areas with environmental values.

o Areas that are bushfire prone and with evacuation risk.

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

Given that the scale of the adjoining developments that comprise of 4-5 storey apartment developments, the proposed height of 5-storeys is a suitable response to this site and context. The development standards proposed and the built form outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal are consistent with the adjoining R4 High Density Residential zoned sites. The sites, the subject of the Planning Proposal, are not constrained by a Heritage conservation area, scenic or cultural landscape or bushfire prone land.

The vegetation on the subject site is comprised of planted trees and lawns of turf grasses and native groundcovers. The trees are predominantly Australian natives, including several locally native species. The species composition of parts of the garden is consistent with Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF), as determined by Biodiversity Assessment Methodology surveys. The floorspace ratio of 1.3:1 will result in some loss of STIF vegetation resulting from the proposed development. Given the degraded condition of the STIF vegetation on site and its isolation from significant vegetation patches and corridors, this impact to STIF vegetation is considered acceptable with the proviso that losses are offset in accordance with relevant legislation and Council’s DCP requirements. As detailed in the proposed amendments, relocation of the driveway would ensure the impact to STIF vegetation is minimised.

This Planning Proposal seeks to allow for approximately 40 additional dwellings in the centre prior to the provision of the rapid bus line between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park, which is inconsistent with the LSPS. Given the relatively small number of additional dwellings that could be facilitated by the Planning Proposal, this inconsistency is considered to be minor. Nevertheless, should the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with state agencies

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

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

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will enable the delivery of approximately 40 dwellings on the site. In approving the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued a number of approval conditions, one of which is:

4. Consistent with Priority K3 of the Ku-ring-gai LSPS, Council is to prepare a masterplan, or accommodate a proponent-led planning proposal with good planning outcomes, for the St Ives local centre. Planning is to occur in consultation with TfNSW and align with its Movement and Place Framework.

Subject to TfNSW advice, the planning proposal is to be submitted to the Department for Gateway Determination by December 2022. This proposal will help to create future housing capacity and contribute to medium supply and support the longer term 20-year strategic housing target for the District.

At OMC 16 November 2021 Council resolved to reject the Housing Strategy conditions of approval. However, clause 5 (3)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Statement of Expectations) Order 2021, requires Council to: ‘give effect to an adopted local planning strategy (such as a Local Housing Strategy), and any approval requirements issued by the Department’.

Council has not prepared a Masterplan for the St Ives Local Centre as required by Condition 4, and accordingly the Planning Proposal is consistent with the requirements of Condition 4, which requires Council to accommodate proponent-led planning proposals with good planning outcomes within the St Ives local centre. Should the Planning Proposal receive a Gateway Determination, then consultation would occur with TfNSW and clarification regarding any future upgrade to bus services, the Rapid Bus Line and Movement and Place Framework would be provided as part of that process.

The Planning Proposal will enable a higher density built form outcome on the site in an area that is close to public transport, services and facilities.

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

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

- 5.1 Integrating Land Use and Transport

- 6.1 Residential Zones

The objective of direction 6.3 is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site-specific planning controls, and 4(c) outlines that a Planning Proposal must allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. (6) notes that a Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with this direction, if the provisions are of a minor significance.

In order to ensure that future development on the site enabled by the Planning Proposal responds appropriately to the biodiversity values identified on the site, there is a need to update the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map in the KLEP 2015 and Greenweb Maps in the DCP. It is considered that if this action is inconsistent with direction 6.3, it is minor in nature and justifiable to ensure the best built form outcomes on the site.

Amendments required to be made to the Planning Proposal and the supporting documentation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has found that there are a number of errors, inconsistencies and lack of detail or analysis provided within the documents that require adjustment. There are other amendments required as a result of Council’s assessment, such as incorporating an amendment to the KLEP 2015 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map as part of the Planning Proposal and amending the Greenweb Maps in the DCP. The proposed amendments to the maps are included as Attachment A11 and Attachment A12.

The Table of Assessment included at Attachment A10 details the required amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal if Council is to support it being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice

The KLPP provided the following advice (Attachment A13):

“The Panel has reviewed the Planning Proposal and the information provided in Attachment A10 and concurs that it has strategic and site specific merit. The Panel supports the Planning Proposal being referred to the DPE for Gateway Determination subject to the amendments in the table of assessment Attachment A10.

The proposed rezoning to R4 High Density Residential is consistent with surrounding residential development and will provide for additional housing in close proximity to shops, services and transport. The proposed height and FSR controls are consistent with adjoining residential development and considered appropriate.

The Panel notes the purpose of the concept plan is to inform the Planning Proposal with a potential scheme. The Panel’s recommendation is not an endorsement of the concept scheme and matters such as future building envelopes, apartment design guidelines and trees to be retained/removed are all matters to be considered and addressed at a future development application stage.”

Voting: Unanimous

The KLPP support for the submission of the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination is noted. The KLPP’s concern over the concept scheme presented with the planning proposal is also acknowledged. To this end, there are a number of recommended amendments to the Urban Design Report in Attachment A10 that will ensure that the concept scheme is more consistent with the requirements of the Ku-ring-gai DCP, addressing some of the concerns raised by the KLPP. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the concept scheme in the Urban Design Report is only an indicative design. Any future redevelopment of the site under the proposed amendments to the KLEP will be subject to a formal development application assessed under Council’s existing development controls. This will include assessment against the biodiversity provisions of the KLEP and DCP. The Urban Design Report attached to the Planning Proposal will have no effect on that assessment.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained

P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

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

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

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

P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

Governance Matters

The process for the preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. A flow chart of the planning proposal process is included at Attachment A14, which indicates what stage this planning proposal is currently at, and the next steps involved.

Risk Management

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

Social Considerations

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

Environmental Considerations

The vegetation on the subject site is not currently mapped as STIF or any other recognisable community in Ku-ring-gai or NSW databases, likely due to the presence of exotic and non-locally native canopy species obfuscating the identity of the small and discontinuous areas of STIF on the site. A Biodiversity Impact Assessment and an Arborist Report have been submitted with the Planning Proposal. Council’s Natural Areas Program Leader has reviewed the Planning Proposal and the potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment.

To facilitate accurate environmental assessment, it is recommended that an amendment to the relevant Terrestrial Biodiversity Map Sheet in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 be incorporated into the Planning Proposal as well as a variation to the DCP’s Greenweb Maps in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study Version 5 to include and categorise this occurrence of STIF. Updating the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map Sheet to include the occurrence of STIF on the site will ensure that Clause 6.3 Biodiversity protection will apply to the site and any future development must be consistent with the provisions of the clause. The proposed amendment to the KLEP 2015 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map is included as Attachment A11. The proposed amendment to the KDCP Greenweb Map is included as Attachment A12.

Community Consultation

Internal Consultation

A Councillor site inspection was held at the site on 9 November 2022.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives which seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Land Zoning Map for the subject site (Sheet LZN_013) to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) to R4 High Density Residential;

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Height of Buildings for the subject site (Sheet HOB_013) to provide a maximum building height of 17.5m (P) consistent with the adjoining sites; and

· amend the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 Floor Space Ratio for the subject site (Sheet FSR_013) to provide a maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1 (Q) consistent with the adjoining sites.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed and found to have sufficient strategic and site specific merit to enable it to proceed to Gateway Determination and public exhibition, subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A10 including the following:

· Planning Proposal (Attachment A2)

o Include an analysis that considers the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan in Section B of the Planning Proposal.

o Include the amendment to the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal (see Attachment A11).

· Concept Architectural Plans and Urban Design Report (Attachments A4 and A5)

o Amend the urban design of the proposed plan by varying the depth of the wall planes, supplemented with architectural elements.

o Modify the western elevation of the building to comply with controls 16 and 17 of Section 7C.6 of the DCP.

o Amend the design to ensure compliance with the top floor GFA allowance within the DCP.

o Include a separate diagram showing Site Coverage Calculations.

o Amend the location of the driveway and the proposed basement layout to comply with the requirements of Section 7A.3 of the DCP as well as tree protection as noted in the comments provided on the Biodiversity Impact Assessment.

