Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 13 August 2024

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 16 July 2024

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

Staff Present:	General Manager (David Marshall) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Acting Director Corporate (Angela Apostol) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) Acting Director Operations (Peter Lichaa) Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson) Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Christopher M Jones) Acting Senior Governance Officer (Nicole Kratochvil)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00PM

The Mayor offered the Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer.

Apologies

File: S02194

Nil

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.

Cr A.Taylor declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.3 – Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025 due to his involvement in Ku-ring-gai Rotary. Cr A.Taylor will remain in Chambers during debate on this item.

Cr A.Taylor declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.4 – Status of Women's Advisory Committee due to his involvement in an organisation managed by a candidate for the Committee. Cr A.Taylor will remain in Chambers during debate on this item.

Cr S. Lennon declared a non-significant non-pecuniary interest in GB.1 – Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 6 June 2024 & 2024-25 Heritage Home Grants Allocation due to his involvement in the Eryldene Trust.

Cr C.Kay declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.3 – Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025 due to her involvement in the St Ives Food and Wine Festival. Councillor C.Kay will leave Chambers during debate on this item.

Cr B.Ward declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.3 – Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025 due to her involvement in Ku-ring-gai Rotary and will remain in Chambers during debate on this item.

Mayor S.Ngai declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.1 – Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 6 June 2024 & 2024-25 Heritage Home Grants Allocation due to a personal connection with one of the applicants. Mayor S.Ngai will leave Chambers during debate on this item.

Mayor S.Ngai declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.3 – Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025 as he has been made Honorary member of Ku-ring-gai Rotary Club and will remain in Chambers during debate on this item.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:

MM.2 - Significant Sporting Achievements by Members of the Ku-ring-gai Community
Report by Mayor Ngai dated 15 July 2024.

MM.3 - Housing Policy Updates (July 2024)
Report by Mayor Ngai dated 15 July 2024 with attachments.

Memorandums:

1. Memorandum to Mayor, Councillors, General Manager and Directors from Director Community dated 15 July 2024 Re: Questions taken on notice, asked by Councillor Kay, at the 18 June 2024 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

2. Memorandum to Councillors, Directors, Office of the Mayor and General Manager from Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy dated 16 July 2024 Re: LGNSW Annual Conference - Call for Motions.

3. Memorandum to Mayor, Councillors, General Manager and Directors from Director Community dated 16 July 2024 Re: Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.

137

CONFIRMATION OF ATTACHMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Ward)

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:

GB.2 EOI23-2024 - Panel of Code of Conduct Reviewers

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

Attachments 1 to 11

GB.3 Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025

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

Attachments 1 to 19

GB.4 Status of Women's Advisory Committee

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

Attachment 1: Women’s Advisory Committee Submissions

Attachment 2: Women’s Advisory Committee selection report

Attachment 3: Status of Women's Advisory Committee Assessment
Methodology

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

138

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 4 June 2024

Minutes numbered 111 to 113

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Lennon)

That Minutes numbered 111 to 113 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

139

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 18 June 2024

Minutes numbered 114 to 136

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Lennon)

That Minutes numbered 114 to 136 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

minutes from the Mayor

140

Vale Don Brew

File: CY00455/12

Vide: MM.1

It is my sad duty to inform my Council colleagues and the Ku-ring-gai community of the passing of Don Brew, a noted campaigner for the protection of local heritage and environment.

Don Brew was born in 1935 and was a lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai, residing for over 30 years in Wahroonga with wife Desley.

Following his retirement as a professional engineer Don became interested in the conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s built and environmental heritage.

He was a notable founding member of grassroots community organisations such as the Burns, Braeside and Kintore Avenues Wahroonga Group (BBK); the North Turramurra Action Group (NTAG) and the West Pymble Action Group.

Don Brew helped set up the Ku-ring-gai Community Shed as a way of getting male residents engaged with each other and the local community through woodworking and other hands-on projects. He was also a longstanding member of the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc. (FOKE).

During the late 1990s Don provided valuable input to help develop the Ku-ring-gai Council Residential Development Local Environment Plan between 1999 and 2001.

As President of BBK between 2000 and 2005, Don became a passionate advocate for preserving Wahroonga’s heritage. His advocacy helped the Council create the Wahroonga Heritage Conservation Area.

This meant legal protection of heritage items such as Craignairn’ by architect Howard Joseland, on the corner of Burns Road and Cleveland Street Wahroonga. ‘Craignairn’ faced multiple development proposals including a proposal for 21 apartments. In 2002, Ku-ring-gai Council took on a legal challenge at the Land and Environment Court to protect the property and won.

Don also led the BBK campaign to protect endangered Blue Gum High Forest contained within the grounds of the heritage property of ‘Rippon Grange’, designed by renowned architect John Sulman and Howard Joseland.

Other campaigns Don was involved in were to protect the Holy Cross site in Burns Road Wahroonga, 14-18 Coonanbarra Road Wahroonga and heritage homes along the Pacific Highway at Wahroonga.

In 2011 Don Brew founded another community group called Building a Better Ku-ring-gai. He was a strong supporter of Friends of Turramurra legal challenge in the same year against the NSW Planning Minister's Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel’s proposal to rezone Ku-ring-gai. Ultimately the state government withdrew this plan.

Don Brew will be remembered by those who knew him as a fearless and dedicated campaigner against what he perceived to be inappropriate development in Ku-ring-gai. On behalf of Council and the Ku-ring-gai community I extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai)

A. That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Don Brew.

C. That the Mayor write to Don Brew’s family and encloses a copy of the Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

141

Significant Sporting Achievements by Members of the Ku-ring-gai Community

File: S04856

Vide: MM.2

I am pleased to report on two significant sporting achievements by young Ku-ring-gai community members.

Travis Bazzana

Travis Bazzana grew up in the Ku-ring-gai area, graduating from Turramurra High School in 2020. As a junior, Travis was a keen sportsman, including playing baseball for the Ku-ring-gai Stealers and Ryde Hawks.

He also excelled in other sports including cricket, basketball and rugby. Travis has spoken about how much he enjoyed growing up the Ku-ring-gai LGA. Soon after leaving high school, Travis moved to the United States to pursue a career as a professional baseball player.

He’s played two seasons with Oregon State University, in 2022 and 2023. In 2023, Travis had the team’s best batting average, securing 20 double runs and 11 home runs while also setting a team record of 36 stolen bases.

In June 2024, Travis was placed at the top of the Major League Baseball (MLB) draft, which means he was considered the most valuable prospect for major league teams.

I am happy to report that, yesterday, Travis was selected as the first draft pick by the Cleveland Guardians MLB team. This means Travis is now one step closer to reaching his dream of playing in the world’s premiere baseball competition. It also means he is the first Australian-born player to be drafted in the opening round of an MLB draft.

Matt Hunt

Last week, the CEO of Athletics NSW informed us that Matt Hunt of Roseville will represent Australia in the 400m hurdles at the 2024 World Athletics Under 20s Championships in Lima, Peru from 27-31 August 2024.

Matt is a member of the University of Technology Sydney Northern Suburbs Athletic Club.

Athletics NSW let us know that Matt has worked incredibly hard to be selected for this team, through countless hours of training and attending competitions around the country. It is also pleasing to note the ongoing support from the athletics and local community for Matt and his family, contributing to the required $6,000 team levy in order for him to represent his country on the international stage.

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai)

That Council:

A. Congratulates Travis Bazzana, his family, Turramurra High School and the Ku-ring-gai Stealers baseball club for the tremendous achievement of Travis being selected to play in the United States’ Major League Baseball competition.

B. Formally responds to the letter from Athletics NSW, congratulating Matt Hunt on his selection in the Australian team at the 2024 World Athletics Under 20s Championships.

C. Promotes the achievements of both athletes on Council’s social media and communication channels.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

142	Housing Policy Updates (July 2024) File: S14427 Vide: MM.3
	This Mayoral Minute provides an update on local activity regarding the State Government’s housing policies since the Ordinary Meeting of 18 June. As this Mayoral Minute is longer than those of prior months, I will draw attention to key actions required by Council: · From 1 July 2025, dual occupancies will be allowed in Ku-ring-gai via private certifier Exempt and Complying CDCs. The default minimum lot size for dual occupancies in the Exempt and Complying Development SEPP is 400 sqm (for two dwellings). However Ku-ring-gai can update its Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan if it wishes to introduce a minimum lot size that is more sympathetic to urban tree canopy, biodiversity, climate resilience and heritage. · From 1 July 2024, a Ministerial Statement of Expectations Order requires all NSW Councils to improve their Development Application turnaround times and update their local planning strategies in line with the Department’s dwellings targets and SEPPs. If a Council’s performance is not satisfactory, the Minister may appoint a planning administrator or confer the function of council onto a Sydney district or regional planning panel. As such, Ku-ring-gai should note the Ministerial Statement and work towards delivering upon it. Further detail below. Transport Oriented Development As of 13 May, landowners have been able to lodge Development Applications within the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) precincts of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville with heights ranging 22-24m and floor space ratio of 2.5:1. However as of 12 July, we have not received any development applications (DAs) for TOD-related uplift in these precincts. We expect DAs for TOD-related uplift to start coming in the next few months. The reason why we have not yet received any DAs may be that it takes time to properly draw up the plans and commission the relevant studies. Real estate activity has been on the rise. Some developers have actively been targeting individual lot owners with high-pressure tactics and attempting to secure options for land at below-market prices. This has been creating angst amongst portions of the community, especially when some residents have succumbed. Other residents who are not keen to be exploited by developers have banded together and are attempting to sell as a group. However, the likelihood of achieving a sale at their desired price is not yet known, with an influx of land at 37 TOD precincts to be established within a year, limited availability of construction workers, high construction costs, rising high interest rates, and a fixed number of developers who are willing to take on the risks. In the short term we are likely to see developers focus on higher-yielding below-market options. The legal action with the NSW Government is ongoing and as previously noted, would not have been necessary had the State Government provided a deferred commencement to Ku-ring-gai on the same terms that it had offered to 12 other councils. With the cost of inaction being far greater than the cost of legal action, we proceed under legal advice to protect our ratepayers’ financial interests. Another consequence of the State Government’s unwillingness to collaborate has been the immediate impact on Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) within each TOD precinct. While other councils may have the opportunity to avoid the impacts through a reasonable-length deferred commencement, this option was not given to Ku-ring-gai on the multiple occasions that we requested it. To explore options for saving our HCAs and mitigating the impacts on our urban canopy, council staff continue to prepare different scenarios for each TOD precinct and these will be consulted with the public around November of this year for a council decision in February. From what I understand, NM4 proposes another option for protecting our HCAs prior to February and will be considered later tonight. 345 Pacific Highway Planning Proposal At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 18 June, Council resolved to support a planning proposal for this site with building height 32 metres (9 storeys) and floor space ratio of 2.31:1. It should be noted that this floor space ratio is less than the current TOD controls of 2.5:1, so a developer would more likely opt for the TOD. As part of Rezoning Review 2024-9, the Sydney North Planning Panel had also met to discuss this planning proposal and after an unusual delay of one fortnight, decided that the applicant should come back with an updated urban design report to test a range of building heights from 12 to 15 storeys before the panel makes a decision for submitting to a Gateway determination [see attachment 1]. The interim record of decision is ambiguous as to whether the planning panel has considered the bottlenecking impacts on Pacific Highway. Feedback to NSW Department of Planning re: Low- and Mid-Rise Housing On 21 May, Council resolved unanimously as part of GB11 that Council: B. Requests a 12 -month deferral of the low- and mid -rise Housing SEPP from the department upon agreeing reasonable 5 - year and 20 - year new-dwelling targets as implied by the SEPP. The targets will form the basis of an update to its Local Environment Plan over 12 months with the intent to match state policy objectives while providing a superior and more environmentally sensitive outcome for future residents. F. Endorses the exclusion of all town centres and stations from the Low and Mid-rise Housing Policy as discussed in this report and specified in Attachment A3 -Feedback form – Station and town centre precinct selections and Attachment A4 -Feedback form – Bushfire, Flood, and other hazards. Council staff provided this feedback to the Department of Planning on 22 May. The Department responded with a letter on 03 July [see attachment 2]. The letter was silent on the issues raised by Council, in other words it implied that: · it did not support Council’s request for 20-year (or any other form of long-term) housing targets; · it did not support a 12-month deferral for planning towards a long term target; · it did not support the exclusion of any of the train stations from the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions; and · the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions will be implemented as per the details on their website. In the absence of housing targets, an update to the LEP (beyond the TOD precincts) has not yet commenced. Official Launch of Low- and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP Provisions From 28 June 2024 to 2 July 2024, the NSW Department of Planning website was iteratively updated and corrected to announce the implementation details of its anticipated Low- and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions. The webpage [see attachment 3] attempts to communicate what the policy is, however its wording is ambiguous and is open to interpretation. In particular, there is mix-up of terminology including two different uses of the word ‘stage’ as well as the term ‘well-located’ being used in a manner that is contrary to the National Housing Accord. The implementation details are still being clarified with the Department of Planning but at this point in time my understanding is as follows: · ‘Well-located’ areas within 10 minutes’ walk or 800m walking distance of ‘station and town centre’ precincts will not have any change until sometime in the second half of 2024 (as part of ‘stage 2’). These changes will involve apartment buildings, terraces, townhouses, and other forms of housing with the specifics yet to be confirmed. · Outside of the ‘well-located areas’, all R2 low-density residential zones in NSW with the exception of areas such as bushfire and flood-prone zones will support dual occupancies and semi-detached dwellings. These changes take effect 01 July 2024 (as part of ‘stage 1’) and the dual occupancies will be approved via private certifiers through Exempt and Complying Development. o 13 local government areas including Ku-ring-gai are temporarily excluded from the complying development pathway as they currently “lack controls for dual occupancies, such as minimum lot sizes”. These councils have until 01 July 2025 to “consider appropriate controls for dual occupancies”, after which the complying development pathway will be turned back on with a minimum lot size of 400 sqm if these councils do not establish relevant controls. What this means for Ku-ring-gai residents seeking to build dual occupancies The majority of Ku-ring-gai residents who own R2 low-density residential land that isn’t flood or bushfire-prone will be able to build dual occupancies through a private certifier via the Exempt and Complying Development SEPP from 01 July 2025. The minimum lot size of such dual occupancies in Ku-ring-gai is currently not specified. But for ‘well-located’ areas within 800m of stations and town centres, there will be non-refusal standards and controls that will be revealed as part of ‘stage 2’. As for those outside of ‘well-located’ areas, the minimum lot size will be the Exempt and Complying Development SEPP’s default of 400 sqm (for two dwellings) unless Ku-ring-gai updates its Local Environment Plan before 01 July 2025 to introduce a larger value. As such, it is in Ku-ring-gai’s interest to update its Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan before 01 July 2025 if it wishes to establish appropriate controls for dual occupancies that can protect our urban tree canopy, biodiversity, climate resilience and heritage. Ministerial Statement of Expectations Order On 01 July 2024 the Planning Minister also made an Environmental Planning and Assessment (Statement of Expectations) Order 2024 under section 9.6(9) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [see attachment 4]. The Statement of Expectations sets the Minister’s performance expectations of each Council. If a Council’s performance is not satisfactory, the Minister may appoint a planning administrator or confer the function of council onto a Sydney district or regional planning panel as per section 9.6(1)(b) of the Act. The three performance areas of the Statement of Expectations are: · Development Assessment o Preparing assessment reports for regionally significant development applications within an average of 250 days from lodgement o Lodging development applications within: § 14 days from submission (FY25) § 7 day from submission (FY26+) o Determining development applications (including DAs by local planning panel) within an average days from lodgement of: § 115 days (FY25) § 105 days (FY26) § 95 days (FY27) § 85 days (FY28+) · Planning Proposals o Support the planning proposal process within the timeframes stated in the LEP Making Guideline (August 2023). · Strategic Planning o Prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement and a Local Planning Strategy in line with the Department’s standards, timeframes, dwelling provision targets, and State Environmental Planning Policies. As such, all Councils are expected to improve their Development Application turnaround in the coming years and update their Local Strategic Planning Statements to align with the Department’s dwelling targets and SEPPs if they wish to maintain control of their planning and development functions. Of course, many Councils including Ku-ring-gai already strive to lift perform in these three areas however we face the realities of competing with the private sector and State Government for appropriate talent. Councils are at a disadvantage in securing the quality and volume of talent that we need as rates are pegged while development assessment fees are regulated by the State and do not reflect the cost of providing the service. Nevertheless, we are required to strive to deliver on these expectations. Delivering on the Ministerial Expectations On 3 July 2024 the Planning Minister wrote to all Mayors regarding the updated Ministerial Statement of Expectations Order [see attachment 5]. To assist with reducing DA timeframes and delivering more homes, the NSW Government has announced the funding of cadetships for planners in councils and the opening of a new TAFE course for para-planning. The NSW Government also expects Artificial Intelligence to play a greater role in producing efficiencies, and has committed to $5.6m of funding as part of an Early Adopter Grant Program, however not all Councils that applied for the grant were successful in securing first round funding.
	Recommendation: That Council: A. Notes and receives this Mayoral minute. B. Staff review Ku-ring-gai’s planning controls for dual occupancies (especially with regard to minimum lot sizes) and report back to Council with the view of updating the Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan prior to 30 June 2025. C. Notes the Ministerial Statement of Expectations Order 2024 and will work towards delivering upon it, with a report back to Council no later than December 2024 proposing a way forward for meeting our strategic planning requirements. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Motion: Councillors Pettett and Spencer
	Resolved: (Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai) That Council: A. Notes and receives this Mayoral minute. B. Staff review Ku-ring-gai’s planning controls for dual occupancies (especially with regard to minimum lot sizes) and report back to Council with the view of updating the Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan prior to 30 June 2025. C. Notes the Ministerial Statement of Expectations Order 2024 and will work towards delivering upon it, with a report back to Council no later than December 2024 proposing a way forward for meeting our strategic planning requirements. For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Spencer CARRIED