· Biodiversity Impact Assessment (Attachment A6)

o Amend the planting palette to be comprised of STIF species

· Arborist Report (Attachment A9)

o Amend the Tree Schedule within the Arborist Report to incorporate the identified trees to facilitate appropriate protection

o Amend to Arborist Report to rectify the two incorrectly identified trees (Tree 20 and Tree 75).

Should the Planning Proposal proceed, it should be accompanied by the updated amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to update the Greenweb Map to be consistent to the proposed amendments to the Terrestrial Biodiversity map in the KLEP 2015, included as Attachment A11 and Attachment A12.

Recommendation:

A. That the planning proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this report and Table of Amendments (Attachment A10).

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 A10) 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 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.

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

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Report	Excluded	2022/014813
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal for 130 Killeaton Street, St Ives		2022/222442
	A3	Survey Plan	Excluded	2022/222456
	A4⇩	Concept Architectural Plans		2022/222459
	A5	Urban Design Report	Excluded	2022/222460
	A6⇩	Updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment		2023/043708
	A7	Traffic and Transport Report	Excluded	2022/222472
	A8	Preliminary Site Investigation	Excluded	2022/222475
	A9⇩	Updated Arborist Report		2023/043559
	A10⇩	Updated Table of Assessment		2023/069825
	A11⇩	Proposed Terrestrial Biodiversity Map		2023/145225
	A12⇩	Proposed Greenweb Map		2023/145226
	A13⇩	Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice - 19 September 2022		2022/267164
	A14⇩	Planning Proposal Process Flowchart		2022/257692
	A15⇩	DPE Letter - Notification of Zoning Review Request for 130 Killeaton Street St Ives		2023/145224

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	S12645

Planning Proposal for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives - Pymble Golf Club

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives (Pymble Golf Club).

background:	A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 15 May 2018. The Planning Proposal was submitted in January 2020, however, was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced in April 2020. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 24 April 2023 for advice.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015): · Rezone part of the Pymble Golf Club land holdings to R4 High Density Residential and extend part of the RE2 Private Recreation Zone; · amend the Height of Buildings Map to a combination of 11.5, 14.5 and 17.5 metres, to enable residential flat development 3-5 storeys in height; · amend Floor Space Ratio Map for the R4 High Density Residential Zoned land to show a maximum of 0.92:1; · amend the Heritage Map and Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage to heritage list 12 and 14 Cowan Road.

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

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal that has been lodged for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives (Pymble Golf Club).

Background

A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 15 May 2018 (Attachment A1). The Planning Proposal was submitted in January 2020. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced in April 2020.

Throughout the assessment process, the Planning Proposal has been updated by the proponent in accordance with advice provided by Council officers throughout 2020-2022.

The Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A2 and the appendices to the Planning Proposal are included at Attachments A3-A10.

Site Description and Local Context

The site that is the subject of the Planning Proposal is located at 4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives. The legal description of the site is part Lot 1 DP 511821, Lot B DP 368565, and Lot 1 DP 531533, Lot 2 DP 531533, Lot 3 DP 531533. It is noted that Lot 1 DP 102237 (part of the Club land) is not affected by the proposal. The land that is the subject of this Planning Proposal has an area of approximately 10,000m2 and is located immediately adjacent to Cowan Road. The land comprises the existing club house, car park and single storey timber cottages at 12 and 14 Cowan Road.

Part of the Pymble Golf Club site is within the St Ives Local Centre. The centre comprises the St Ives Shopping Village zoned B2 Local Centre, the adjacent Village Green zoned RE1 Public Recreation, and supporting residential land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential. While the centre is generally characterised by low scale development (2-3 storeys in height), the planning controls enable development up to 17.5 metres (5 storeys) in height, including land directly opposite the site’s frontage along Cowan Road. Several developments of this scale have recently been constructed along Mona Vale Road. Part of the site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, having a maximum building height of 11.5 metres and a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.8:1. The remainder of the site is zoned RE2 Private Recreation, where there is no maximum building height or FSR control applicable.

Figure 1. Subject site aerial view

Figure 2. Subject site and existing surrounding context

Comments

Planning Proposal and the Proposed Amendments to KLEP 2015

The Planning Proposal for 4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives (Pymble Golf Club) that was submitted to Council for assessment seeks to amend the KLEP 2015 to rezone the land, and to increase the maximum building height and floor space ratio controls applicable to 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives (Pymble Golf Club), and to relocate and heritage list the existing timber cottages at 12 & 14 Cowan Road (cottage buildings, footprint, and curtilage) within Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015.

The following changes to KLEP 2015 are sought:

• Amend the Land Use Zone Map to rezone part of the Pymble Golf Club land holdings from RE2 Private Recreation and R3 Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and extend part of the RE2 Private Recreation zone over existing R3 Medium Density Residential;

• amend the Height of Buildings Map to a combination of 11.5, 14.5 and 17.5 metres, to enable residential flat development 3-5 storeys in height;

• amend Floor Space Ratio Map for the R4 High Density Residential Zoned land to show a maximum of 0.92:1; and

• amend the Heritage Map and Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage to heritage list 12 and 14 Cowan Road.

Merit

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

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

Site Specific Merit Assessment

· Urban Design

An Urban Design Report is included at Attachment A7. An analysis of the Urban Design Report has been undertaken by Council’s Urban Design Project Officer. This assessment concludes that the Planning Proposal and Indicative Design are considered appropriate for this well-located site. the Urban Design Report demonstrates that the indicative design could satisfy the controls detailed in KDCP Part 7 - Residential Flat Buildings as well as the nine design quality principles which are to be achieved by residential flat developments under SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

A more detailed analysis is included in Table of Assessment at Attachment A11.

· Traffic and Transport

A Transport Impact Assessment is included at Attachment A9. An analysis of the Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken by Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has reviewed the documents and provided the following key points. A more detailed traffic and transport analysis is included in the Table of Assessment, at Attachment A11.

The Planning Proposal has the following favourable transport aspects:

o Workers in the Statistical Area of the site that work within the Ku-ring-gai LGA (approximately a quarter of all workers in the Statistical Area) worked in the St Ives local centre and walked to work;

o the site is located within 400m of Mona Vale Road, where regular bus services operate between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park (via Gordon). Bus services to Gordon connect to the Sydney Trains network. There is currently sufficient capacity in these bus services and nearby bus stops to accommodate additional bus passenger demand resulting from the Planning Proposal;

o the site is well positioned to take advantage of improved bus services between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park which are foreshadowed in Future Transport Strategy and the Macquarie Park Strategic Infrastructure and Services Assessment;

o there is a good selection of retail, health/medical, leisure/recreational and community/cultural facilities within a 10 minute walk of the site, mostly located within the St Ives Shopping Village, St Ives Village Green/Cowan Oval and within the site itself;

o the local cycling network in the area is modestly developed, providing a degree of local and regional cycling connectivity;

o the proposal is not expected to have significant additional impact on the operation of the key nearby intersections, with only minor increases in average delay at the intersection of Cowan Road/Village Green Parade and the intersection of Killeaton Street/Cowan Road.

The following transport constraints were found with respect to the Planning Proposal:

o The site has access to only a modest number of Strategic Centres (and therefore jobs) within 30 minutes by public transport, compared to other centres located further south in Ku-ring-gai;

o while existing bus services provide good connections between St Ives and Gordon, bus access to Macquarie Park is currently constrained by congestion on Ryde Road and Lane Cove Road;

o there is a notable absence of schools within easy walking distance of the site. The closest primary school is 15 minutes’ walk from the site, and the closest high schools are approximately 20 minutes’ walk. There is also limited route bus and school bus services connecting the site with nearby schools. Depending on the future demographic of the site, this could result in a higher reliance on cars being used as a mode of travel between the site and nearby schools.

· Biodiversity

An Ecological Constraints Assessment is included at Attachment A5, and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report is included at Attachment A6. Council’s Natural Areas Program Leader has reviewed the documents and provided the following key points.

The Ecological Constraints Assessment confirms the presence of previously-mapped Blue Gum High Forest on the site and additionally identifies Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and as occurring on the subject site. Both of these Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) are represented on the site by fragmented large canopy trees with no mid-storey and only turfed grassland groundcovers present.