PETITIONS

GENERAL BUSINESS

143

EOI23-2024 - Panel of Code of Conduct Reviewers

File: S08447

Vide: GB.2

For Council to renew its Panel of Code of Conduct Reviewers (Panel) in accordance with the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW (the Procedures).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Smith)

That Council appoint a Panel of Conduct Reviewers outlined in Attachment A11 to this Report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

144

Investment Report as at 30 June 2024

File: FY00623/6

Vide: GB.6

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for June 2024.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Smith)

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for June 2024 be received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

145

Environmental Levy Grant Program - Round 26

File: CY00848

Vide: GB.8

To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round twenty-six (26) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Smith)

That Council:

A. Endorse the recommendations of the Environmental Levy Grants Assessment Panels to fund twenty-one (21) projects under round twenty-six (26) of the Environmental Levy grants program, totalling $99,586.

B. Notes that the St Ives Community Garden Committee project for Establishment of St Ives Community Garden at the expanded Bedes Forest has 24 months to acquit that project.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

146

Policy Updates - Related Party Disclosure Policy, Contaminated Land Policy and the Bushland Illegal Dumping and Encroachment Policy

File: CY00826/2

Vide: GB.9

To update three Council policies.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Smith)

A. That the following revised policy be approved by Council:

· Related Party Disclosures

B. That the following revised policies be exhibited for at least 28 days and reported back to Council.

· Contaminated Land Policy; and the

· Bushland Illegal Dumping and Encroachment Policy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

After having declared an interest on item GB.1, the Mayor, Councillor Ngai and Councillor Lennon withdrew from the chambers during discussion and did not vote on the matter. Deputy Mayor Councillor Kay took the Chair.

147

Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 6 June 2024 & 2024-25 Heritage Home Grants Allocation

File: CY00413/12

Vide: GB.1

For Council to consider the minutes from the previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 6 June 2024 and HRC recommendations for the applications under the Heritage Home Grants (HHG) program for 2024/25 and an IHO request.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Smith)

A. That Council receive and note the HRC minutes at Attachment A1 from the meeting held on 6 June 2024.

B. That Council approves the Heritage Home Grant funding as set out in Attachment A3.

C. That Council waives any applicable minor works application fees required by successful grant recipients to undertake projects approved for funding.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor Councillor Ngai and Councillor Lennon returned to the chambers. The Mayor Councillor Ngai resumed the Chair.

148

Doggy Daycare

File: CY00445/12

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 26 June 2024

We have people who would love to drop off their pets at daycare while they attend work.

As a Council, we play a role in ensuring that there is an environment that allows for such activities to occur in appropriate locations. The Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 currently permits ‘Animal boarding or training establishments’ in E3 Productivity Support and RE1 Public Recreation zones with consent. But it is difficult for operators to secure such zoned land. Ku-ring-gai does have E3 zones in the Pymble Business Park, but nowhere else. And it is unusual for the private sector to acquire RE1 land.

I believe that we should consider updating our Local Environment Plan (LEP) to also allow this activity to be permitted with consent in E1 Local Centre and MU1 Mix Use zones. This will create more opportunities for pet daycares to be established legally within Ku-ring-gai’s borders.

I move that:

A. Council staff investigate the feasibility (including any concerns) of allowing ‘Animal boarding or training establishments’ to be permitted with consent in E1 Local Centre and MU1 Mixed Use zones.

B. Subject to feasibility and the provision of appropriate controls, that staff report back to Council within the next twelve months and as part of LEP housekeeping on the opportunity to update the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 to allow ‘Animal boarding or training establishments’ to be permitted with consent in E1 Local Centre and MU1 Mixed Use zones. Relevant changes to Council’s Development Control Plan should also be considered.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Ward)

That:

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

149

Giving residents choice in household energy

File: CY00441/12

Vide: NM.5

Notice of Motion from Councillors Ngai and Greg Taylor dated 28 June 2024

Existing Net Zero Initiatives

At Ku-ring-gai, we encourage our residents to transition to more energy efficient homes as part of our Net Zero 2040 target.

Under our Energy Smart rebates program (funded by the Environmental Levy), Council provides rebates for the installation of the following:

- Solar PV or Battery storage – Up to $500

- Solar or electric hot water system – Up to $500

- Insulation – Up to $500

- Windows – Up to $500

This provides a financial incentive for residents to transition to more energy efficient installations.

Under the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 6B.2(16), Council also requires all parking bays of future multi-dwelling housing to be EV ready with design and construction (provision for conduits, switchboards, electrical capacity etc.) to enable installation of electric vehicle charging points that are linked to each individual dwelling electricity meter.

While this stops short of mandating the installation of electric vehicle charging points, it allows the option for developers and residents should they choose to proceed without a costly retrofit.

Further Opportunities for Net Zero

While many households currently cook with gas, electric induction cooktops provide a healthier, faster and more cost efficient alternative. In particular, there are links between gas cooktop emissions and the development of asthma, and on this basis other councils such as Waverley and Lane Cove have gone so far as to ban gas on health grounds.

We respect the right for households to cook with their fuel of choice, but believe that to be consistent with existing policies we should make adjustments to Ku-ring-gai’s Energy Smart rebate program and Development Control Plan (DCP) accordingly.

We, therefore, move that:

A. Council’s Energy Smart rebate program be amended to also support up to $500 for the installation of an electric induction cooktop.

B. Council staff investigate updates to the Ku-ring-gai DCP to require new developments to provide kitchens that are electric induction ready with design and construction (provision for conduits, switchboards, electrical capacity etc) to enable installation of induction cooktops that are linked to each individual dwelling electricity meter. Staff are to report back to Council within the next twelve months on the potential DCP housekeeping amendments.

C. As part of preparing the DCP housekeeping amendments, Council staff will also consider additional measures to improve environmental sensitivity and sustainability towards Net Zero. In particular, the staff will consider the appropriateness of incorporating elements such as:

i. controls from other council DCPs including Lane Cove (Sustainability Review 2023) and Parramatta (6.8); and

ii. the possibility of allowing solar panels to be visible from the street front in Heritage Conservation Areas.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/G. Taylor)

That:

A. Council’s Energy Smart rebate program be amended to also support up to $500 for the installation of an electric induction cooktop.

i. controls from other council DCPs including Lane Cove (Sustainability Review 2023) and Parramatta (6.8); and

ii. the possibility of allowing solar panels to be visible from the street front in Heritage Conservation Areas.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Wheatley departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

After having declared an interest on item GB.3, Councillor Kay withdrew from the chambers during discussion and did not vote on the matter.

150	Ku-ring-gai Council Sponsorship 2024-2025 File: FY00275/16 Vide: GB.3
	To advise Council of sponsorship requests received under Council’s Sponsorship Policy for 2024–2025, and to provide recommendations for funding.
	Motion: (Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai /Ward) That Council approve the following funding for the Events, Arts and Cultural and General Sponsorship applications: Amendment: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Lennon) That Council approve the following funding for the Events, Arts and Cultural and General Sponsorship applications: The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED. For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Lennon, Pettett, Smith, A.Taylor, G.Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Amendment: Councillor Spencer The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Lennon, Pettett, Smith, A.Taylor, G.Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Lennon) That Council approve the following funding for the Events, Arts and Cultural and General Sponsorship applications: For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Pettett, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer CARRIED

Councillor Kay returned to the chambers.

151

Status of Women's Advisory Committee

File: S13683

Vide: GB.4

To provide Council with recommendations for 15 community representatives to participate in the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Wheatley)

That:

A. Council considers the recommendations from the independent selection panel and appoints 15 community members to participate in the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.

B. Council considers the recommendations from the independent selection panel and appoints ten (10) reserves for the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.

C. The Terms of Reference be updated to provide for vacant positions on the committee to be filled by reserves, in the order recommended by the assessment panel

D. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Status of Women's Advisory Committee be appointed when the incoming Council appoints Councillors to each of its advisory and reference committees.

E. Women on Council be included on the Committee.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

152	Improving the accessibility and transparency of Public Forums - Changes to Code of Meeting Practice File: CY00438/12 Vide: GB.5
	To propose amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Meeting Practice to allow for public forums to be recorded and webcast, and for speakers to address Council via audio-visual link.
	Motion: (Moved: Councillors A.Taylor/Ward) That: A. Council livestream public forums and amend the Code of Meeting Practice to provide for public forums to be publicly broadcast but not published on Council’s website. B. Public forums will always be held as a hybrid meeting, unless the meeting is unable to be held physically in the Council Chamber in which case it will be held by audio-visual link only, and amend the Code of Meeting practice as in Attachment A3. C. That the draft Code of Meeting Practice be placed on public exhibition for 28 days (noting that submissions will be accepted for up to 42 days). D. Council note that a report will be brought to Council after exhibition summarising the public response and providing a final version of the Code of Meeting Practice for consideration. AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Kay/Spencer) That Council: A. Wishes to webcast public forums and the amendments to the Code of Meeting Practice in Attachment A2 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days (noting that submissions will be accepted for up to 42 days). B. Wishes for public forums to always be held as a hybrid meeting, unless the meeting is unable to be held physically in the Council Chamber in which case it will be held by audio-visual link only and the amendments to the Code of Meeting practice in Attachment A3 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days (noting that submissions will be accepted for up to 42 days). C. Note that a report will be brought to Council after exhibition summarising the public response and providing a final version of the Code of Meeting Practice for consideration. The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Kay/Spencer) That Council: A. Wishes to webcast public forums and the amendments to the Code of Meeting Practice in Attachment A2 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days (noting that submissions will be accepted for up to 42 days). B. Wishes for public forums to always be held as a hybrid meeting, unless the meeting is unable to be held physically in the Council Chamber in which case it will be held by audio-visual link only and the amendments to the Code of Meeting practice in Attachment A3 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days (noting that submissions will be accepted for up to 42 days). C. Note that a report will be brought to Council after exhibition summarising the public response and providing a final version of the Code of Meeting Practice for consideration. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Smith departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

153

Marian Street Theatre Killara – Building Condition

File: S10577/5

Vide: GB.7

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the costs of the minimum repairs, maintenance, and other necessary works to re-open the Marian Street Theatre as a functional theatre in the form it was before closing, complying with current building code requirements.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Ward)

That:

1. Council notes the Hydromedial Consulting Group Feasibility Report for Marian Street Theatre included in the papers for the July 2024 ordinary council meeting, which suggested a range of approximately $7 million to approximately $15 million for the likely costs of a minimalist re-opening of the Marian Street Theatre.

2. Council affirms Council’s support for Development Application DA 0144/20.

3. Council notes that Development Application DA 0144/20 requires substantial commencement by 19th August 2026 to remain valid.

4. Staff report to Council on the likely costs and timetable to redevelop the Marian Street Theatre in accordance with Development Application DA 0144/20 and the actions to be taken to achieve substantial commencement by 19th August 2026 in order to preserve the development consent.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Spencer

CARRIED

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Councillors A.Taylor and Ward separately departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

154

Sun Protection for Spectators at Sporting Grounds

File: S07823

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Lennon and Smith dated 26 June 2024

The primary cause of melanoma and other skin cancers is prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation. While authorities have educated people well on the need to wear hats and apply sunscreen lotion, keeping to the shade wherever practicable also protects human skin from harm.

We, therefore, move:

That Council staff investigate and report to Council on possible measures to ensure that all sporting grounds attracting spectators in Ku-ring-gai have at least some shaded and sheltered area for spectators to sit or stand.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Lennon/Smith)

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

155

Engagement with First Nations People

File: S02414

Vide: NM.3

Notice of Motion from Councillor Greg Taylor dated 27 June 2024

In April 2024 Council resolved to prepare a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). The development and implementation of a RAP will formally acknowledge the value of First Nations communities, their fundamental connection to Country, and the nature of their living cultural heritage associated with the Land.

As an early engagement, it is proposed that Council reach out to First Nations people and hold a small gathering in the local bushland. The purpose is to understand more about how Council can help support and empower First Nations people and culture in the community; share traditional fire knowledge with First Nations people, Council and possibly other government agencies; improve contact and connection between local First Nations community members and Council staff; explore the potential for any future First Nations events that can be supported by Council; and explore the potential for future cultural burning workshops and activities.

I, therefore, move:

That Council facilitate a gathering with First Nations people in local bushland, as outlined in this Notice of Motion.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors G. Taylor/A. Taylor)

That Council facilitate a gathering with First Nations people in local bushland, as outlined in this Notice of Motion.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Pettett, Kay, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer

CARRIED

Councillor G.Taylor departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

156	Heritage Conservation Areas Interim Heritage File: S14571 Vide: NM.4
	Notice of Motion from Councillors Wheatley, Lennon and Smith dated 27 June 2024 The NSW Government’s Transit Oriented Development SEPP is now in effect and has placed 23 Ku-ring-gai heritage conservation areas at risk – all located within 400 metres of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville stations. These represent half the total identified heritage conservation areas in Ku-ring-gai. These core areas of fine historic houses and gardens embody the identity and living history of Ku-ring-gai (and parts of the identity and living history of all Sydney) that, if lost, cannot be replaced. Within the 23 heritage areas, the TOD SEPP has ‘upzoned’ approximately 410 historic sites, excluding the surrounded 106 heritage items. This high number reflects that approximately 30% of upzoned TOD sites in Ku-ring-gai are identified as heritage conservation areas - or 40% heritage identified when counting the heritage items surrounded by TOD sites. As of 13 May 2024, development applications can now be lodged for demolition and 7-storey apartments built within these conservation areas. It is clear that property is being sold and bought right now in these heritage conservation areas on the basis of redevelopment to the maximum TOD standards, notwithstanding any heritage considerations in the development application (DA) process. No NSW Government provisions, information or guidelines have demonstrated how the DA process can provide for inserting 7-storey apartments into established heritage areas in a way that retains the value of existing historic houses and gardens and their resulting streetscapes. At best, this creates uncertainty for both conservation and development. At worst, this slates hundreds of historic buildings, gardens and many streetscapes for demolition and irreversible change and/or many DAs for refusal. In either case, the public and private cost for development and heritage value is high. The NSW Heritage Council’s resolution on TOD recorded “considerable concern about the impact on existing heritage conservation areas”. Council’s independent heritage advisor for the housing changes, Lisa Trueman concluded “The proposed changes would see widespread loss of significant buildings and their settings, loss of historic subdivision patterns, changes to scale, form, character, landscaping and significant streetscapes.” The NSW Planning Minister has indicated a willingness to consider alternative housing scenarios. Council has resolved to investigate alternative scenarios for reporting in early 2025. However, this planning is invalidated if sites are redeveloped for 7-storey apartments in the meantime. Interim Heritage Order It is recommended that Council request the NSW Minister for Heritage make an Interim Heritage Order for the land of 23 heritage conservation areas subject to the TOD SEPP to protect these conservation areas under the Heritage Act 1977 while their heritage significance is further assessed. Council cannot use its current delegation to make an Interim Heritage Order in heritage conservation areas. Council’s Heritage Reference Committee considered a preliminary heritage assessment and supported this action at its meeting of 6 June 2024. As a temporary heritage listing, the IHO would lapse after 6-12 months. While in effect, the IHO triggers the NSW Heritage Council to assess development applications. Conclusion A blanket IHO – limited to the Ku-ring-gai TOD sites – is a measured response to a blanket planning process where heritage impacts are not resolved before development controls are set. This IHO will provide the necessary short-term heritage protection for the affected sites while Council investigates alternative planning for increasing housing that does factor in heritage, amongst other relevant considerations and constraints. This is how we can plan for increased housing with improved certainty. While not your usual IHO for a potential heritage site, this request is true to the origins and intent of the NSW Heritage Act and IHO powers – to protect the significance of heritage under threat. An IHO is essentially the modern-day Green Ban. This is once again needed when history starts repeating itself with plans that ignore or endanger heritage areas on a large scale. This IHO is ultimately decided by the NSW Minister for Heritage rather than Council. However, seeking an IHO will still serve an important purpose – to better alert the community to the heritage issue ahead of major decisions like transactions and applications during a key phase of transition in the planning controls. We, therefore, move: That Council request the NSW Minister for Heritage to make an Interim Heritage Order for the land of the 23 heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai LGA subject to the Transit Orientated Development SEPP to protect these conservation areas under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 while their significance is assessed.
	Motion: (Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Lennon) That Council request the NSW Minister for Heritage to make an Interim Heritage Order for the land of the 23 heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai LGA subject to the Transit Orientated Development SEPP to protect these conservation areas under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 while their significance is assessed. AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer) That Council survey all residents within the 23 heritage conservation areas (HCAs) and the Transit Orientated Development (TOD) precincts and gather feedback on whether they support a blanket interim heritage order (IHO). The Amendment was put and declared LOST. For the Amendment: Councillors Pettett and Spencer Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Smith, A.Taylor, G.Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Debate resumed on the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED. For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Lennon, Pettett, Smith, A.Taylor, G.Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Motion: Councillor Spencer
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Lennon) That Council request the NSW Minister for Heritage to make an Interim Heritage Order for the land of the 23 heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai LGA subject to the Transit Orientated Development SEPP to protect these conservation areas under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 while their significance is assessed. For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Pettett, Kay, Lennon, Smith, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillor Spencer CARRIED

Councillor Wheatley departed from and returned to the Meeting during discussion of this item.

157	Multicultural Festival and Multicultural Inclusion Plan File: S04141 Vide: NM.6
	Notice of Rescission from Councillors Alec Taylor, Ward, Smith and Wheatley dated 28 June 2024 At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 18 June 2024, Council resolved to support a multicultural festival and prepare a multicultural inclusion plan. The resolution included applying to the NSW Government for a grant of $50,000 towards the festival, as well as Council contributing $15,000 to $30,000. The terms of the resolution may have created uncertainty about the amount of funding available for the festival, due to grant funding being a significant component. It is important to clarify that Council is fully committed to a successful multicultural festival and to provide certainty for the event planning, Council should underwrite the cost up to $50,000. If a grant is received, a lesser contribution from Council may be required. In a third recommendation Council also passed a resolution for the multicultural plan and festival to be inclusive (part C). The intent of part C was to recognise that the festival and inclusion plan would be inclusive of all cultures. On reflection the intent is implicit in the inclusion plan and festival, and therefore the recommendation is unnecessary. We, therefore, move: That the decision of Council on 18 June 2024 in relation to item NM.3 Multicultural Festival and Multicultural Inclusion Plan be rescinded and replaced with: A. Ku-ring-gai Council contributes up to $50,000 towards a Multicultural Festival. Council will also apply to the New South Wales Government for relevant grant funding. B. Council develops a Multicultural Inclusion Plan in consultation with the local community to ensure the plan reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of the community.
	Motion: (Moved: Councillors A.Taylor/Wheatley) That the decision of Council on 18 June 2024 in relation to item NM.3 Multicultural Festival and Multicultural Inclusion Plan be rescinded and replaced with: A. Ku-ring-gai Council contributes up to $50,000 towards a Multicultural Festival. Council will also apply to the New South Wales Government for relevant grant funding. B. Council develops a Multicultural Inclusion Plan in consultation with the local community to ensure the plan reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of the community. AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Pettett/Spencer) That the decision of Council on 18 June 2024 in relation to item NM.3 Multicultural Festival and Multicultural Inclusion Plan be rescinded and replaced with: A. Ku-ring-gai Council contributes up to $150,000 towards Multicultural Festivals. Council will also apply to the New South Wales Government for relevant grant funding. B. Council develops a Multicultural Inclusion Plan in consultation with the local community to ensure the plan reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of the community. The Amendment was put and declared LOST For the Amendment: Councillors Kay and Pettett Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Lennon, Smith, Spencer, A.Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Debate resumed on the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Kay, Pettett, Smith, Spencer, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Motion: Councillor Lennon
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors A. Taylor/Wheatley) That the decision of Council on 18 June 2024 in relation to item NM.3 Multicultural Festival and Multicultural Inclusion Plan be rescinded and replaced with: A. Ku-ring-gai Council contributes up to $50,000 towards a Multicultural Festival. Council will also apply to the New South Wales Government for relevant grant funding. B. Council develops a Multicultural Inclusion Plan in consultation with the local community to ensure the plan reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of the community. For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai, Councillors Pettett, Kay, Smith, Spencer, A. Taylor, G. Taylor, Ward and Wheatley Against the Resolution: Councillor Lennon CARRIED

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

NIL

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

IN RELATION TO THE NORTHERN SUBURBS FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION’S (NSFA) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTH TURRAMURRA RECREATION AREA (NTRA)

File: S13633

Vide: QN.1

QUESTION:

Question from Councillor Spencer dated 27 June 2024

Over the course of this term – between 2022 and 2024 – Council is in receipt of a considerable number of questions (from residents) seeking clarification as to whether the NSFA’s new “Home of Football,” – the NSFA administers football for its 30 member clubs and 17,000 players during the winter season across Northern Sydney – from the Harbour to the Hawkesbury, with facilities as listed below, is actually suitable for what NTRA was zoned for:

Ground floor

· Three players change rooms/wc with roller door for interconnection where required

· Coaches changing rooms

· Male and female public toilets

· Two accessible toilet/change facilities

· Referees change room

· Coaches meeting room (space for 6)

· Physio room

· Café with seating (space to be leased and fit out by a separate entity)

· Office block for 12 staff

· Kitchens

· Boardroom

· Waiting room

· Lunch room

· Meeting room

· Av Media room

· Gym room

· Space to be occupied by NSFA management team

FIRST FLOOR

· Stage seating for 330 and standing 200 attendees

· Raised corporate box with kitchenette and standing area

· Press box a two-person media team (broadcasting claims).

QUESTION:

A. Would the General Manager clarify as to whether the proposed NSFA development is classified as C4 or RE1?

To illustrate:

ZONE C4 ENVIRONMENTAL LIVING

1. Objectives of zone

· To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

· To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· To ensure development does not result in further fragmentation of ecological communities, biodiversity corridors or other significant vegetation or habitat.

· To minimise direct and indirect risks to life, property and the environment from bushfire events.

· To ensure that development in this zone on land that adjoins land in Zone C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves or Zone C2 Environmental Conservation is compatible with the objectives of those zones.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

2. Permitted without consent

Home occupations

3. Permitted with consent

Bed and breakfast accommodation; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Flood mitigation works; Home-based child care; Home businesses; Home industries; Oyster aquaculture; Pond-based aquaculture; Recreation areas; Roads; Secondary dwellings; Tank-based aquaculture

4. Prohibited

Industries; Local distribution premises; Service stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3

ZONE RE1 PUBLIC RECREATION

1. Objectives of zone

· To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

· To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

· To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

· To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

2. Permitted without consent

Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Roads

3. Permitted with consent

Animal boarding or training establishments; Aquaculture; Bee keeping; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Emergency services facilities; Flood mitigation works; Food and drink premises; Forestry; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Markets; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Roadside stalls; Signage; Water recycling facilities; Water supply systems

4. Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

B. Would the General Manager publish the answers to the above questions at the OMC of 16 June 2024?

ReSPONSE:

Answer: The land is zoned RE1 - Public Recreation under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015.

Response from Director Strategy & Environment.

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

NIL

The Meeting closed at 10.02PM

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 16 July 2024 (Pages 1 - 33) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 13 August 2024.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.	Integrated risk management, compliance and internal control systems are in place to identify, assess, monitor and manage risks throughout the organisation.	Manage, coordinate, support and facilitate the effective operation of Council’s Internal Audit function.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
C3.1: A community where opportunities are provided for all voices to be heard and where community stewardship, participation and engagement is supported and promoted. L3.1: The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.	C3.1.1 Enhance opportunities for social interaction to foster community participation, connectedness and a sense of pride in the community and local areas. L3.1.2: Council’s Governance framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency	C3.1.1.3: Resource and support volunteers by providing information, training and participation opportunities and recognising their contribution to the community. L3.1.2.1: Ensure that Council and Committee Meetings are managed effectively and in accordance with relevant legislation, codes and guidelines.

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.	Implement priority actions from the Recreation in Natural Areas strategy.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
C1.1 An equitable and inclusive community that cares and provides for its members	C1.1.1 Council’s policies, programs and advocacy address the social and health needs of all age groups, reduce disadvantage and address gaps in service provision.	Resource and support local initiatives and organisations through the Ku-ring-gai Community Grants program.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.14 / 1

Item GB.14	S14408

Planning Proposal for 1364-1369 Pacific Highway and 1, 1a, 3 and 3a Kissing Point Road, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1396 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A, 3 and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) to Ku-ring-gai Council to determine whether to forward the matter to the Minister for a Gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

background:	The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 25 March 2024. The Planning Proposal has been assessed by an independent planning consultant with advice from an independent urban design consultant due to part of the site being in Council ownership. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for comment on 22 July 2024. The KLPP supported the proposal and recommended that Council forward it to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway determination.

comments:	The revised Planning Proposal seeks to: · Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m to 34.5m; · Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 3:1; · Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 0.85:1; · Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E); and · Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council resolve to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the recommendations contained in this report.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1396 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A, 3 and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) to Ku-ring-gai Council to determine whether to forward the matter to the Minister for a Gateway determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Background

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd to conduct the assessment of the subject Planning Proposal as Council is the landowner of part of the site (car park site). An independent urban design assessment has also been prepared by Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo and independent economic and retail assessment prepared by Hill PDA. Other assessments including biodiversity, natural areas, heritage, traffic and transport, survey and infrastructure and have been carried out internally by Council’s specialists.