Trees comprising EECs are captured on Ku-ring-gai Council’s Greenweb and Terrestrial Biodiversity Maps, with the exception of one Angophora costata on the eastern boundary of 10 Cowan Road that would fall under the ‘Canopy Remnant’ category of Greenweb mapping. Should a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be proposed, the Greenweb mapping should be updated to include the Angophora through this process, however this is not critical if this is the only issue being addressed through as site specific DCP.

The arborist report identifies 39 trees (or groups of trees) with Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) intersecting the subject site. The arborist report assesses potential impacts to these trees from the indicative development design and recommends that a total of 15 trees be approved for future removal to cater for the proposed rezoning and future development of the site. The report demonstrates that high density development can be sited and designed to retain and protect significant trees including those comprising Endangered Ecological Communities, subject to arboriculturally sensitive design.

The Urban Design Report demonstrates that the indicative design can satisfy the controls detailed in Part 18 of the DCP and in Clause 6.3 of the KLEP 2015 to protect EECs, retain habitat, and enhance biodiversity values on the site.

The recommended amendment to include the Angophora costata on the eastern boundary of 10 Cowan Road, Pymble in the Greenweb mapping will be incorporated into Council’s upcoming review of the Development Control Plan, which involves other updates to the Greenweb mapping. This will ensure the tree is identified in Councils DCP separately to this Planning Proposal process.

· Heritage

A Statement of Heritage Impact is included at Attachment A8. Council’s Heritage Consultant has reviewed the documents and provided the following key points. A more detailed analysis is included in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A11, which includes an overview of the information and comments that have flowed between the proponent and Council in relation to heritage since 2018.

The applicant has provided documentation to suggest and substantiate the heritage listing of the two dwellings at 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives as part of the Pymble Golf Club Planning Proposal. Council has supported this recommendation and accordingly, the overall planning proposal has been adjusted to respond to the recommendation and so that the dwellings can be retained, albeit in slightly adjusted locations within their current settings.

From a heritage perspective, the proposal to heritage list on Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015 and slightly relocate the two dwellings at 12 and 14 Cowan Road (DP 531533, lot 1, 3 and part of lot 2) (see Figure 1 below) is considered to be an acceptable approach in this situation. The listings will ensure that the buildings are retained in the streetscape as well as the associated established vegetation around them.

The respective curtilages will be adjusted once the cottages are relocated, and the relevant background and this intention will be outlined the State heritage Inventory. The DCP will also address the appropriate adjustment of the heritage curtilage at the time of their relocation to avoid unnecessary heritage listing of the new development.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3. The current lot configuration. It is suggested that Lot 1, 3 and the access handle of Lot 2 are included on the heritage map and redefined once the building are moved.

As a result of this heritage assessment, it is recommended that the proponent amend the proposed heritage map in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal to include the access handle of Lot 2 following the diagonal line.

Strategic Merit Assessment

· Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan

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

o Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

o Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

o Objective 8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods

o Objective 10: Greater housing supply

o Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

o Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

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

o Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

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

o Objective 28: Scenic and cultural landscapes are protected

o Objective 30: Urban tree canopy cover is increased

o Objective 37: Exposure to natural and urban hazards is reduced

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

o Planning Priority N3: Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

o Planning Priority N4: Fostering health, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

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

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

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

o Planning Priority N16. Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

o Planning Priority N17: Protecting and enhancing scenic and cultural landscapes

o Planning Priority N19: Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

o Planning Priority N20: Delivering high quality open space

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

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

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

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

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

o K9. Promoting St Ives as an active green lifestyle and shopping destination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o K35. Protecting and improving the health of waterways and riparian areas.

While the Planning Proposal is consistent with the overarching local planning priority to provide housing close to transport, services and facilities, the LSPS provides specific details about each centre, its suitability for additional housing and timing. The LSPS sets out that the St Ives Primary Local Centre is suitable for additional housing as it contains a bus route on an arterial road corridor and meets the criteria for 30-minute access to a strategic centre and is supported by Council’s community hub projects with retail services and community facilities. The LSPS outlines the timing for future housing delivery in the St Ives centre as 6-10 year (2021-2026) and 11-15 year (2026-2031) subject to the provision of priority bus infrastructure from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park.

This Planning Proposal seeks to allow for approximately 78 additional dwellings in the centre prior to the provision of the rapid bus line between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park, which is inconsistent with the LSPS. Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has reviewed the Transport Impact Assessment submitted with the Planning Proposal, which indicates that the proposal is not expected to have significant additional impact on the operation of the key nearby intersections, with only minor increases in average delay at the intersection of Cowan Road/Village Green Parade and the intersection of Killeaton Street/Cowan Road.

Given the relatively small number of additional dwellings (less than 80) that could be facilitated by the Planning Proposal and the justification provided in the Transport Impact Assessment, this inconsistency is considered to be minor.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with State agencies. Clarification regarding future upgrade to bus services and the Rapid Bus Line would be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process.

It is noted that Council’s LSPS includes an action to advocate to Transport for NSW to increase the priority and accelerate the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified in Future Transport 2056 that connects Ku-ring-gai internally and with nearby centres, including improvements to bus connections from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park (followed by the Bus Rapid Transit).

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

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

o Heritage conservation areas.

o Areas of visual or aesthetic quality and character.

o Areas within or affecting scenic and cultural landscapes.

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

o Areas with multiple constraints including steep topography.

o Areas with environmental values.

o Areas that are bushfire prone and with evacuation risk.

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

· Ku-ring-gai Council Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’

The Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan was adopted by Council in June 2019. The Plan outlines the Council’s vision and long-term objectives for the local government area, with directions and objectives to achieve those visions. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following objectives:

o C6.1 Housing diversity, adaptability and affordability is increased to support the needs of a changing community.

o N2.1 Our bushland is rich with native flora and fauna.

o N3.1 Our natural waterways and riparian areas are enhanced and protected.

o P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained.

o P3.1 The built environment delivers attractive, interactive and sustainable living and working environments.

o 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.

· Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy Approval Letter Conditions

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will enable the delivery of approximately 78 dwellings on the site. In approving the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued a number of approval conditions, one of which is:

The Planning Proposal will enable a higher density built form outcome on the site in an area that is close to public transport, services and facilities.

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

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

- 3.2 Heritage Conservation;

- 5.1 Integrating Land Use and Transport;

- 6.1 Residential Zones.

The objective of direction 6.3 is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site-specific planning controls, and 4(c) outlines that a Planning Proposal must allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended - (6) notes that a Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with this direction, if the provisions are of a minor significance. If the creation of a Site Specific DCP is inconsistent with this direction, it is considered minor in nature and justifiable to ensure the best built form outcomes on the site.

Amendments required to be made to the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation

The Table of Assessment included at Attachment A11 details the required amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal if Council is to support it being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

Site Specific Development Control Plan (DCP)

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

The site-specific DCP should be based on the Urban Design Report (Attachment A7) and include detailed controls regarding:

· Built form, building massing and envelopes to ensure appropriate development on an interface site;

· ensuring development on the site is consistent with the established and desired future character of St Ives centre;

· appropriate setbacks from heritage items, adjoining residential sites and significant trees including canopy to be retained;

· relocation and development of cottages and an appropriate curtilage area;

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

· landscaping, including landscape setbacks and deep soil setbacks to Cowan Road;

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Advice

The KLPP provided the following advice (Attachment A12):

That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advises Council that the Planning Proposal, amended as per the Table of Assessment at Attachment A11 of the Officers Assessment report, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Prior to the matter being recommended to Council, the Panel advises that further clarification be sought (refer Page 10-12), to justify the inconsistency with the LSPS and the Ku-ring-gai housing strategy.

The Panel advises Council should investigate whether a community title and or other mechanism be sought to achieve a long term objectives for delivery of the development and the maintenance of the design quality of the site and its heritage items into the long term future.

The Panel advises Council that prior to the development of the site, a Conservation Management Plan be prepared for the two proposed heritage items.

The Panel advises that Council investigate further the bonus provisions that generally apply to the sites containing heritage items, should not extend to the whole of the development site but should only apply to curtilage lots of the heritage items.

Date of Advice: 24 April 2023

Voting: unanimous

The KLPP support for the submission of the Planning Proposal (as amended) for a Gateway Determination is noted. Council comment is provided below in response to the additional KLPP advice, noting this is advice only and Council is not bound to adopt in considering the Planning Proposal:

KLPP Advice: Prior to the matter being recommended to Council, the Panel advises that further clarification be sought (refer Page 10-12), to justify the inconsistency with the LSPS and the Ku-ring-gai housing strategy.

Council Comment: Additional detailed clarification has been provided in the body of this report under ‘Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement’ and ‘Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy Letter of Approval’ as well as in the Table of Assessment (Attachment A11) which justify the inconsistency with the LSPS and the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy.

In summary, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the overarching local planning priority within the LSPS to provide housing close to transport, services and facilities in the St Ives local centre. The LSPS also ties the provision of additional housing in the St Ives local centre with the future delivery of priority bus infrastructure from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park, and accordingly, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent as it seeks to bring forward the delivery of housing prior to the delivery of priority bus infrastructure. This inconsistency is considered minor in nature due to the relatively small number of dwellings enable by the Planning Proposal and the fact that the Planning Proposal would not result in any significant traffic impacts on the surrounding road network and formal consultation will be undertaken with TfNSW should a Gateway Determination be issued.

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Council’s adopted Housing Strategy which does not provide for any additional housing from the rezoning of new sites. However, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Housing Strategy Letter of Approval Conditions, specifically Condition 4 relating to accommodating proponent-led Planning Proposals in the St Ives local centre. Council is required by clause 5 (3)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to give effect to Housing Strategy Letter of Approval Conditions issued by the Department of Planning.

KLPP Advice: The Panel advises Council should investigate whether a community title and or other mechanism be sought to achieve a long term objectives for delivery of the development and the maintenance of the design quality of the site and its heritage items into the long term future.

Council Comment: The Panel’s advice seeks to control future delivery of development on the site by ensuring that the site is developed as a whole, and not sold off in separate lots for piecemeal development.

Council has no legal ability to require the site to be developed under a community title scheme as part of a future Development Application process.

The Planning Proposal and Urban Design Study anticipate the future development of the site as a whole, and proposes that the Development Standards, such as Floor Space Ratio, apply across the site as a whole. Additionally, it is in the Club’s best interests to ensure the site is developed as a whole, as it is the most efficient method and would ensure the Club has more control of the outcome.

If the intention is to require the site to be developed as a whole, then other mechanisms could be put in place such as a site specific minimum lot size requirement for the development of multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings on the site such as under Clause 6.6 of the KLEP 2015, or the requirement of a large minimum lot size which would prevent the site from being subdivided into smaller lots.

KLPP Advice: The Panel advises Council that prior to the development of the site, a Conservation Management Plan be prepared for the two proposed heritage items.

Council Comment: Council supports the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan for the proposed heritage items, being the cottages at 12 and 14 Cowan Road as part of the development application, which would address any issues of curtilage and relocation of the cottages.

KLPP Advice: The Panel advises that Council investigate further the bonus provisions that generally apply to the sites containing heritage items, should not extend to the whole of the development site but should only apply to curtilage lots of the heritage items.

Council Comment: The ‘bonus provisions’ referred to in the Panel’s advice are the Heritage Conservation Incentives under Clause 5.10(10) of the KLEP 2015. This clause only applies at the Development Application stage and is not a matter for consideration of a Planning Proposal.

Council staff understand that the Clause is focused on conserving heritage first and foremost and allowing some flexibility around development standards, i.e. land use, FSR and height, to "facilitate" this. There are a number of qualifications that need to be met to enable the use of the Clause and they are set out clearly within the clause itself (emphasis added below). There are a few terms that have been debated, including what is meant by "land" and "building" because this determines how the clause can be applied.

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 Clause 5.10 (10) provides:

(10) Conservation incentives The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the consent authority is satisfied that—

(a) the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and

(d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

In the case of Pymble Golf club, Council has suggested a discrete listing for the cottages, enough mapped curtilage to ensure they are protected within an appropriate setting but to stop the heritage sterilising the rest of the development. Interpreting the "land on which such a building is erected" could either mean the land immediately under each cottage and no more or the entire curtilage of the cottages (as shaded area on the map). In either case, Council does not believe that this opens up any opportunities for the applicant to use the clause to breach development standards and advantage future development because if enabled within the mapped curtilage, which is such a small area, the said development would result in adverse amenity and heritage impacts. The only loophole for the applicant may be if the whole site was mapped as a heritage item, which is not suggested by Council staff. However, even then, it would be open for legal debate as to why, how and to what extent development standards could be flexed before and heritage impacts (d) or adverse amenity (e) resulted, disqualifying the use of the Clause.

Further legal advice could be sought if Council feel this is appropriate given the complex nature of the issue.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained

P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

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

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

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

P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

Governance Matters

Risk Management

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

Social Considerations

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal will enable the delivery of approximately 78 dwellings of varying sizes on the subject site to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community.

Environmental Considerations

The planning proposal includes an Ecological Constraints assessment and an Arboricultural Assessment. These reports conclude that the proposal is suitable for the site and will not have detrimental impact upon the environment and demonstrates that high density development can be sited and designed to retain and protect significant trees including those comprising Endangered Ecological Communities, subject to arboriculturally sensitive design.

Community Consultation

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

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included internal consultation with Council’s staff with expertise in planning, urban design, traffic and transport, heritage and biodiversity and has informed the recommendations of this Report. At the time of preparing this report a Councillor Site inspection was being arranged in early May 2023 prior this matter coming before Council.

Summary

The Planning Proposal has been assessed and found to have sufficient strategic and site-specific merit to enable it to proceed to Gateway Determination and public exhibition.

· Planning Proposal (Attachment A2)

o Update the relevant sections to reflect the updated Heritage Impact Assessment and the intent to heritage list 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives.

o Nominate Heritage NSW to the list of agencies to be consulted.

o Amend the proposed heritage map in Part 4 to include the access handle of the lot in between 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives.

Recommendation:

A. That the Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this report and Table of Assessment (Attachment A11).

B. 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 Assessment (Attachment A11) prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment.

C. 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

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 by Council in accordance with the details in this report, paid for by the proponent in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

G. That a report be brought back to Council following the conclusion of the public exhibition process.

Alexandra Plumb

Acting Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Pre Planning Proposal Meeting Report	Excluded	2023/125848
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal- 4, 12 & 17 Cowan Rd St Ives		2023/125851
	A3	Appendix A - Survey Plan	Excluded	2023/125853
	A4	Appendix B - Detailed Site Investigation	Excluded	2023/125854
	A5	Appendix C - Ecological Constraints Assessment	Excluded	2023/125855
	A6	Appendix D - Arboricultural Impact Assessment	Excluded	2023/125857
	A7⇩	Appendix E - Urban Design Report		2023/125860
	A8	Appendix F - Statement of Heritage Impact	Excluded	2023/125866
	A9	Appendix G - Transport Impact Assessment	Excluded	2023/125872
	A10	Appendix H - Photomontage	Excluded	2023/125873
	A11⇩	Table of Assessment		2023/125874
	A12⇩	KLPP Advice 24 April 2022 - Planning Proposal for 4, 12 & 14 Cowan Road, St Ives - Pymble Golf Club		2023/141377

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	S14024

Consideration of Submissions - 10 Park Crescent, Pymble - Heritage Listing

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 to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors as a local heritage item.

background:	On 13 December 2022 Council resolved to initiate a Council-led planning proposal to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble, and subsequently submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, and upon a favourable Gateway Determination place the Planning Proposal on public exhibition. A Gateway Determination was received on 22 February 2023. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between Wednesday, 8 March 2023 and Wednesday, 22 March 2023.

comments:	A total of 14 submissions were received during the public exhibition: 13 in support and 1 in opposition. This report provides an overview of submissions made to the public exhibition and proposes the next steps for Council’s consideration.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council adopts the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors as a local heritage item.

Purpose of Report

Background

Site Context

‘Covington’, 10 Park Crescent, Pymble (‘the site’) is associated with one land parcel (Lot 26 DP 7427), located approximately 300 metres north-west of Pymble station. The site is currently zoned R4 High Density Residential and is adjacent to the Park Estate (C7) Conservation Area. The site currently contains a two storey dwelling that is not heritage listed.