A previous Planning Proposal request for the subject site was submitted to Council by the same Proponent in May 2022. The request sought to:

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

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

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

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

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

The matter was reported to Council in February 2023 with a recommendation that the Council resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the independent planning assessment concluded that the Planning Proposal did not meet the established strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as it was determined that:

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

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

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

Further the KLPP provided advice to Council recommending that the Planning Proposal not be submitted to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. On 14 February 2023 Council resolved to:

A. note the advice of the KLPP in respect of the subject Planning Proposal

B. resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

C. advise the Proponent accordingly.

Following refusal of the original Planning Proposal request the Proponent advised that it has amended the proposal to address matters raised in the assessment report. A new Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council on 25 March 2024 following test of adequacy and the payment of fees. Following an initial review by the independent planning and urban design consultants, issues were identified and a request for information letter issued on 26 April 2024. Issues raised in the letter in respect of the Planning Proposal include:

· Reference Scheme non-compliance with:

o Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements in respect of solar access to living rooms and private open space, natural cross ventilation, number of units off a circulation core, solar access to the lower plaza area and deep soil area

o Canopy cover requirements

o Requirements for loading / unloading

· Solar impact to neigbourbouring properties (residential flat building (RFB) at 5 Kissing Point Road)

· Lack of a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP)

· Loading arrangements and lack of updated SIDRA analysis, and

· Lack of Letter of Offer in respect of public benefits albeit that the Planning Proposal identified proposed dedications.

The Proponent submitted amended documentation to address the issues raised in the RFI letter on 30 May 2024. The amended information included:

· Revised Planning Proposal Report

· Stand-alone site-specific Development Control Plan

· Revised Design Report (including Reference Scheme), and

· Transport Impact Assessment.

Accordingly, a copy of the updated Planning Proposal and relevant appendices is included at Attachments A2-A12.

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

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m to 34.5m (9 storeys where the original PP request proposed 50m/15 storeys);

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 3:1 (where the original PP request proposed 4.2:1);

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 0.85:1 (where the original PP request proposed 1:1);

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

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

As outlined in the Planning Proposal request report prepared for the Proponent by The Planning Studio, the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015 are intended to “facilitate the development of the site for a mixed-use development including commercial premises, retail premises and shop-top housing.”

The Planning Proposal report claims that the proposal will facilitate an exemplar mixed use commercial/residential development within a Local Centre context that aligns with, supports, and promotes key strategic planning priorities of State and local government. It identifies that the objectives of the Planning Proposal are:

· To facilitate the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the relevant principles of A Metropolis of Three Cities, the North District Plan, Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy, Turramurra Public Domain Plan and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

· To amend the KLEP 2015 to provide for the urban renewal of the subject site into a lively mixed use precinct which will provide opportunities for supermarkets, retail shops, commercial space, food and beverage offerings and residential accommodation. This will be achieved through the implementation of new built form controls including height and FSR, and a range of site specific provisions.

· To provide additional retail floor space in Turramurra Local Centre in response to a large undersupply within the Ku-ring-gai LGA as identified in the Ku-ring-gai LSPS and Preliminary Need and Impact Assessment.

· To facilitate the provision of a full-line supermarket in the Turramurra main trade area, and one that is underserviced in supermarket floor space provision in comparison to the Sydney metropolitan average.

· To provide site specific controls which will ensure an appropriate massing for the site which reflects the strategic context of the site, while respecting the immediate context and minimising potential amenity impacts on adjoining neighbours, heritage items and conservation areas.

· To assist in achieving State and local government’s housing targets and address the lack of housing availability within the locality, including the provision of affordable housing.

The intended outcomes are stated as follows:

· To provide additional employment in close proximity to public transport.

· To provide higher density residential accommodation in a centre location in close proximity to public transport, jobs and services.

· To improve pedestrian permeability within and around the site with two through site links.

· To improve traffic flow within and around the site with a new road within the southern boundary.

· To create a village atmosphere through the provision of public open spaces which promote social interaction within the community.

· To protect the adjoining Granny Springs Reserve and ensure a well managed interface to the Reserve.

· Be respectful and exist harmoniously with the prevailing character of the area.

The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice at its meeting of 22 July 2024 as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The KLPP supported the Planning Proposal and advised as follows:

A. That Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the following Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

B. Should a Gateway Determination be issued for public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, the site-specific amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre as outlined in this report, be placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

C. That Council authorise the General Manager to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the planning making process.

In providing this advice the KLPP endorsed the recommendations of the assessment report and concluded that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the E1 zoning of the site, will facilitate redevelopment of the site for appropriate uses, provides public benefits and demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit.

A copy of the KLPP minutes including resolution in relation to the Planning Proposal is provided at Attachment A16.

Reclassification of public land

Among other matters the Planning Proposal seeks to reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015. Council resolved to reclassify the subject land by resolution on 16 March 2021. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Practice Note PN 16-001 (date 5 October 2016) sets out requirements for the classification and reclassification of public land. Accordingly, this Practice Note should be address in the Planning Proposal prior to the matter being submitted for a Gateway Determination.

Reference Scheme

The Planning Proposal is supported by a Reference Scheme prepared by DKO Architecture (Rev 4, May 2024) which comprises:

· Site area of 8,459.7m²

· Height maximum of 9 storeys

· 181 apartments (including min. 5% affordable housing)

o 1 bedroom apartments – 31.5%

o 2 bedroom apartments – 50.8%

o 3 bedroom apartments – 17.7%

· GFA:

o Retail / commercial – 7,190m²

o Residential – 18,189m²

o Total – 25,379m²

· Maximum FSR – 3:1

· Solar access – 132 apartments (74%) achieve 2 hours direct sunlight in midwinter (21 June)

· Cross ventilation – 108 apartments (60.8%) achieve

· Communal Open Space – 3,400m² on ground, Level 1, 2,7 and 9 (44% of site area)

· Car parking – 414 spaces (including 179 x residential spaces, 168 x retail spaces, 37 x commercial spaces and 30 x public spaces (in lieu of existing Council parking spaces on site)

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

Image 1 – Reference Scheme Masterplan (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024. Note: amendments shown in response to preliminary RFI comments)

Image 2 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Pacific Highway (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 3 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Stonex Drive (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 4 – Reference Scheme sections (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 5 – Design response proposed use diagram(Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

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

Proposed Public Benefits of Planning Proposal
Item	Description
Land Dedication (new road, new park, road widening)	2,915m²
New Community Park	708m²
New Road (Stonex Street)	1,434m²
Kissing Point Rd Upgrades	255m²
Pavement Upgrades	1,255m²
Pacific Highway land dedication	405m²
Pacific Highway Fence Upgrade	96m length
Public Parking	30 Council car spaces in basement (Offsets existing Council car park spaces)
New through-site link	907m²
Stonex Lane Upgrade	245m²
Supplementary Street Trees	As per Public Domain Plan
Upgraded Bus Stop	1
New Bicycle Racks (on-street)	2 areas
Upgraded Street Lighting	Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road

Site Description and Local Context

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

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

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

Image 6 – Turramurra Local Centre segment parts (Source: LSPS)

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

The subject site is located in the southwestern quadrant of the Local Centre and is irregular in shape with frontages to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Pont Road (refer Image 7 below). A car park access road (Stonex Drive) enters the site from the south east to the car parking area at the rear of the north facing retail shops. The site is also connected via Stonex Drive to Duff Street to the west.

Image 7 – Aerial photo, site outlined in red (Source: Nearmap, image capture 7 April 2024)

The site is generally known as the Turramurra Plaza shopping centre (and adjacent land) and has a combined area of approximately 8,397.94m². It comprises the following landholdings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as shown below:

Image 8 – Subject site (Source: DKO Urban Design Report, May 2024. Note: Council owned land shown red) (Note: survey shows H as having an area by DP of 847.5m²and 909.3m²by calculation)

As noted in Image 8 above the Proponent has calculated the site area according to the submitted survey plan via a mixed area calculation, that is, primarily by title but in the case of Area H by measured calculation. The survey states that Area H has an area of 847.5m²by title but an area of 909.3m²by calculation, that is, a discrepancy of 61.8m². This means that the site is stated by the Proponent as having a total area of 8,459.64m² whereas by title the area is actually 8,397.94m².

Council has received advice in this respect from Pinnacle Land Surveyors who has advised that it is a risk to accept a mixed area calculation (especially in this application) and that the conservative approach would be to accept the area by title for all parcels. Further they have advised that calculating all the areas by title gives Council reliable legal grounds for determining the site area and shifts risk to the ORG (Office of the Registrar General) under the Torrens Assurance Fund. The advice states that the foundational legal principle is that the title area is the point of truth for the property area however, due to the old measurement and calculation methods, that the title area often needs to be updated or corrected in older plans, and the post-developed area can differ. The advice goes on to indicate that there are certain circumstances where it might be more appropriate to assess the application based on the calculated or surveyed area, but in order to do this Council would require better certainty, and the developer needs to weigh up the cost of this against the value gained. Having regard to the advice it is considered that at this stage of the process Council should not accept the area by calculation and accordingly the site area stated in the Reference Scheme is overstated by 61.8m².

Having regard to the above advice it is considered that the site area should be taken to be 8,397.94m² in accordance with title details. Notwithstanding this discrepancy can be resolved at a later stage of the process. Notably the Reference Scheme proposes a 3:1 FSR on the site with an additional area of 61.8m². This therefore equates to an additional GFA of not more than 185.4m² which in the context of a development totalling in the order of 25,000m² GFA is considered to be unlikely to affect site suitability.

Of the total site area of 8,397.94m² a total of 6,134m² is in private ownership with the remaining 2,263.94m² being public land owned by Council. The application seeks to amend Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015 to reclassify the Council owned land (1A, 3 and 3A Kissing Point Road being Lot 2, DP 500077; Lot 2, DP 502388; Lot 2, DP 500761; Lot B, DP 435272; Lot A, DP 391538) from community to operational land in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Surrounding development is as follows:

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

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

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

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

Image 9 – Site context (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

The site is zoned E1 Local Centre under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Image 10 – Zoning map extract KLEP 2015

The objectives of the E1 Local Centre zone are:

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

· To encourage investment in local commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

· To enable residential development that contributes to a vibrant and active local centre and is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

· To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

Permitted land uses in the E1 Local Centre zone (with development consent) include:

Amusement centres; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes (permanent); Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Local distribution premises; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Respite day care centres; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Veterinary hospitals; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

Notably residential accommodation is prohibited in the E1 Local Centre zone however ‘Shop top housing’ which is defined as “one or more dwellings located above the ground floor of a building, where at least the ground floor is used for commercial premises or health services facilities” is permitted with consent. The Reference Scheme which comprises a mixed use development of commercial / retail development with residential above would therefore be permissible with consent.

Comments

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ (August 2023) and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed amendments to a local environmental plan have strategic and site specific merit. A detailed evidence-based assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies has been conducted. In summary it has been concluded that the Planning Proposal demonstrates sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has strategic and site-specific merit subject to recommended amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is supported in this instance.

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

Strategic Merit

Regional Plan

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

· Objective 4 – Infrastructure use is optimised

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

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply

· Objective 11 – Housing supply is more diverse and affordable

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

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

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

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

Turramurra is located within the Eastern Harbour City and is identified as a local centre. The Plan sets the principles for Housing Strategies to be prepared by councils for a local government area or district and to be given effect through amendments to local environmental plans. The principles note that among other matters housing strategies should respond to amenity i.e. opportunities that improve amenity including recreation, the public realm, increase walkable and cycle friendly connections to centres. Further the Plan notes that the District Plans guide housing strategies in particular in ensuring key aspects of development are addressed, that is: capacity, viability, good design, environment, mix, supply, affordable rental housing, local character, etc. As discussed in further detail below it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the capacity of the site and the local character and has demonstrated the achievement of good design subject to recommended amendments.

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

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

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

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

As outlined in detail below it is considered that the proposal is consistent with this objective and the strategies which underpin it as the Reference Scheme (subject to recommended amendments, which can be addressed prior to the planning proposal being forwarded for a Gateway approval) provides for a well-designed built environment that is attractive and high amenity.

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

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

As discussed in detail below, the proposed height and FSR is generally consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy which was noted (although not formally adopted) by Council in December 2020. This Strategy identifies Gordon as the Ku-ring-gai LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). The proposed 34.5m (maximum 9 storey) height limit is less than the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m or approx. 10-11 storeys) which is intended, going forward, to be the major centre. Further the maximum permitted height allowed elsewhere in the other primary local centres is approximately 9 storeys as incorporated into KLEP 2015 by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal (ranging from 29.5 to 36.5m but with an average of 34.5m). An allowance of an additional 2.0m in height is considered appropriate in this instance given the steepness of site slope. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Objective 22.

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

North District Plan

The North District Plan made in March 2018 highlights that the North District will continue to grow over the next 20 years with demand for an additional 92,000 dwellings. The five-year target (to 2021) for Ku-ring-gai is to provide an additional 4,000 dwellings.

Additional housing is to be provided in locations which are linked to local infrastructure. The focus of growth is therefore on strategic centres and areas close to transport corridors. Whilst the subject site is not within a strategic centre it is in an area close to transport corridors including the Pacific Highway (immediately adjacent) and the North Shore Railway Line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Planning Proposal will allow for a mixed-use development providing a new park, retail and commercial development and approximately 180 new dwellings in a well-located site within the Turramurra Local Centre, in close proximity to public transport and a major transport route (Pacific Highway). The co-location of residential dwellings, social infrastructure and local services in centres provides for a more efficient use of land and enhances the viability of the centres and public transport. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan strategy which is to focus growth in areas close to public transport as well as with the concept of a 30-minute city.

In addition, the North District Plan also includes Planning Priority N6 which seeks to create and renew great places and local centres, and to respect the District’s heritage and local character. The Planning Proposal seeks to provide for new planning controls (height and FSR) that would result in development of the site consistent with the site’s capacity, the role of the Turramurra Local Centre in the Retail and Commercial Centres hierarchy, and in a manner that is considered to be compatible with the existing and emerging character of the area. As represented in the submitted Reference Scheme, the scale of the proposal generally demonstrates a high quality development that provides for appropriate amenity to proposed residential units and the proposed public space (plaza and new park).