Heritage significance of Covington, 10 Park Crescent, Pymble

The following information was gathered from the planning proposal to include 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and interiors as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘planning proposal’) and its appendices. The exhibited planning proposal and its appendices can be seen in Attachment A1.

Covington is a locally rare, one storey, Inter-War Old-English style building with largely intact exteriors and interiors with identified heritage significance. Covington was designed by prominent architect Percy James Gordon (of the architecture firm DT Morrow and Gordon) on behalf of their former neighbour for the purpose as a family home. The dwelling was completed in 1936.

Covington retains a number of rare, highly intact interior spaces (see Figure 1 and 2 below). Most notably are the in-built radiators with decorative metal grilles, which are evidence of a rare and technically significant 1930s decorative central heating system, representing the middle-class lifestyle and aspirations during the 1930s (see Figure 2 below). Externally the dwelling is still largely intact and retains much of its original setting, such as its original relationship and views to the adjacent Robert Pymble Park, further contributing to its heritage significance.

Images of rare, highly intact interiors – 10 Park Crescent, Pymble

Source: Planning Proposal (Attachment A1)

Figure 1 – (left) Built-in timber panelled seat in dining room, (right) leadlight glass windows and original ceiling and cornice details

Figure 2 - (left) Electro-plated copper sidelight, extensive timber electro-plated copper sidelight, extensive timber panelling and decorative grilles to radiators and (right) built-in timber panelled cupboards in hall

As outlined in the Planning Proposal, the October 2022 Heritage Assessment by TKD Architects recommended 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors be listed as a heritage item at the local level. This recommendation and its assessment of heritage significance was the justification for the planning proposal. A summary of TKD Architect’s assessment of heritage significance is shown below (see Table 1). The full assessment can be seen in Question 1, Part 3 of the planning proposal, or in Appendix A of the planning proposal (Attachment A1).

TKD Architects heritage assessment found that the site meets five of the seven heritage significance criteria. A potential item only requires one of seven criteria to be met for it to have heritage significance.

Table 1 - Summary of TKD Architects Heritage Significance Assessment

Heritage Significance Criteria	Assessment Outcome	Reasoning for Assessment Outcome
Criterion A – Historical Significance	ü	10 Park Crescent, Pymble is illustrative of the suburban consolidation of Pymble over the early to mid-twentieth century.
Criterion B – Historic Associations Significance	ü	10 Park Crescent, Pymble has associations with architect Percy James Gordon and the firm of Morrow and Gordon as a residential commission during a period of growth for the firm, when a number of their most notable designs were produced.
Criterion C – Aesthetic or Technical Significance	ü	10 Park Crescent, Pymble is a representative and largely intact example of a residence designed in the Interwar Old English style. The dwelling retains high-quality intact interior features of aesthetic and technical significance.
Criterion D – Social or Community Significance	X	10 Park Crescent, Pymble is unlikely to have strong or special associations with particular communities or groups in NSW. However, the social significance of the place has not been assessed or tested.
Criterion E – Research Significance	X	10 Park Crescent, Pymble may retain some evidence of 1930s central heating systems of some technical significance, however, it is unlikely that the systems have research potential or would yield evidence of such systems which is not already well documented.
Criterion F – Rarity	ü	10 Park Crescent, Pymble is likely to have rarity value for the in-situ evidence of 1930s central heating systems it provides.
Criterion G – Representative Significance	ü	10 Park Crescent, Pymble is a largely intact example of an Interwar Old English style dwelling, retaining its key external features and typical form, as well as high-quality interior features and finishes.

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to heritage list 10 Park Crescent Pymble and its interiors, under Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015, with associated amendment to the Heritage Map as indicated in the below table.

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

EXISTING

PROPOSED

Heritage Map, Sheet HER_007

Schedule 5 Environmental heritage, Part 1 Heritage items

Suburb	Item Name	Address	Property Description	Significance	Item No.
Pymble	‘Covington’, dwelling house and interiors	10 Park Crescent, Pymble	Lot 26 DP 7427	Local	I638

History of Planning Proposal

Key milestones in the planning proposal are as follows:

· The site was first listed under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971.

· The site was de-listed during the creation of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 following the recommendation for de-listing in the 2006 Pymble Heritage Review. This recommendation was not based on an internal inspection of the dwelling on site, and only considered the external heritage significance of the site.

· In June 2021, Council was approached by a third party in relation to the possibility of heritage listing the property.

· On 27 April 2022 a development application was lodged for demolition of the dwelling on site and construction of a residential flat building.

· On 6 June 2022, Council officers inspected the property, including the internals of the house. The inspection revealed a number of key intact and original internal features of the house that were not originally evident.

· On 26 July 2022, Council resolved to recommend an Interim Heritage Order (IHO) to be placed on the site to allow proper evaluation of its heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim. The IHO commenced 29/07/2022.

· On 15 November 2022, Council considered a report to initiate a Council-led planning proposal to heritage list the site. Council resolved to defer the matter for a Councillor site inspection.

· On 13 December 2022, initiating a Council-led planning proposal for the heritage listing of 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors, Council resolved:

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.

· Gateway Determination

- In accordance with the Council resolution, on 13 December 2022 the heritage listing Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment.

- On 22 February 2023, a Gateway Determination (Attachment A2) was received from the Department of Planning and Environment to proceed to public exhibition. The Gateway required completion of the process within by 22 August 2023.

· The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 8 March 2023 to 22 March 2023.

Comments

Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from Wednesday, 8 March 2023 to Wednesday, 22 March 2023, in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan. A copy of the exhibited Planning Proposal and appendices is included at Attachment A1.

Submissions to the exhibition were received from the community, including from the landowner. All submissions have been assessed to find the Planning Proposal upholds its merit for local heritage listing as described in the exhibited proposal.

Submissions to the Public Exhibition

A total of fourteen submissions were received from the community, thirteen in support and one in objection. The submissions in support were predominantly made by neighbouring residents. The objecting submission was made by the owner of the subject land.

Key comments are listed below with detailed response presented in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

Support for the Planning Proposal

The following points were made in support of the planning proposal:

· General support of the heritage listing of 10 Park Crescent, Pymble, and its interiors.

· The need to preserve heritage in Ku-ring-gai for future generations.

· Statements on how the site has been preserved by previous owners.

· Admiration of the intact interiors and exteriors of the dwelling.

· General concern that the site will be redeveloped.

· The positive impact the dwelling has on the surrounding character of Park Crescent.

· Acknowledgement that the site meets threshold for local heritage listing when assessed against the NSW Heritage Criteria framework.

· Acknowledgement that the previous de-listing of the site did not investigate the interiors of the house and thus was de-listed without sufficient investigation of the dwelling’s heritage significance

Ø Comment

The following statements are noted by Council staff:

- general support of heritage listing 10 Park Crescent Pymble and its interiors.

- support to preserve the site for future generations.

- comments on the preservation of the site by previous owners.

- the positive impact the site has on its surrounding character.

It is also acknowledged by Council staff that:

- the previous de-listing of the site was based on a heritage review that did not consider the internal significance of the dwelling.

- the site meets the threshold for heritage significance as stated in the October 2022 Heritage Assessment by TKD Architects.

Some submissions also expressed their concern for potential redevelopment of the site. It should be noted that the planning proposal considers the heritage significance of 10 Park Crescent, Pymble, any potential redevelopment of the site is not relevant to the planning proposal.

Objection to the Planning Proposal

One submission, from the owner of the land subject of this planning proposal, objected to the proposal. The submission makes the following key points:

· Council is undoing 10-plus years of strategic planning in the area.

Ø Comment

Heritage is a key aspect in retaining the desirable Ku-ring-gai built environment. As such, heritage is a significant consideration for Council in the future strategic planning of the area. This consideration is outlined in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement with the identification and conservation of heritage stated in planning priority K13. Council has received new information regarding the heritage significance of the dwelling on the subject site. It would be inconsistent with Council’s strategic planning policy to not properly assess the dwellings heritage significance.

· The heritage listing is inconsistent with the R4 High Density Residential zoning of the site and street.

Ø Comment

All potential heritage items should be individually assessed on their merits regardless of the zoning on which an item may be located.

The dwelling is currently consistent with the higher density streetscape due to the sloping topography to the west of the site and modest heights and floor space ratios for surrounding R4 High Density Residential zoned land mitigating potential bulk and scale impacts from adjacent developments providing an acceptable interface with adjacent low-density developments.

· Inconsistent with Council’s heritage planning principles due to the surrounding high density developments.

Ø Comment

The existing development context demonstrates an appropriate transition between different densities of development and the heritage item.

· Process of heritage de-listing and listing of the site.

Ø Comment

Refer to the History of Planning Proposal section above.

· The site has previously been de-listed as recommended by the Council funded 2006 Pymble Town Centre Heritage Review to de-list the site.

Ø Comment

This recommendation was not based on an internal inspection, which is essential to understand the heritage significance in relation to the subject dwelling.

· Inconsistencies between the 2006 Pymble Town Centre Heritage Review and the 2022 TKD Architects Heritage Assessment.

Ø Comment

The TKD Heritage Assessment considers the heritage significance of the dwelling in its current condition and context against the NSW Heritage Criteria. Considering heritage significance against the NSW Heritage Criteria is standard practice when considering heritage significance.

· Recent changes to the surrounding context of the site.

Ø Comment

The preliminary and full heritage assessments have been based on the current condition of the dwelling within its current context. The TKD Heritage Assessment found much of the dwellings original context has been retained, particularly its views to Robert Pymble Park.

· Current Surrounding context of the site.

Ø Comment

The preliminary and full heritage assessments have been based on the current condition of the dwelling within its current context. The TKD Heritage Assessment found much of the dwelling’s original context has been retained, particularly its views to Robert Pymble Park.

The adjacent higher density developments have negligible bulk and scale impacts on the subject site. The more significant developments (e.g. 14 to 18 Park Crescent) are not directly adjacent to the subject site and therefore do not create significant impacts bulk and scale impacts on the subject site.

Furthermore, much of the heritage significance of the site is due to the rare, highly intact interiors. It is unlikely that the surrounding context of the site would impact the heritage significance of the interiors.

· Quality of living standards of 10 Park Crescent if the site is heritage listed.

Ø Comment

There has been no expert evidence provided to indicate the surrounding higher density developments have created unliveable or unsafe conditions for the subject site. The surrounding higher density developments have negligible bulk and scale impacts on the subject site, and would likely have minimal, if any, impacts on future living standards. If the site were to be heritage listed all potential future development from surrounding sites would likely have to address potential heritage impacts on the subject site prior to development consent been provided.

· Financial Hardship on owners.

Ø Comment

The potential for any reduction or increase in an individual’s property values or financial status is not a planning matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Conclusion

All submissions to the public exhibition of the planning proposal have been given due consideration. The submissions do not provide any new evidence to warrant amendment to the exhibited planning proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that the planning proposal proceed to finalisation.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P5.1 Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

P5.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets.

P5.1.1.1 Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

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 with guidance provided in the Department of Planning and Environment’s Local Environmental Plan making Guideline, September 2022.

On 13 December 2022 Council resolved to request 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 22 February 2023, the Department of Planning and Environment considered the nature of the Planning Proposal and authorised Council as the local plan-making authority. A 6 month period (until 22 August 2023) was allocated to complete the proposal.

This report addresses the post exhibition stage of the planning proposal process, to consider State agency and community 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 apply the Ministers function in making the plan.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council Local Government Area will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk of damaging the reputation of Council if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Ku-ring-gai draft Principal Local Environmental Plan - Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.

Social Considerations

The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s historic period features that are valued by the community now and will continue to be valued into the future.

Environmental Considerations

The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places includes the substantial reduction in building demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between Wednesday, 8 March 2023 to Wednesday, 22 March 2023 in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan. Property owners and neighbouring residents were notified of the public exhibition and invited to provide feedback on the exhibited documentation.

The Gateway Determination made no requirement for any State Agency consultation. The Planning Proposal and supporting information was made available on Council’s website in accordance with Ku-ring-gai’s Community Participation Plan.

As a result of the public exhibition, a total of 14 submissions were received: 13 in support of the proposal and 1 submission in opposition.

All persons who made a submission have been notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with relevant Departments of Council has taken place in preparing this report. In particular heritage specialists. On 28 July 2022, the matter was presented to Council’s Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’). The HRC resolved to support an Interim Heritage Order to be placed on 10 Park Crescent, Pymble. The matter was also received and noted at the Heritage Reference Committee on 27 October 2022.

Post public exhibition of the planning proposal further referrals were sent to internal Council heritage staff.

Summary

The Planning Proposal to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors was granted a Gateway Determination to proceed to public exhibition on 22 February 2023, and was placed on public exhibition from Wednesday, 8 March 2023 to Wednesday, 22 March 2023. A total of 14 submissions were received, 13 in support and 1 in opposition to the planning proposal.

This report has considered the submissions to the public exhibition and recommends proceeding the planning proposal to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors under Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 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 amend Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to heritage list 10 Park Crescent, Pymble and its interiors 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 those who made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

Matthew Le Guay

Student Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Exhibited Planning Proposal and Appendices		2023/140865
	A2	Gateway Determination - 10 Park Crescent, Pymble	Excluded	2023/140866
	A3	Summary of Submissions - 10 Park Crescent, Pymble	Excluded	2023/140867

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	S13463

Generic Plans of Management, Parks and Sportsgrounds - for adoption

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council adopt the Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds & Parks, both dated April 2023.

background:	The Local Government Act 1993 and Crown Land Management Act 2016 set out a range of requirements that Ku-ring-gai Council is legally bound to adhere to in managing community land owned by Ku-ring-gai Council and Crown land for which Council is Crown Land Manager. Section 2.23(6) & (7) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW councils to adopt plans for management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new plans of management must meet both the requirement for the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Local Government Act 1993.

comments:	The Generic Plans of Management for Parks & Sportsgrounds has been developed in consultation with Crown Lands and the community and considers the changes to the environment, legislation, and Council Management of these areas. In October 2022, Council received approval from Crown Lands to place both Generic Plans of Management on public exhibition. Subsequently the revised draft Generic Plans of Management were placed on public exhibition from 7 November 2022 to 21 December 2022. The required Crown Land amendments, along with community feedback and minor errors in the Generic Plans of Management – Parks & Sportsgrounds have been addressed. Both are now ready for final adoption.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council adopt the final Generic Plan of Management – Parks & Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds, dated April 2023 in accordance with clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018.

Purpose of Report

To have Council adopt the Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds & Parks, both dated April 2023.

Background

The Local Government Act 1993 and Crown Land Management Act 2016 set out a range of requirements that Ku-ring-gai Council is legally bound to adhere to in managing community land owned by Ku-ring-gai Council and Crown land for which Council is Crown Land Manager. Section 36 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires all NSW councils to have in place and adopted plans of management for all reserves classified as community land.

Section 2.23(6) & (7) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW Councils to adopt plans of management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new plans of management must meet both the requirement of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Local Government Act 1993.

A Plan of Management (PoM) provides a framework for the management of public land that is owned or managed by a Council. It identifies issues affecting public land and sets out how that land is intended to be used, managed, maintained and enhanced in the future. They:

· are written by a council in consultation with the community;

· clarify how a council will manage the land; and

· indicate how the land may be used or developed, such as leasing or other commercial arrangements.

Until a PoM for an area of community land is adopted by a council, the nature and use of the land must not be changed. A council cannot approve a new development on the land nor grant a lease, licence or other estate over the land until a plan of management is in place.

Council is currently reviewing the draft Generic Plans of Management (PoMs) for Sportsgrounds and Parks. These documents were last reviewed in 2005 and 2015 respectively, and with changes in the Crown Land Management Act 2016 a review of all plans is required.

The generic plans of management has undergone extensive external and internal consultation including public exhibition and submission to the Crown Land for landowner approval for adoption.

Comments

The generic plans of management for Parks & Sportsgrounds have been developed in consultation with Crown Lands and the community and consider the changes to the environment, legislation, and Council management of these areas.

In February 2022, Council resolved to adopt the draft Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds to be placed on public exhibition following review and approval of Crown Lands.

August 2022, Council resolved to adopt the draft Generic Plan of Management – Parks to be placed on public exhibition following review and approval of Crown Lands.

In October 2022, Council received approval from Crown Lands to place both generic Plans of Management on public exhibition. Subsequently the revised draft PoMs were placed on public exhibition from Wednesday, 7 November2022 through to the closing date for submissions on Wednesday, 21 December 2022.