Further Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space would be achieved by the proposal. The Reference Scheme submitted with the application illustrates that the proposed massing and built form provides for a new plaza area and new public park which are identified as key public benefits, and which will provide a high level of amenity. This matter is discussed in further detail below. It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the North District Plan.

The Government recently (mid 2024) committed to building 377,000 new homes across the State in the next 5 years to align with the National Housing Accord. As part of this it announced new housing targets by LGA. The housing target identified by the State Government for Ku-Ring-Gai is 7,600 dwellings to be completed by 2029. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with this target and will deliver 180 new dwellings in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· K32 Protecting and improving Green Grid connections

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

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

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

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

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Image 11 – Local Centre consolidation priority (Source: LSPS)

The LSPS identifies the need to consolidate the Turramurra Local Centre on the northern side of the Pacific Highway by prioritising expansion of uses in this location. It is therefore considered that the highest density of development should be located in this area with adjacent developments being of a lower scale and intensity. The revised scale of the Planning Proposal which provides for a maximum height of 34.5m / 9 storeys and FSR of 3:1 is consistent with this intent. It is anticipated that greater height and FSR may be allowed to the north of the Highway in the future where currently a maximum height of 17.5m and FSR of 2.5:1 is permissible.

The Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (refer Image 12 below) identifies the site as suitable for mixed use development with a key landmark site identified in the centre of the site frontage to the north adjacent to the bend in the Highway. Council documents are inconsistent in respect of the location of the proposed landmark with the DCP identifying it on the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway. The subject proposal provides for a landmark building of 9 storeys on the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway consistent with the DCP stepping down to 7 storeys to the northwest. This is also consistent with the advice of the independent urban designer who has advised that this scale of development is appropriate to the site from an urban design perspective. The Structure Plan also identifies a new road to the south of the site connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street. The proposal is consistent with this requirement providing for a new Stonex Drive in this location. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the LSPS Structure Plan and the site context.

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

Image 12– Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (Source: LSPS)

Local Housing Strategy

The revised Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036 was adopted by Council in December 2020. The purpose of the Strategy is to identify how Council intends to respond to the Greater Sydney Region Plan and District Plan and how it plans to deliver on housing targets. The Strategy identities that the District Plan sets a target of 4,000 new dwelling in Ku-ring-gai for the 5 year period from 2016 to 2021 (Note: as outlined above this target has recently been updated to 7,600 new dwellings by 2029). It notes that more than half of the required housing supply quota has been met, with the remaining amount fully deliverable through current development approvals and existing capacity within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plans. It further states that “this means that the 0 - 5 year housing supply target of 4,000 dwellings is achievable under Council’s existing planning policies and no amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan is necessary”. It goes on to state:

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

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

Accordingly, the subject Planning Proposal which seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site to create additional capacity is inconsistent with the Housing Strategy which adopts a status quo approach. However the State Government recently (mid 2024) released a new housing target of 7,600 new dwellings in Ku-ring-gai LGA by 2029. The Planning Proposal will assist in meeting this target delivering an additional approx. 180 dwellings in a location close to existing infrastructure and services.

Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

The Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy was received and noted by Council in December 2020 although it should be noted that it has not been formally adopted. The Strategy indicates that the population of Ku-ring-gai is estimated to increase to 154,500 by 2036 which will result in demand for an additional 37,100 sqm of retail floorspace. Further it notes an existing undersupply of 35,000 sqm potentially increasing to 58,000 sqm. The undersupply is noted to be mainly an undersupply of supermarkets and lack of regional and sub-regional shopping centres in the LGA. The Planning Proposal (as detailed in the Reference Scheme provides for 7,190m² of retail and commercial floor space (5,538m² of retail floorspace) including a new supermarket which is consistent with the Strategy and that will assist to meet the existing and future retail demand in the LGA. The existing retail floor space on site is understood to be approximately 2,373m²comprising an IGA supermarket of approximately 1,260m² and 12 specialty shops totalling 1,113m². Accordingly, the proposal represents an increase in retail floor space of approximately 3,165m²and 1,652m² of commercial floor space. A full scale supermarket is also to be provided to address the current undersupply.

As noted above the Strategy identifies Gordon as the LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). The proposed 34.5m height limit is less than the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m) which is intended to be the major centre for the LGA going forward. Further it is generally consistent with the maximum permitted height allowed in the other primary local centres being approximately 9 storeys as amended by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal (ranging from 29.5 to 36.5m but with an average of 34.5m ) (Amendment 28 to KLEP 2015 made on 22 March 2022). Notably the additional 2m takes account of the slope of the site as advised by the independent urban designer and is therefore considered appropriate given the site circumstances. Clause 4.3 Height of buildings of KLEP 2015 includes the following objective:

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

The proposed height is consistent with the scale of development envisaged within the Local Centre under the Ku-ring-gai centres hierarchy and is also consistent with a key objective of the Height of buildings development control under KLEP 2015.

The Centres Strategy recommends that Council investigate increases in FSR and Building Heights within the B2 (now E1)Local Centre zones to assist in meeting housing targets and to increase the viability of development. Best practice planning dictates that this should be undertaken in response to site circumstances and opportunities and constraints. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the site capability and position of Turramurra in the Centres hierarchy.

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

· Improvement to the attractiveness of the retail offering

· Address the issues of deteriorating quality and escape expenditure

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

Redevelopment of the subject site is consistent with these recommendations. The Strategy identifies key actions for the centre as follows:

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

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

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

In summary the recommendations include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, it is clear that the proposal is consistent with the Strategy as it will provide in the order of 7,190m² of retail and commercial floor space (5,538m² of retail and 1,652m² of commercial floorspace) and would enable a new full scale supermarket to be delivered which will assist to meet the existing and future shortfall. The Strategy recognises the need to potentially increase FSR’s in the Turramurra Local Centre (and in particularly on the subject site which it identifies as underdeveloped) to facilitate the redevelopment of sites. While it places the focus for development on land to the north of the Pacific Highway it also identified the need for redevelopment of the subject site. This is particularly in relation to mixed use development and is consistent with the LSPS (refer above). In the context of this strategic framework the Planning Proposal amendments in terms of FSR are considered to be appropriately scaled and justified.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with other the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site including Chapter 4 Design of Residential Apartment Development of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 which formerly comprised State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as outlined below. The Planning Proposal is also generally consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 9.1 Directions).

Strategic Merit Assessment Summary

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

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

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

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

As outlined above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives, priorities and strategies of both the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan. Further the Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad intent for Turramurra outlined in the LSPS and its supporting Centres Strategy, the Centres Hierarchy and the scale of development envisaged in the subject location in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy. Further while the Planning Proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the Council’s adopted Housing Strategy it is consistent with the State government’s recent housing target for the LGA and will deliver approximately 180 additional new dwellings and thereby assist to meet the LGA’s 7,600 dwelling target to 2029. These dwellings are well located within a site that is ripe for redevelopment and that has good access to infrastructure and services. Accordingly it is considered that the Planning Proposal demonstrates strategic merit.

Site Specific Merit

The Planning Proposal seeks a significant uplift in height (from 17.5 m / approx. 5 storeys as existing to maximum 34.5m / 9 storeys as proposed) and FSR (2:1 to 3:1) on a site that is considered to be suitable for redevelopment. To demonstrate that the proposed height and FSR is appropriate having regard to the site’s specific opportunities and constraints a Reference Scheme has been prepared and submitted with the Planning Proposal request. The below generally assesses the Reference Scheme which is intended to demonstrate site- specific merit.

Urban Design

As part of this independent assessment Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was engaged to provide an urban design assessment of the proposal. Studio Zanardo’s advice is provided in full at Attachment A13. Studio Zanardo’s advice follows on from the advice prepared for the previous Planning Proposal for the site which was recommended for refusal. Notably it refers to issues raised and recommendations made in respect of that former proposal and considered whether matters previously identified have been satisfied and / or recommendations complies with.

In summary the Studio Zanardo advice concludes that the Planning Proposal is generally supportable from an urban design perspective albeit that a number of issues have been raised in respect of the submitted Reference Scheme’s compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and the adequacy of the proposed Draft DCP amendment. Studio Zanardo has concluded that the Planning Proposal as illustrated by the Reference Scheme is generally appropriate and supportable, in respect of:

· Proposed Height of Buildings – at 9 storeys for the eastern tower and 7 storeys for the western tower although it has recommended a more nuanced approach to the LEP Height of Buildings Map where the mapped maximum building height more closely aligns with the proposed built form rather than a blanket height allowance of 34.5m across the entire site.

· Proposed Floor Space Ratio – proposed 3:1 maximum FSR considered appropriate having regard to the general scale of development as demonstrated by the Reference Scheme and the capacity of the site.

· Requirements of Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre – proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the DCP including:

o the provision of the new Stonex Drive at 15m in width

o site geometry

o Pacific Highway street wall height (acceptable at 3 storeys for eastern 9 storey tower and 2 storey for the western 7 storey tower

o Location of landmark building (9 storeys) on the corner of Kissing Point Road and Pacific Highway

o Separation of built form into two discrete towers over a single podium with an open to the sky through site link with the two separate buildings capable of presenting with different architectural expressions

o Providing for a built form which meets the DCP requirement of “encouraging new infill development along the Pacific Highway which respects the existing characteristics of the street including the fine-grained character of the original subdivision, setback, height and rhythm of facades, and is sympathetic to the materials and detailing of the earlier facades”

· ADG compliance in relation to:

o Provision of a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to neighbouring units at 5 Kissing Point Road

o Building separation across Stonex Lane – required setbacks achieved (6m separation from centre line of lane for lower 4 storeys proposed and 9m for the upper storeys as required)

o Units with no solar access – maximum of 15% of units compliance achieved (13% proposed in Reference Scheme).

However, Studio Zanardo has raised outstanding concerns in respect of:

· The tower footprint size with the eastern tower being considered to be relatively large (approximately 59m long) with no articulation along Kissing Point Road. Studio Zanardo has identified that this tower footprint could be reduced and/or shaped and/or articulated to reduce its massing.

· ADG non-compliance in respect of:

o Solar access to the lower pedestrian through site link area. The Reference Scheme provides some sunlight to the lower through site link area only before 10am and after 2pm at mid winter. This does not meet the ADG requirements for solar access to be provided year round to public spaces. Further this does not meet the DCP intention for this space described as ‘an ideal location for outdoor dining and cafes overlooking the forest.’

o Deep soil area – The proposed deep soil zone (with a minimum width of 2m) is approximately 785m²(9% of the entire site area) (measured in CAD) and is located entirely on the southern side of the new Stonex Street. All of these areas are to be dedicated to Council. It is noted that the DCP states ‘In all cases, where land dedication is required for a public purpose, such as a road or walkway, the affected land is to be excluded from deep soil calculations…’ Therefore the proposal currently appears to provide no deep soil within the non-affected site area. This does not meet the minimum 7% deep soil area requirements of the ADG. There is considered to be potential for additional deep soil on the northern side of the new Stonex Street. This aspect should be given further design consideration in the indicative reference scheme. It is noted that the dispensation to not meet the control is provided is for situations where achieving the design criteria ‘may not be possible’ and there is ‘limited or no space for deep soil at ground level.’ From an urban design perspective, additional deep soil appears to be possible on this site and there is additional space for deep soil at ground level. The opportunity appears to be within the pedestrian through site link area, perhaps with further adjustment of the car parking levels below. It is desirable that this potential be explored.

o Units with a minimum of 2 hours solar access - Studio Zanardo has concluded that only 67% (122/181) of units in the Reference Scheme meet the requirement of minimum 2 hours of solar access where 70% is required. Units in question are identified as the northern cross through units in the eastern tower which are impacted by the projecting adjacent apartment, and some of the lower units in the eastern tower facing the courtyard which are impacted by the upper levels of the western tower.

o Noise and ventilation of habitable rooms – given location on the Pacific Highway the design needs to address noise amenity impacts having regard to natural ventilation requirements. This issue is not currently addressed in the Reference Scheme

o Units with natural cross ventilation - Studio Zanardo has concluded that only 58% (105/181) of units in the Reference Scheme provide natural cross ventilation requirement where 60% is required. The units in question are identified as the single aspect units facing north over the courtyard on the eastern tower, and the single aspect units at the southeast corner facing east on the eastern tower at the lower levels.

o Number of units off a circulation core - Studio Zanardo has notes that the Reference Scheme proposes up to 10 units off a single core in the eastern tower and 9 units in the western tower where a maximum of 8 units is allowed under the ADG. While Studio Zanardo acknowledges that the ADG otherwise allows up to 12 units off a single core this is not appropriate in the current circumstance as sunlight and natural ventilation requirements are not met (which may otherwise justify a variation).

Notwithstanding these matters Studio Zanardo has provided advice that “from an urban design perspective, such amendments to the indicative reference scheme are considered to be relatively straightforward to make such that compliance with the Apartment Design Guide could be achieved whilst the proposed development yield (gross floor area and floor space ratio) proposed in the planning proposal continues to be appropriate”. Accordingly, it is considered that amendments could be made to the Reference Scheme that would allow for compliance with the identified ADG provisions without impacting on the achievable development yield.

Studio Zanardo has also indicated, and it is agreed, that the proposed site specific Draft DCP amendment as proposed by the Proponent is inadequate and that the existing Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre should be updated to reflect the Planning Proposal and key aspects of the Reference Scheme. Additional provisions to the existing Part 14B should be included to:

· promote pedestrian activity between Pacific Highway and the future park at the rear of the site

· ensure that new development is appropriately sited and designed to manage amenity and visual impacts to neighbouring residential properties

· provide active frontages along the internal through site link

· ensure all service and loading areas are to be located in the basement

· clarify the road widening width of 1.5m to Kissing Point Road

· provide a 3m setback along Stonex Lane

· require that the pedestrian through site link should be open to the sky

· minimise opaque and blank walls at ground level

· provide 30 car spaces for public use within the basement of the future development

· require a minimum level of articulation to tower footprint

· require a minimum amount of solar access to the lower pedestrian through site link area, and

· require greater minimum deep soil zone over the site.

Inconsistencies between the Reference Scheme and the existing DCP provisions should also be rectified.

The advice provided by Studio Zanardo has informed the below assessment. Further the following comments are made cognisant of the fact that a Planning Proposal is not a development application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment, and therefore needs to demonstrate that the proposed amendment itself is acceptable, with any future detailed design to be assessed at the later development application stage. The below also considers the draft site specific DCP which has been submitted to provide development guidance for any future development application in accordance with the Planning Proposal.

Housing SEPP Implications

The recent State Government Transit Oriented Development (TOD) amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Chapter 5) allow a maximum height (where local planning controls are not greater) of 22m for RFBs or 24m for shop top housing (or approx. 6 storeys) in a Transport Oriented Development Area (i.e. within 400m of a railway station) which includes the Ku-ring-gai LGA centres of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville.

Further the SEPP includes in-fill affordable housing provisions including an FSR and / or height bonus of up to 30% for projects that include residential development and provide at least 10% of the gross floor area (GFA) as affordable housing. The height of buildings bonus only applies to residential flat buildings and shop top housing. The FSR and height of buildings bonuses are effectively double (up to 30%) the minimum required affordable housing component, which must be at least 10% of the development project.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the proposed site-specific Planning Proposal and Reference Scheme there is potential that additional FSR and/or height could be achieved on the subject site via the Housing SEPP provisions. However, this applies across the board and would be dependent on the provision of a substantial affordable housing component. Accordingly assessment of this potential impact is not within the scope of this assessment and would need to be determined on merit at the DA stage.

Height

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the permissible maximum height across the entire site from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 34.5m (maximum 9 storeys) while the Reference Scheme proposes two towers: one of 9 storeys (to the east) and one of 7 storeys (to the west). The proposed tower heights are consistent with the advice provided by Studio Zanardo on the original Planning Proposal (that sought a height of 50m) that was refused in early 2023. Consistent with the commercial centres hierarchy the proposed maximum height would be less than the maximum height allowable in Gordon, the LGA’s major centre (38.5m) by 4m. Further it would be consistent with the maximum height recently amended for the Lindfield Village Hub site (ranging from 29.5 to 36.5m but with an average of 34.5m) with Lindfield being equivalent in the centres hierarchy to Turramurra.

Studio Zanardo has previously advised that the proposed 34.5m (approx. 9 storey) height limit would allow for a compatible transition to surrounding 5 to 3 storey development and accordingly it is suited to the site context. Further in respect of the current scheme it has advised that the proposed maximum is considered to be in alignment with the relevant KLEP2015 height of buildings objective which is to ‘ensure that the height of buildings is appropriate for the scale of the different centres within the hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai centres’ Studio Zanardo notes that as a point of comparison, the proposed height of 34.5m is significantly greater (144%) than the maximum building height of 24m for a building containing shop top housing in a Transport Oriented Development Area (SEPP Housing), which is applicable elsewhere in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon). It therefore states that the proposed height should, relative to this, not be considered conservative.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Image 13 Local Centres Extents Diagram – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, May 2024

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the height on the site to result in a convex local centre profile as shown in Image 14 below. This approach relies on adjacent sites also achieving an increase in height as shown dotted which is possible having regard to the Housing SEPP provisions or potential future LEP amendments. The proposed height provides for an acceptable transition from 7 (west) or 9 (east) storeys to the existing allowable 5 storeys. It also allows for the potential that overtime that the land to the north of the Pacific Highway, which is identified as the priority and focus for the most intense development in the Turramurra Local Centre, will become the ultimate highpoint in the centre consistent with Council’s articulated strategy, outlined in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy.

A diagram of a building

Description automatically generated

Image 14 Proposed Turramurra Skyline – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

In summary it is considered that the Reference Scheme submitted with the application generally demonstrates that a scheme of this scale can readily be accommodated on site without resulting in unreasonable environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for the public domain, neighbouring properties and the proposed residential apartments. As outlined above some amendments to the Reference Scheme are considered to be required to ensure compliance with ADG requirements however as advised by Studio Zanardo it is considered that these amendments can be made without impacting the ultimate GFA/FSR achievable on the site and thus the relevant proposed LEP provisions. These amendments should however be made prior to the Planning Proposal being forwarded for a Gateway approval.

It is also recommended that a more nuanced approach to height be applied with the 34.5m height limit to be applied to the eastern part of the site where the proposed 9 storey tower is intended (corner of Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road) and a reduced height limit of 28.5mapplied in the north western part of the site (i.e. 6m less that the maximum) where the site adjoins existing 2 storey development and where a maximum height of 3-5 storeys currently applies. This will ensure an appropriate transition and future landmark tower on the corner site. It will also accentuate the fall in the land along the Pacific Highway and relieve the monotony of the same tower heights on the skyline, particularly if the sites to the north west on the opposite side of Stonex Lane were to be redeveloped in a similar manner. Further consistent with height mapping in the LEP the proposed height limits should not be applied to the land proposed to be dedicated as road, park or road reservation. It would also provide more certainty that the positive urban design qualities of the proposal relating to the variances in height will be delivered.

Floor Space Ratio

In terms of FSR a maximum FSR of 3:1 is proposed across the site (including land to be dedicated as road, park etc.) where a maximum FSR of 2:1 currently applies (note: the original Planning Proposal request proposed an FSR of 4.2:1). An estimated gross floor area of approximately 25,379m² (equating to an FSR of 2.99:1 based on a site area of 8,459.7m² in accordance with the site survey) has been calculated given the proposed land use mix illustrated in the Reference Scheme, as follows:

· GFA Residential = 18,189 m²

· GFA Retail / Commercial = 7,190 m²

· Total = 25,379m² / site area 8,459.7m² = approx. FSR 2.99:1

Consistent with the discussion above in relation to height, the proposed FSR would be less than that allowable in the Gordon major centre (at max. FSR 3.5:1) and consistent with that allowed in local centres throughout the LGA. In general, FSRs of between 2:1 and 3:1 are allowed in local centres throughout the LGA.

The Reference Scheme demonstrates that a scheme of this scale can be accommodated on site without resulting in adverse environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for both the public domain and the proposed residential apartments. Studio Zanardo has advised that from an urban design perspective the proposed maximum FSR is appropriate however some amendments are required to the Reference Scheme to ensure ADG compliance. It is considered that these amendments can be made without impacting on the ultimately GFA/FSR achievable on site and thus the relevant proposed LEP provisions. The amendments should however be made prior to the Planning Proposal being forwarded for a Gateway approval.

The Planning Proposal seeks to require a minimum retail / commercial floor space of 0.85:1 where at present a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 applies to commercial development. The minimum retail / commercial floor space is based on the Reference Scheme which provides for 7,190m² GFA of retail and commercial uses. This equates to an FSR of 0.855:1 (7,190m²/25,379m² = 28.43% x 3:1 = 0.85:1:1). Accordingly, the proposed minimum is considered appropriate. As noted by Studio Zanardo this amount of retail/commercial floor space is appropriate for the site given design parameters and will not give rise to pressure for GFA to be converted in the future from retail/commercial to residential with poor amenity. Further it equates to an increase of 3,165m² of retail floor space and 1,652m² of commercial floor space over existing. This will help to address the existing shortfall in retail floor space in the LGA and will also enable the provision of a full scale supermarket for which the area is currently undersupplied.

Compliance with Ku-ring-gai DCP site specific provisions

Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre currently applies to the subject site. The site is currently located within Precinct T3 under the DCP (refer Image 15 below) where pedestrian through site links and road dedications and upgrades are required.

Image 15 Turramurra Local Centre Precinct Plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

The Reference Scheme is generally in accordance with the DCP provisions providing for the required through site links, pedestrian and road upgrades and dedications, new park and new Stonex Drive as outlined below. However amendments to the DCP provisions are recommended to reflect the proposal, address inconsistencies and include additional requirements to guide the final design. An assessment of the Reference Scheme against the site specific DCP provisions is provided below.

Figure

Requirement

Reference Scheme Compliance

14B.2 Public Domain and Pedestrian Access

Figure 14B.2-1 excerpt

Site identified as:

· location of through site link to Pacific Highway

· location of modified road (Stonex Drive)

· continuous awnings on Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road frontages

Complies -

· included in Reference Scheme

· as above

· able to comply

14B.3 Proposed Community Infrastructure

Figure 14B.3-1 excerpt

Requires:

Complies

· included in Reference Scheme

· No APZ required

· New dedicated left turn lane proposed

· Footpath embellishment proposed

Note: Park dedication proposed but not construction and embellishment

14B.4 Setbacks

Figure 14B.4-1 excerpt

Requires:

· 2m setback on Kissing Point Road (plus land dedication)

· Land dedication setbacks from Stonex Drive and Pacific Highway

Note: where land dedication is required for a public purpose, such as a road or walkway, the affected land is to be excluded from deep soil calculations and included in setback requirements

Complies

Complies – Note: dedications not included in deep soil. Deep soil to be included in developable part of site.

14B.5 Built Form

Figure 14B.5-1 excerpt

Requires:

· Landmark building

· Primarily active frontage on Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road

· 3 storey wall height on Pacific Highway

· 4m setback above street wall height on Pacific Highway

· Opposite Heritage Conservation Area on Kissing Point Road

Complies

Complies for eastern tower, 2 storey on western tower – acceptable given reduced height

Complies

Complies – no adverse heritage impact

14B.6 Building Entries, Car Parking and Service Access

Figure 14B.6-1 excerpt

Requires:

· Pedestrian access off Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road

· Vehicular access off Stonex Drive

Complies

14B.7 Environmental Protection and Bushfire Protection

Figure 14B.7-1 excerpt

Requires:

· 15m buffer zone including width of new Stonex Drive

Complies – Stonex Drive 15m wide (Note: Council environmental officer has noted “Granny Springs Reserve not Bushfire Prone Land on Council’s Bushfire prone land map)

14B.10 Precinct T3: Kissing Point Road Retail Area

Planned Future Character

Figure 14B.10-1

1. Development is to be designed to support and enhance the planned future character as following:

iii) This precinct will become the second retail hub for Turramurra offering a revitalised shopping precinct incorporating speciality retail, a new supermarket, new shop-top housing and improved public areas. Future development will be encouraged to occur through land amalgamation and consolidation of the building footprint. This will allow the construction of a new public street - “Stonex Street” - behind the site to connect Kissing Point Road and Duff Street. The new street will provide access to car parking and loading docks as well as providing for local traffic circulation. The street will be constructed within the existing development footprint and will function as a bush fire Asset Protection Zone (APZ) as well as protection for Granny Springs Reserve.

iv) Retail shops will form an active edge to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road. A new supermarket and associated specialty retail will be provided below the Pacific Highway level, and will open to “Stonex Street” at the rear. This will be an ideal location for outdoor dining and cafes, overlooking the forest.

Complies

Complies – include DCP requirement to activate through site link

Public Domain and Pedestrian Access

Figure 14B.10-2

Requires:

2. Provide a new public street (new street) linking Duff Street and Kissing Point Road

3. Provide an internal shopping arcade linking the Pacific Highway and the new street.

4. Provide continuous awnings to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road.

5. Provide awnings to the new street where ever possible

Complies

Does not comply – no awnings proposed - acceptable

Proposed Community Infrastructure

Figure 14B.10-3

Requires development to be designed to support and compliment the provision of key community infrastructure though the Contributions Plan, VPAs or other delivery mechanism:

Complies – Non binding public benefit offer provided which includes identified requirements (refer below for further detail).

Setbacks

Figure 14B.10-4

Requires zero setback with below exceptions:

i) Properties 1A, 1 and 3 Kissing Point Road and 1364 Pacific Highway are to provide a 2m setback to the Kissing Point Road frontage. The land is to be dedicated to Council at no cost.

ii) Property 1A Kissing Point Road is to provide rear setbacks to achieve a minimum 15m wide right-of-way between the northern property boundary of No.7 Kissing Point Road. The land is to be dedicated to Council at no cost.

iii) Property 1380-1388 is to provide rear setbacks to achieve a minimum 15m wide right-of-way at the rear of the property that connects with the existing road way to the west from Duff Street and to the proposed road to the south-east from Kissing Point Road. The land is to be dedicated to Council at no cost.

vi) Property 1380-1388 is to provide an Asset Protection Zone on the site in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 that does not encroach on Council’s reserve.

v) Properties 1364-1408 Pacific Highway are to have front setbacks in accordance with RMS requirements.

Complies

Complies – although APZ no longer applicable

Complies – confirmed by letter from TFNSW dated 21 June 2024

Built Form

Figure 14B.10-5

Requires buildings to be designed in accordance with the following:

i) Create consistent street wall of 3 storeys (11.5 metres) built parallel to the street alignments of the Pacific Highway, Kissing Point Road, and Stonex Lane.

ii) Provide a setback of 4m to all levels above the street wall height along the frontages of the Pacific Highway, Kissing Point Road and Stonex Lane.

iii) Provide active street frontages to the Pacific Highway, Kissing Point Road and Stonex Lane. Active street frontages are to be provided on the new street and Duff Street where possible.

iv) Locate taller building elements to the rear and western side of the precinct to minimise impacts on adjoining residents and minimise visibility from areas to the east.

v) Design a distinctive corner building with strong articulation addressing the Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road intersection.

vi) Design residential development over the commercial podium to minimise the width of residential facades facing the Bushfire Prone Areas.

vii) Provide generous landscaped courtyards on the podium between buildings for residential amenity.

Complies although 2 storey street wall for western tower as outlined above - acceptable

Complies

Does not comply – proposed design preferable – amend DCP

Complies – 9 storeys proposed at NE edge of site, 7 storeys at NW

Complies – bushfire N/A

Complies

Building Entries, Car Parking and Service Areas

Figure 14B.10-6

Requires:

1 Provide a new public street at the rear of the site connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street.

2 Vehicle access to car parking, service and loading areas is to be provided via the new street.

3 All service access to the new street must be via Kissing Point Road. Access or exit via Duff Street is prohibited.

4 Residential foyers and lobbies are to be located on Stonex Lane, Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway.

Complies

Environmental Protection and Bushfire Protection

Figure 14B.10-7

Consideration must be given to the following to ensure the development will not result in any disturbance to the adjoining Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF):

5 A minimum 15m buffer from the new building to the adjacent BGHF is to be provided in the form of a new street.

6 New development must not encroach on the adjoining bushland reserve. All new development must be within the existing developed footprint (including roads, car parks and other structures).

7 The new road is to be built on an elevated structure to minimise impacts from earthworks.

8 Consultation with an ecologist and an arborist is required during the design phase of this process to minimise potential impacts on the bushland. Construction and excavation or other disturbances will be limited to the currently disturbed area (e.g. the existing car parks and building platforms).