Within the submission period under Section 40A of the LG Act a public hearing was held to inform where there are any changes in categorisations of community land. The public hearings require an independent chairperson to conduct a public hearing and provide a report to Council with recommendations on the proposed categorisation of community land.

The public hearing was held Monday, 28 November 2022 from 6.30pm - 8.30pm at Council Chambers. The final report following the hearing was made available to the public consistent with statutory timeframes, (see Attachment A1).

The recommendations from the Independent Chair, based on the representations to the public hearing on 28 November 2022 and written submissions made to Council by Wednesday, 21 December 2022, regarding the proposed categorisation/categorisations of the 14 sites considered at the public hearing are as follows:

· adopt the proposed categorisation of Charles Bean Sportsfield as Sportsground, and.

· adopt the following proposed re-categorisations shown on the maps in Section 3 of the report because there is no compelling reason(s) as set out in Sections 5 and 6 of this report to change the proposed re-categorisations as identified at all additional 13 sites.

Council received 11 submissions in relation to both plans and is summarised in the table below:

Key Matter Raised

Comment

Recommendation

EV Charging

Submission notes demand for electric vehicle charging stations

Submission requests public DC charging stations in Ku-ring-gai

This matter is not directly relevant to plans of management.

The draft POM does not specifically prohibit charging stations within Councils open space

No amendment to the Plan of Management

Sportsground Key Issues

The Generic Draft Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds document includes statements in relation to sportsground service standards, maintenance and usage with the assumption turf fields have a limited capacity to fulfil the needs of the community.

This matter is not directly relevant to plans of management.

The draft POM does not specify or limit the type of surface of a sports field

It is acknowledged that properly designed and constructed fields can increase the capacity and hours of use of a facility, However, it is noted that increased capital and maintenance budgets would be required to upgrade fields to maintain higher carrying capacity and to maintain higher levels of service.

The Recreation Needs Study will identify strategic consideration of funding relation to field management

No amendment to the Plan of Management

Toolang Oval, St Ives

Ensure that parking is improved. Attendees park all over the place and have damaged the embankment on Warrimoo

This matter is not directly relevant to plans of management.

The draft POM does not address site-specific parking arrangements.

However, the comments relating to limited parking availability at Toolang Oval are noted for future reference and can be incorporated with any future development of the site

No amendment to the Plan of Management

St Columbans Reserve, North Turramurra

Submission claims that the proposed Categorisation of St Columbans Reserve is inaccurate.

It is a stormwater drainage area with a very tiny part approximately 5 metres x 3 metres allocated as a children’s play area with only two pieces of play equipment.

Submission also notes that there is no additional green space within 400m available of where? to residents with BBQs, picnic areas, playgrounds and walking trails to join National Parks.

St Colombans Reserve was not included in the Parks Plan of Management, 2005 as the land was acquired by Council after this time.

St Columbans Reserve comprises two parcels of land with a total area of approximately 6,430sqm; a portion of this area (1,400sqm or 26% of total) is identified as drainage reserve The drainage area is approximately 1,400sqm (26%).

Categorisation of the reserve as park is considered the most appropriate response as this will ensure consistent management regime across the whole area.

Sandakan Memorial Park exists within 400m radius of the reserve as with North Turramurra Recreation Area.

Matters relating to open space provision are not directly relevant to Plans of Management

The Recreation Need Study currently being undertaken will review required recreation provisions for the area.

No amendment to the Plan of Management

General Plan of Management Structure

Submissions noted the plan of management document structure is complicated

The content and structure of the Plan of Management is guided by the Local Government Act 1993, and Crown Land Act. Crown Land Template frameworks were used to streamline the documents to make the documents consistent with Crown Lands Requirements

Amendments to both plans been undertaken to reflect document structure, and amend any errors and omissions

Consultation

Submissions noted that community consultation needs to be done meaningfully and acknowledge community feedback in the final decisions. Some submissions also noted that there has been a lack of community consultation

Council is required to consider submissions received during the public exhibition prior to adoption of the plan of management.

The community consultation undertaken for both the plan of management and public hearing into the re-categorisation have been undertaken in accordance with the relevant legislation and Councils Community Participation Plan.

The re-categorisation of public land requires a public hearing to be held by an independent chairperson to give the community an opportunity to provide written or oral submissions. A public hearing was held on 28 November 2022 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993

Both Plans of Management have been amended to reflect feedback received, with the submission table forwarded to Crown Land to reflect the agreed amendments

Reserve Naming

Submission states, Confusion to the naming of specific parks and reserves

Concern noted

As part of the updating generic plan of managements, Council is undertaking a review and audit of all reserves to determine a consistent naming protocol. This process has involved Council working with Crown Lands and the Geographical Names Board to identify and correctly name all reserves

Noted and updating of correct reserves names will be a continual process

Sportsgrounds

Hours of operation to extend Sundays – Request to extend Sunday hours from currently 9am to 6pm, to 8am to 7pm, allowing extension of Football competition games

Hours of operations are consistent with previous usage of sports facilities and is based on the usage requests and minimising impacts on adjoining residents

Hours for Saturday is 8am to 8.30pm with weekdays 8am to 9.30pm for all floodlight sites.

Increasing hours of operation can have a detrimental impact of field quality and recovery.

No amendment to the Plan of Management

Sir David Martin Reserve

Query to Re-categorisation of amenities area and surrounds from Sportsground to General Community Use

Changing the Amenities and surrounds to General Community use aligns with the core objective for General Community use:

Promote, encourage and provide for the use of the land, and to provide facilities on the land, to meet the current and future needs of the local community and of the wider public in relation to:

- purposes for which a lease, licence or other estate may be granted in respect of the land (other than the provision of public utilities and works associated with or ancillary to public utilities).

This change has no impact to the operational function of the site and to be consistent with current legislation

No amendment to the Plan of Management and is consistent with the Public Hearing Submission and Recommendations

Green Valley Reserve

Omission from the Generic Plan of Management – Parks

Site is adjacent to Ku-ring-gai Creek Reserve and included in the overall site. Review of the GNB park register the site is identified as it is known

Amend Plan to include Green Valley Reserve as a separate reserve

Garrick Road Reserve

Justification on Reserve Categorisations. Garrick Road Reserve in the 2005 Generic Plans of Management is categorised as a park and seeking justification on the merits to change to GCU

The existing Parks Generic Plan of Management was completed in 2005,

Categorisation as Park was considered the most appropriate at this time.

Amend the Plan of Management to include Garrick Road Reserve as Park

Transmission Park

Justification on Reserve Categorisations

The existing Parks Generic Plan of Management was completed in 2005,

Categorisation as Park was considered the most appropriate at this time.

Transmission Park consideration of amending the categorisation will be undertaking in the future following initial adoption of the plan

In addition, Crown Lands through the review process has identified further amendment to both plans of which are consider minor amendments prior to Ministerial Approval. In April 2023, the NSW Department of Planning & Environment – Crown Lands provided consent for Council adopt both plans.

The required Crown Land amendments, along with community feedback and minor errors and inconsistencies in the Generic Plans of Management – Parks & Sportsgrounds have been addressed, and is now ready for adoption, (see Attachments A2 & A3).

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs

A program is being implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities

Progressively review and update Community Plans of Management

Governance Matters

Ku-ring-gai Council amended and completed the draft Generic - Plans of Management under section 3.23(6) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act) and section 39 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act). On February 2023, following public exhibition, the Plans of Management (PoM) was sent back to NSW Department of Planning, & Environment - Crown Lands for final review and consent.

Crown Lands advised on 13 April 2023 that they consent to Council adopting the PoM’s under clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018 (CLM Reg).

All amendments have been made to the generic plans of management, which is are ready for final adoption by Council.

Risk Management

Council needs to have a final Crown endorsed plans of management in place to ensure the lawful use and occupation of Crown land. Any activities to be undertaken on the Reserve must be expressly authorised in the PoMs prior to implementation.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing the draft PoMs is covered by the Strategy & Environment Department budget.

Implementation of the draft PoMs would largely be achieved within annual operational budget allocations. Specific proposals or actions within the plan would be the subject of separate submissions to Council as part of future integrated planning and reporting processes, including the Long-Term Financial Plan and annual budgets.