9 The design of the stormwater system for the development is to minimise impact on the adjacent bushland and riparian lands.

10 Landscaping is to consist of predominantly native plants of the Blue Gum High Forest community (where this does not conflict with fire protection requirements).

Consideration must be given to the following to address bushfire protection, including:

11 Provide an Asset Protection Zone on the site in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 that does not encroach on Council’s reserve.

12 The profile and length of buildings facing the bushland reserve is to be minimised so that the lowest possible surface area is open to the fire front should a fire occur.

13 All building facades facing the hazard require building construction standards to Level 3 as per AS3959. All other facades require building construction standards to Level 2 as per AS3959.

14 Entrance and exit points to underground parking and service areas are to be provided via the new street. Because the area will be subject to ember attack, radiated heat and smoke during a bush fire, appropriate measures are required to ensure safe evacuation during a fire.

15 To minimise the impacts of wind-borne ember attack, landscaped gardens are to be separated from each other by a minimum distance of 5m.

16 Garden beds that run up to a building or are up against buildings, are to be avoided, especially where they run beneath windows. Organic mulch should be avoided, with inorganic mulches such as decorative pebbles preferred.

17 Tree plantings should not link with those trees within the reserve nor should they form rows leading up to buildings. ‘Fire retardant’ species should be considered for inclusion.

18 A dedicated water supply for fighting fires is required. The tanks are to be minimum capacity of 10,000 litres and each building is to have a separate tank. Installation of tanks at ground level or below is preferred however they may be installed on upper levels of building. Signage indicating the location of the outlets should be prominent.

19 A deluge system designed to spray water over of the building façade facing the bushland reserve is required.

20 Air conditioning systems are to be designed to be automatically switched off in a bushfire emergency, or alternatively, have smoke scrubbers fitted.

21 All gas, water and electricity services are to be sited below ground. Where they must be above ground then they are to be sited on the opposite side of the buildings to the hazard.

Complies

Assess at DA stage

N/A - land not bushfire prone

As above – N/A

Complies – bushfire requirements N/A

As above – N/A

Compliance with Apartment Design Guide

As outlined above an assessment of the Reference Scheme against the ADG requirements has been undertaken by Studio Zanardo which has generally concludes that the proposal is appropriate. The following areas of non compliance have been identified:

· Solar access to the lower pedestrian through site link area. The Reference Scheme provides some sunlight to the lower through site link area only before 10am and after 2pm at mid winter. This does not meet the ADG requirements for solar access to be provided year round to public spaces. Further this does not meet the DCP intention for this space described as ‘an ideal location for outdoor dining and cafes overlooking the forest.’

· Deep soil area – The proposed deep soil zone (with a minimum width of 2m) is approximately 785m2 (9% of the entire site area) (measured in CAD) and is located entirely on the southern side of the new Stonex Street. All of these areas are to be dedicated to Council. It is noted that the DCP states ‘In all cases, where land dedication is required for a public purpose, such as a road or walkway, the affected land is to be excluded from deep soil calculations…’ Therefore the proposal currently appears to provide no deep soil within the non-affected site area. This does not meet the minimum 7% deep soil area requirements of the ADG. There is considered to be potential for additional deep soil on the northern side of the new Stonex Street. This aspect should be given further design consideration in the indicative reference scheme. It is noted that the dispensation to not meet the control is provided is for situations where achieving the design criteria ‘may not be possible’ and there is ‘limited or no space for deep soil at ground level.’ From an urban design perspective, additional deep soil appears to be possible on this site and there is additional space for deep soil at ground level. The opportunity appears to be within the pedestrian through site link area, perhaps with further adjustment of the car parking levels below. It is desirable that this potential be explored.

· Units with a minimum of 2 hours solar access - Studio Zanardo has concluded that only 67% (122/181) of units in the Reference Scheme meet the requirement of minimum 2 hours of solar access where 70% is required. Units in question are identified as the northern cross through units in the eastern tower which are impacted by the projecting adjacent apartment, and some of the lower units in the eastern tower facing the courtyard which are impacted by the upper levels of the western tower.

· Noise and ventilation of habitable rooms – given location on the Pacific Highway the design needs to address noise amenity impacts having regard to natural ventilation requirements. This issue is not currently addressed in the Reference Scheme

· Units with natural cross ventilation - Studio Zanardo has concluded that only 58% (105/181) of units in the Reference Scheme provide natural cross ventilation requirement where 60% is required. The units in question are identified as the single aspect units facing north over the courtyard on the eastern tower, and the single aspect units at the southeast corner facing east on the eastern tower at the lower levels.

· Number of units off a circulation core - Studio Zanardo has notes that the Reference Scheme proposes up to 10 units off a single core in the eastern tower and .9 units in the western tower where a maximum of 8 units is allowed under the ADG. While Studio Zanardo acknowledges that the ADG otherwise allows up to 12 units off a single core this is not appropriate in the current circumstance as sunlight and natural ventilation requirements are not met (which may otherwise justify a variation).

The Reference Scheme is otherwise consistent with the ADG requirements notably including in respect of site separation distances, privacy impacts, solar access to adjacent properties etc.

However having regard to the identified non-compliances and the need for a Reference Scheme to demonstrate a scheme consistent with the proposed LEP amendments which is of a high quality design and which meets relevant requirements, it is recommended that the Reference Scheme be amended to address the above non compliances prior to the Planning Proposal being referred for a Gateway determination. It is however considered that this can be done without impact the proposed LEP provisions but that it is essential to ensure that non-compliances at the DA stage are not argued on the basis of being pre-existing in the Reference Scheme.

Traffic and Parking

The Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIA) prepared by JMT Consulting (31 May 2024) provided with the Planning Proposal (Attachment A4) includes an assessment of existing traffic conditions, proposed vehicle site access arrangements, likely traffic generated by the proposal, parking demand and proposed parking, vehicle loading and servicing arrangements, pedestrian enhancements and bicycle parking provisions. In summary it concludes that:

· Under the indicative architecture concept vehicle access would be provided off a new road (Stonex Drive) at the southern end of the site.

· The Planning Proposal involves a number of enhancements to the existing road network supporting the site including:

o Creation of Stonex Drive – a new two-way public street which provides an east-west connection between Kissing Point Road and Duff Street

o Enhancements to traffic capacity along Kissing Point Road including extension of the right turn bay into the site as well as a dedicated left turn bay from Kissing Point Road onto the Pacific Highway

· The indicative architecture concept contemplates approximately 550 (Note: reduced to 414 in amended Reference Scheme) off-street parking bays which is consistent with the current Ku-Ring-Gai Council DCP parking controls.

· The proposal would retain a minimum of 30 public car parking spaces on the site dedicated to Council.

· A key component of the proposal is the dedication of land for the future widening of the Pacific Highway by Transport for NSW – facilitating the removal of the existing peak period tidal flow arrangements. This will result in a significantly improved traffic outcome for Turramurra and the wider precinct.

· The site is located in close proximity to various public transport facilities, including Turramurra train station and nearby bus stops.

· Detailed traffic modelling indicates that future development contemplated under the Planning Proposal will not detrimentally impact the operation of the surrounding road network. All intersections in the vicinity of the site are forecast to retain their level of service when compared to current conditions.

· Secure bicycle parking would be provided as a component of any future proposed development, in line with rates specified in the Ku-Ring-Gai Council DCP.

· Travel demand management measures have also been suggested to improve the mode share of public transport and active transport. These items should be considered further at detailed design stage.

Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer has provided an assessment of the Planning Proposal in respect of traffic and transport matters and in particular the Transport Impact Assessment. In summary the advice concludes that the Planning Proposal has the following favourable transport aspects:

· A good proportion of residents in the Statistical Area of the site use public transport for their journeys to work, so the site is well positioned to leverage off its proximity to transport services.

· The site is located within 200m of Turramurra railway station, where frequent rail services operate generally between Hornsby and Sydney CBD, providing good connections to strategic centres. Sydney CBD will be within 30 minutes of the site once the Chatswood-Sydenham extension to the Sydney Metro is operational later in 2024.

· Bus services at the Turramurra station bus interchange provide connections to Hornsby, South Turramurra, Sydney Adventist Hospital and Macquarie Park. There appears to be sufficient capacity in rail and bus services and nearby bus stops to accommodate passenger demand resulting from the Planning Proposal. 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.

· There is a good selection of retail, health/medical, recreational and community/cultural facilities within 10 minutes’ walk of the site. Schools are generally within walking distance or connected to the site by public transport.

· The local cycling network in the area is modestly developed, providing a degree of local and regional cycling connectivity particularly to the south towards Macquarie Park and Macquarie University.

· Land dedications along the Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road frontages would facilitate future road capacity upgrades.

The following transport constraints were also identified:

· It has not been demonstrated how heavy vehicles could manoeuvre from on-site loading dock in the basement to leave the car park in a forward direction.

· The car parking assessment contemplates the retention of 30 existing Council public car parking spaces. However, as the uses relying on the existing Council car parking would be incorporated into the planning proposal (with its own parking provision), the need to retain 30 spaces dedicated to Council should be reviewed.

· The potential for a right turn ban imposed by Transport for NSW from Stonex Street into Kissing Point Road would have impacts to residents along the alternative route (Duff Street/Cornwall Avenue/Monteith Street) and may result in the desirable maximum environmental capacity of those roads being reached.

· While the Planning Proposal provides for land dedication for future road widening on Pacific Highway to enable the tidal flow arrangements to be removed by providing 3 traffic lanes in each direction, it is unclear whether this is adequate for an 8-lane cross section.

Transport for NSW has also provided advice in respect of the proposal and has advised generally as follows:

1 ….It is noted that the current proposal makes provision for the dedication of land along the frontage to the site along the Pacific Highway that enables future widening of Pacific Highway, subject to future funding

2. TfNSW notes and supports vehicular access to / from the site to be via Kissing Point Road only.

3. Traffic modelling appears to address TfNSW concerns with the following reiterated for Council’s consideration:

• there should be no significant impact to the operation of signals at Pacific Hwy / Kissing Point Road intersection.

• Queuing should not extend out of the right turn bay on Kissing Point Road into the site blocking through traffic on Kissing Point Road.

• Maximum queue lengths heading north on Kissing Point Road onto Pacific Highway do not block the right turn bay into the site. This can potentially be mitigated by installing/maintaining the 'Keep Clear' signage should queuing become an issue in the future.

• Improvements proposed at the Pacific Highway / Kissing Point Road intersection which includes an extension of the southbound right turn bay into the site along Kissing Point Road, a dedicated left turn bay from Kissing Point Road into Pacific Highway as well as two dedicated right turn lanes will need further refinement and more detailed discussions with TfNSW during the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

4. The proposed new rear road located at the southern end of the site, Stonex Drive, should be designed as a shared zone and/or a low speed zone. It should not be an activated lane but one that prioritises pedestrians although cars can use it.

5. Bike parking should be useful and accessible at street level and not designed to be hidden in the underground parking area.

6. Future development on the site should consider appropriate noise attenuation measures through design measures, architectural treatments, setbacks, durable materials and / or landscaping particularly along the site’s frontage to Pacific Highway to mitigate future residents against road traffic and train station noise. Council should be satisfied that any noise mitigation controls throughout the relevant draft DCP is appropriately aligned with this requirement.

Accordingly, it is considered that from a traffic and transport perspective the proposal is appropriate however there are a number of site-specific issues that will need to be addressed at the DA stage including loading dock arrangements and design of the adjacent road network noting that TfNSW has provided advice that the proposal is generally acceptable. Council’s traffic engineer has not raised any major issues with the proposal and it has been supported by TfNSW. In respect of the retention of the existing 30 council owned public car parking spaces this is a matter for Council in its negotiations with the Proponent however notably these spaces have been included in the traffic and parking assessment and are able to be accommodated on site without resulting in any adverse traffic impacts. Noise attenuation measures should also be included in the DCP to ensure that the future development is appropriately designed to mitigate traffic and train noise whilst providing natural ventilation and to ensure an appropriate level of amenity to the future residents.

Economic Impact

A Need and Impact Assessment was submitted with the Planning Proposal Request prepared by Location IQ (November 2023) (refer Attachment 6). The assessment outlines:

· The regional and local context of the site

· An overview of the current site and the proposed development scheme

· The main trade area to be served by supermarket-based retail facilities at Turramurra

· Main trade area current and projected population and retail spending levels

· An overview of the planning environment and centres hierarchy

· The potential for additional supermarket floorspace at Turramurra, and

· The key benefits of the proposed development.

In summary it concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Centres hierarchy and the draft Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy for the Turramurra Primary Local Centre. It notes that this includes the provisions of a full-line supermarket and a limited range of specialty shops. In terms of trading impacts on surrounding facilities within and beyond the main trade area it concludes that the proposal would be unlikely to affect the future viability of these centres. Further it identifies a range of positive employment and consumer impacts including:

· The provision of a wider range of retail facilities near residents’ homes

· Increased convenience and price competition for residents

· Improved customer amenity, design, and aesthetic for the residents by way of a new and modern development

· Reduced travel times

· Ongoing employment generation including from retail and complementary non-retail components of the development (conservatively estimated at net additional jobs are estimated at 178 across retail and commercial components)

· Creation of some 242 full-time, part time and temporary jobs in construction over the development timeline, and

· Including multiplier effects some 977 jobs created both directly and indirectly because of the retail and commercial redevelopment of the site.

Hill PDA was engaged by Council to undertake a peer review of the economic impact assessment. This advice (refer Attachment A14) notes that the existing Turramurra Plaza (subject site) is a neighbourhood shopping centre with an estimated 2,373m² of retail space. It states that this is comprised of a 1,260m² IGA supermarket and 12 specialty shops (1,113m²) and that proposed redevelopment would provide 7,015m² (now amended to 7,190m²) of employment space, representing an increase of 4,642m² (now 4,817m²) over its current provision. Upon redevelopment the report notes that the Plaza would provide:

· A 3,098m² supermarket

· 2,420m² of speciality retailing, including a 498m² grocer

· 1,497m² of commercial space (including a medical centre and gym)

· 179 residential apartments.