Social Considerations

Parks and reserves provide the community the spaces to engage with family and the community at large. Spaces for unstructured recreation are becoming more important as people are realising the benefits of recreation in any form in achieving quality of life. Parks provide a significant amount of recreation opportunity to the community such as regular participation in physical activity which can improve overall mental and physical health. It also mitigates the risks associated with obesity and sedentary lifestyles. Through Council’s visioning exercise, our community identified a need to strive for healthier lifestyle practices to achieve physical, mental, and social wellbeing.

Environmental Considerations

Ku-ring-gai’s parks constitute a significant section of Council’s open space reserve system. Many of our parks are associated with natural areas and sportsgrounds that provide environmental functions including habitat and bio-linkage opportunities for flora and fauna.

Our parks also provide attractive visual amenity with native vegetation and landscaping which breaks up the urban landscape. In addition to this, the vegetation and canopy trees on our parks provide microclimate effects to the local area through mitigating wind velocity and the heat island effect created within urbanised areas.

Community Consultation

Community consultation has been undertaken with approval of Crown Lands. The draft PoMs were placed on public exhibition for the statutory periods required under the LG Act and the CLM Act.

Council is required to undertake community consultation in accordance with Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993:

· Public notice of a draft plan of management;

· public exhibition of the draft plan for a minimum of 28 days; and

· the public notice must also specify a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft plan is placed on public exhibition during which submissions may be made to the council.

Council, will following adoption of the PoMs place the Adopted PoMs on Council Website for community access.

Internal Consultation

Consultation between Council teams (Property, Urban Planning & Heritage, and Operations) has taken place in preparation of this report.

Summary

The Generic Plan of Management – Parks & Generic Plan of Management – Sportsgrounds have been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Local Government Act 1993. As landowner, the NSW Department of Planning & Environment - Crown Lands has provided consent to Council to adopt the PoM’s under clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018 (CLM Reg).

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the:

A. final Generic Plan of Management – Parks, dated April 2023 in accordance with clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018.

B. final Generic Plan of Management –Sportsgrounds, dated April 2023 in accordance with clause 70B of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018.

Craig Johnson

Strategic Recreation Planner

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Ku-ring-gai Parks Sportsgrounds Proposed Categorisation Recategorisation Public Hearing and Submissions Report - FINAL 11-01-2023	2023/013944
	A2⇩	Generic Plan of Management - Parks - April 2023 - Final	2023/140510
	A3⇩	Generic Plan of Management - Sportsgrounds - April 2023 Final	2023/140517

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	RFT6-2023/R

RFT6-2023 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS SUPPLY / INSTALL / MAINTAIN / MANAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

background:	Council seeks to engage a suitable contractor to supply and install seven (7) electric vehicle chargers in four (4) locations in the public domain. In addition, Council is seeking to engage a suitable contractor to maintain and manage an overall twenty two (22) electric vehicle charging stations which include the above four (4) locations and a further fifteen (15) electric vehicle chargers at an additional location. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 7^th March 2023 and closed on the 4^th April 2023.

comments:	Council received four (4) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council. The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to one (1) tender submission being non – conforming and the remaining three (3) tenders being above the allocated budget. The Tender Evaluation Committee sought advice from Council asset managers and an industry expert and it was recommended to reduce the scope to negotiate a price within the budget. The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government Regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

recommendation:	Based on the assessment undertaken, the TEC recommends the following: RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage - Tender Evaluation Committees recommendation to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government Regulation 1995 and seek to negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the Regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money.

Purpose of Report

To consider the tenders received for RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Background

Council seeks to engage a suitable contractor to supply and install seven (7) electric vehicle chargers in four (4) locations in the public domain. In addition, Council is seeking to engage a suitable contractor to maintain and manage an overall twenty two (22) electric vehicle charging stations which include the above four (4) locations and a further fifteen (15) electric vehicle chargers at an additional location.

As the cost of the works was estimated to be over $250,000, Tenders were called using Tenderlink in accordance with the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulation. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 7^th March 2023 and closed on the 4^th April 2023.

Comments

Council received four (4) tenders. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value for money to Council.

The approved evaluation plan has been followed and the award of a contract has been put on hold due to one (1) Tender submission being non – conforming and the remaining three (3) tenders being above the allocated budget.

The Tender Evaluation Committee sought advice from the Council asset managers and an independent industry expert and it was recommended to reduce the scope and under negotiation seek revised pricing to allow submissions to be within allocated budget.

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

Confidential attachments to this report include:

1. List of tenders received (Attachment 1),

2. Tender Evaluation Report and recommendation (Attachment 2)

integrated planning and reporting

Issue N4: Climate Change

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Long Term Objective N4.1: A community addressing and responding to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events.

N4.1.2: Council’s vulnerability to climate change is reduced.

N4.1.2.3: Identify opportunities to support the uptake of low and zero emission vehicles within the community.

Governance Matters

Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink 7^th March 2023 and closed on the 4^th April 2023. At the close of tender, four (4) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s Tendering Policy. A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department and Strategy and Environment Department was formed to assess the four (4) tenders received. The evaluation considered:

1. Conformity of submission,

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

3. Capacity and Capability

4. Experience

5. Risk Management/Environmental and Work Health and Safety

6. Performance and Financial Assessment.

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

Risk Management

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

1. That the Electric Vehicle Chargers Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Management be carried out by a contractor with the ability to provide a full range of services with suitably qualified staff.

2. Risk Management, Environmental and WHS.

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

Financial Considerations

Funding for this project will be sourced from the Net Zero program within Council’s Environmental Levy programs.

Social Considerations

The supply, installation, maintenance and management of the electric vehicle chargers is in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan, Our Ku-ring-gai 2038 and the Plan’s long term directions.

Development of appropriate public EV charging networks is an important step to ensure community members can access EV charging infrastructure where off-street parking and private charging infrastructure is not possible. As well as for visitors to Ku-ring-gai who may require additional vehicle charge as part of their journey to the local area.

Environmental Considerations

The initiative directly supports Council’s Net Zero objectives in the Climate Change Policy - specifically, the uptake of electric vehicles in Ku-ring-gai.

An exempt development environmental assessment for the installation was undertaken and no environmental impacts were identified.

Community Consultation

Consultation undertaken for Council’s Net Zero Communities strategy identified strong community support for the measures that encourage electric vehicle uptake.

All relevant stakeholders for each of the locations have been consulted.

Internal Consultation

All relevant departments were consulted.

Summary

Tender RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle Chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage was released through Tenderlink on 7^th March 2023 and closed on the 4^th April 2023. A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from the Operations Department and Strategy and Environment Department. Council received four (4) tenders. All tenders were recorded in accordance with Council’s Tendering Policy.

The Tender Evaluation Committee sought advice from the Council asset managers and it was recommended to reduce the scope and under negotiation seek revised pricing to allow submissions to be within allocated budget.

The Tender Evaluation Committee is recommending to reject all tenders under Clause 178(1) of the Local Government Regulation 1995 and negotiate under Clause 178(3)(e) of the Regulation to ensure Council has the best value for money. It is anticipated that the negotiation will provide Council the flexibility of redesigning the scope of work to suit Council’s budget and deliver the project within the allocated budget.

Recommendation:

That:

1. As a result of considering the tenders submitted for the proposed RFT6-2023 Electric Vehicle Chargers – Supply / Install / Maintain / Manage contract, and pursuant to Clause 178(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 1995 (“the Regulation”), Council declines to accept any of the tenders.

2. Fresh tenders as referred to in clause 178(3)(b)-(d) of the Regulation not be invited. Negotiations to extend to all interested parties that downloaded the Tender documents.

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

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

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

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

Craig Roberts

Project Manager

Peter Lichaa

Manager Technical Services

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Electric Vehicle Chargers RFT6-2023		Confidential
	A2	Electric Vehicle Chargers RFT6-2023		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	S13127

Attachments:	A1⇩	Controlled Document Number 202 - Guidelines for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on Council Land - Version 1 - Draft		2022/147861
	A2⇩	Public Exhibition Feedback - Policy for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on Council Land		2023/112278

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 May 2023	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	FY00623/5