As noted above these numbers vary marginally from the final Planning Proposal Request as assessed herein however these minor changes do not affect the report conclusions. The Hill PDA advice takes issue with some minor matters in the Location IQ report however it generally concurs with the report findings and ultimately concludes as follows:

1. There is demand for supermarket space within the Turramurra town centre catchment. This demand is further supported by the draft Ku-ring-gai retail and commercial centres strategy which projects the centre will require an additional 10-15,000sqm of retail space by 2036. It also recommends that the centre be anchored by up to two full-line supermarkets and an ALDI supermarket. Currently, the town centre contains a Coles supermarket which, at 1,500sqm, is half the size of a full-line supermarket. From this, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Council’s draft strategy.

2. The resulting marginal increase in speciality floorspace would not likely impact the viability of current or future retail uses in the centre. The development is within the existing Turramurra centre and its impacts on existing Turramurra retailers is a matter of competition between traders in the same centre and not a relevant planning matter for determination.

3. The increase in retail space would not impact the established retail hierarchy in the LGA. It is consistent with the projected demand for retail space documented in the draft Ku-ring-gai retail and commercial centres strategy.

4. The resulting development would have additional community benefits in accordance with those detailed in the Location IQ report. However, as noted, we do consider the ongoing and construction-related employment estimates somewhat overstated in the report

It is therefore considered that the Planning Proposal is appropriate having regard to economic impact considerations and will result in additional community benefits.

Heritage

The subject site does not contain any heritage items however is located to the west of the Hillview Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) across Kissing Point Road to the east and a number of heritage items within. A statement of heritage impact (SoHI) was submitted with the Planning Proposal Request prepared by Heritage 21 (21 November 2023) (refer Attachment A11). In summary the report concludes that the proposal would respect the heritage significance of the subject site and heritage items and the Hillview HCA in the vicinity and that:

· The proposal would retain the commercial character of the Turramurra Town Centre;

· The proposed contemporary design, through a high standard of architectural design, would deliver a positive contribution to the streetscape, creating a distinction between the new and the existing;

· The proposed contemporary design is sympathetic to the significance of the heritage items and HCA in the vicinity, as it would not replicate or imitate any significant historic architectural details within the HCA and of the heritage items. The proposed design is contemporary and would be a reflection of its time, which is also keeping with the conservation principle of the Burra Charter;

· The proposed design has considered a sympathetic stepped and curved form, greenery and muted colour scheme which minimises the visual impact of the building height and mass;

· The siting of the proposed development would not impact significant view lines to and from the heritage items and heritage conservation area in the vicinity; and

· The proposal would involve the demolition of contemporary commercial buildings to accommodate the new building footprint.

In respect of potential adverse impacts the SoHI notes that demolition of the dwelling at 1 Kissing Point Road may have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance and character of the area as the building does attain representative significance at the local level as an intact example of Inter-War residential buildings in the Californian Bungalow architectural style within the Ku-Ring-Gai Local Government Area. Further the SoHI notes that the building is a positive contribution to the Kissing Road streetscape. Given that the building cannot be retained, Heritage 21 has recommended a photographic archival study to document the style of the building and its contributory characteristics to the local area. They advise that this would mitigate any potential loss of heritage and streetscape character value.

Council’s heritage officer has reviewed the SoHI and provided advice that that the proposal is acceptable from a heritage perspective noting that there are no heritage items located on the site. Archival recording of the existing California Bungalow at 1 Kissing Point Road is recommended. This matter can be addressed via condition of any future development consent. The referral notes that the site is visually removed from the Heritage Conservation Area (and heritage items) across Kissing Point Road to the east and that it is unlikely to obscure any views to or from the precinct. The advice further notes that the proposal is also buffered from heritage items to the south by the proposed new access road and that setbacks are appropriate to ensure adverse heritage impacts are minimised. In relation to design quality the referral notes the quality of the intended design albeit at an early stage of development. In summary the heritage referral concludes that:

· that the concept can be supported from a heritage perspective

· that a development control plan should be developed for the site with the assistance of a heritage consultant to ensure that the relationship of the development to the adjoining heritage assets is managed well and a high level of design quality is achieved

· photographic Archival Recording of No 1 Kissing Point Road should be undertaken prior to its demolition.

Biodiversity Impacts

The future development of the site in accordance with the Planning Proposal will necessitate the removal of a number of trees and has the potential to result in flora and fauna impacts. A due diligence flora and fauna report was submitted with the Planning Proposal Request prepared by Narla Environmental (November 2023) (refer Attachment A10). The report note that two vegetation communities were present within the site: Blue Gum High Forest and Urban Exotic/Native Vegetation. The Blue Gum High Forest vegetation within the site conforms to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 listed CEEC Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion and the EPBC Act listed CEEC Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion.

The assessment also revealed one threatened flora species, Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) was located within the site. This species has been historically planted as it is occurring outside of its natural distribution. No other threatened flora species were present or likely to occur. The report notes that it is not anticipated that any future development will significantly impact on any locally occurring threatened flora species.

In respect of fauna minimal fauna habitat features were identified within the site assessment. The site did not contain any significant habitat features such as hollow-bearing trees; caves, crevices or overhangs; coarse woody debris; or large stick-nests. While the site may provide sporadic foraging habitat for threatened fauna species it was not anticipated that any future development will significantly impact on any locally occurring threatened fauna species.

The site was considered to have low ecological constraints, mostly comprising existing hardstand and buildings. Other areas of low ecological constraints were areas of Urban Exotic/Native Vegetation outside of BV mapped areas. These areas had the lowest ecological values, including minimal habitat values.

Areas mapped as moderate ecological constraints comprised of Urban Exotic/Native Vegetation within BV mapped areas; Biodiversity Corridors and Buffer Areas, and Canopy Remnant on the Greenweb Map; and Category 2 Riparian Land on the KLEP Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map. Additionally, this comprises Blue Gum High Forest vegetation and Greenweb mapping components that intersect the KDCP Turramurra Local Centre Precinct Plan. The removal of any native vegetation within these areas has the potential to trigger the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS). In addition, a VMP may be required if any proposed works are located within this zone.

Areas identified as high ecological constraints include those areas mapped as comprising Blue Gum High Forest; and Support for Core Biodiversity Lands and Landscape Remnant on the Greenweb map. The removal of any native vegetation within these areas has the potential to trigger the BOS. Future development applications will require the accompaniment of the appropriate environmental assessments (BDAR or FFA). If the BOS is triggered, biodiversity offsets may be required to offset the biodiversity impacts of any proposed development within this area. In addition, a VMP may be required if any proposed works are located within this zone.

A white background with black text

Description automatically generated

Image 16 Ecological Constraints (Source: Narla Environmental, Nov. 2023)

Overall, the Flora and Fauna Assessment concludes that the planning proposal will not impact biodiversity in its current form and that any future development applications will require appropriate environmental assessments (FFA or BDAR), as well as the implementation of number of impact mitigation strategies (such as a VMP) depending on the extent and scope of the development.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the Flora and Fauna report and advised that that the planning proposal does not raise any significant issues noting that relevant matters will be considered at the DA stage in accordance with relevant requirements.

Tree Removal

The Planning Proposal Request, and supporting Reference Scheme, foreshadows the removal of all trees on site with the exception of within the proposed new park as shown in Image 17 below. An Arborist report prepared by Dr Treegood (Nov 2023) was submitted with the application (refer Attachment A8). While noting that the removal of all trees is required to accommodate the proposed development the report recommends:

· Stonex driveway can be re landscaped with trees planted on either side of the driveway to form a possible Ave.

· The Pacific Highway frontage is to be modified to have a loading zone area and a greater turning zone from Kissing Point Rd into the Pacific Highway. Trees one and two fall within this footprint of major road improvements. I would make assumption the power poles and overhead power lines would need to be removed and more than likely would be transferred to underground power lines. This allows the ability for possible tree planting along the footpath area and possible small landscape areas in and around the trees as used scene used by Sydney City Council.

· The large area in between the two retail areas in the centre of the site could be a possibility for a new landscape area with specimen trees to form an idyllic corridor for pedestrian traffic and shoppers.

Image 17 Tree removal plan (Source: Dr Treegood, Nov, 2023)

Council’s Natural Areas Officer reviewed the Arborist Report and provided advice that the recommendations of the Arborist report should be addressed at the DA stage. Further the advice recommends:

· When relocating power lines along Pacific Highway it would be ideal to put these power lines underground to allow future tree planting with tree pruning is not required to give power line clearance

· Replacement plants to be endemic species as outlined within the report. Endemic plants may not be suitable across all areas of the site, however suitable BGHF species should be used, particularly in the proposed park and interface with Granny Springs reserve

These recommendations should be included in the Draft DCP provisions for the site. Subject to this recommendation it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a tree removal perspective on balance notwithstanding the proposed tree loss, recommendations in relation to additional deep soil on site and having regard to the public benefits of the proposal.

Bushfire

A letter has been submitted with the Planning Proposal Request prepared by Blackash (dated 25 October 2023) (refer Attachment A9) in respect of bushfire hazard and risk. The advice notes that the subject land behind the Village is not designated as bushfire prone land (albeit that it previously was so identified) and as such, the legislative triggers of section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (RF Act) for the referral of any development to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) do not exist. Development of the site does not require a Bushfire Safety Authority from the RFS. This matter was confirmed by Council’s Natural Areas Officer. Notwithstanding it is noted that the proposed new Stonex Drive provides for a 15m buffer zone to adjacent vegetation as previously specified in the DCP provisions. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a bushfire perspective.

Contamination

A Preliminary Site Investigation Report was submitted with the Planning Proposal Request prepared by EI Australia (November 2023) (refer Attachment A7). The report concludes that:

· Site observations indicated there were not significant visual or olfactory evidence of contamination, and no evidence of underground storage tanks or above ground storage

· Investigation of site history indicated that the site has been utilised as a commercial site since before 1950, including sue as a dry cleaners and motor garage. There were also several dry cleaners, petrol station and motor garages in close vicinity to the site and located hydraulically up-gradient

· A review of the historic aerial photography indicated that the immediate surrounding area of the site have been predominantly commercial / residential since before 1943 to date

· The subject site was not included on the List of NSW Contaminated Sites Notified to the EPA however two sites in the surrounding area associated with two service stations were listed for contamination or regulation under the contaminated land management act

· A search through the record of notices for contaminated land indicated that the subject site was free of statutory notices issues by the NSW EPA however several records pertaining to sites nearby were discovered

· The site was free of statutory notices and licencing agreements issues under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 however several records pertaining the nearby sites were discovered.

Based on findings of this report and with consideration of the Statement of Limitations, EI concludes that there is potential for contamination to be present that could pose risks to sensitive receptors. This was considered to be of low to high significance in terms of risk to the human and environmental receptors identified. As such a detailed site investigation (DSI) will be required following demolition to characterise soils and groundwater and ascertain the presence of any contamination onsite.

Based on the information collected during the DSI and in reference to SEPP 2021, the site can be made suitable subject to the completion of the DSI (and after remediation and validation if required) for the residential use.

Council’s Natural Areas Officer reviewed the PSI and provided advice that it is appropriate noting that a detailed site investigation is to be submitted with any development application for the site to confirm that the site will be suitable for the proposed use. Given that the PSI concludes that the site can be made suitable for the proposed residential use subject to the completion of the DSI and after remediation and validation if required, this is considered appropriate and in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 4.4 Remediation of Contaminated Land Council can be satisfied that the site can, and will, be made suitable for the proposed use. For an abundance of caution a provision should be included in the Draft DCP requiring the submission of Detailed Site Investigation with any DA for relating to the site.

Public Benefits

A public benefit letter of offer was submitted by the Proponent with the subject Planning Proposal Request. The letter of offer notes that it is for discussion purposes only and is not intended to be binding. It generally sets out the matters to be included in a planning agreement for the site as follows:

Works	Additional infrastructure to be delivered includes: 1. New Stonex Street – a new public street connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street will be delivered 2. Footpath and Road along Kissing Point Road – the footpath along Kissing Point Road will be upgraded 3. Stonex Lane – Stonex Lane is to be retained and upgraded as an open-air pedestrian lane with active frontages and supporting street furniture Key matters to be further resolved in discussions with Council will include: • Timing, staging and responsibility for the above identified works • Specifications and standards to be adopted for the proposed works. Some of the above infrastructure may be undertaken as ‘works in kind’ and deducted from the contribution amount, subject to further negotiation and discussion with Council.
Dedication of Land	1. New Community Park (approx. 708m²) – Land for a new public park will be dedicated to Council which is adjacent to Granny Springs Reserve. The new park has been considered as part of the concept design and identified for dedication to Council. It is understood that the land associated with the park is to be dedicated to Council, however this land will form as part of the overall site for the purposes of FSR transfer. 2. New Stonex Street (approx. 1,434m2) – a new public street will connect Kissing Point Road and Duff Street 3. Footpath and road along Kissing Point Road (approx. 255m2) – the land dedication along Kissing Point Road has been included in the concept design.
Other Public Benefits	A minimum of 30 public car parking spaces on the site dedicated to Council.
Application of section 7.11, 7.12 and 7.24	Value of the cost of the proposed works outlined above would be offset against any applicable development contributions and dealt with under a Works In Kind Agreement. The value of any land dedication including parking spaces is to be separately dealt with as part of the broader land transactions.

Council’s Infrastructure Coordinator has provided advice in respect of the submitted letter of offer.

This advice is provided in full below:

Proposal Planning Agreement

Background

The proponent initially submitted a document entitled Letter of Process which outlined the general timing of actions needed to support the project from an infrastructure delivery viewpoint including land dedication, the local infrastructure to be delivered as part of the site redevelopment and the proposed replacement of the current at-grade council car parking spaces within the development. Among other matters, an updated formal Letter of Offer was requested in the context of comments previously made on the content and process.

State Government as a party to the same planning agreement

The subject site is very complex and incorporates a significant amount of council land as well as the delivery of a number of items of public infrastructure as works-in-kind across three of the major categories in the s7.11 contributions plan (open space, roadworks and intersection upgrades and public domain works). It also requires land dedication to the NSW State Government for the widening of the Pacific Highway and the treatment of its intersection with Kissing Point Road. As such, and in view of the complexity of coordinating the NSW State Government as a party to an already complex council agreement involving the prospective sale of council land, it was recommended that the proponent pursue a separate agreement with the NSW State Government. The revised letter of offer accedes to this request and removes the NSW State Government as a party together with the affected works. This does not mean that an agreement will not still be required to be made between the proponent and the NSW State Government; only that council will not be responsible for its coordination and reduces the cost and staff resources required from council for this matter.

Land Dedication

All land that is stripped of its development potential by the transfer of FSR within the total site, is to be dedicated to Council free-of-cost. This includes the land for the new park adjoining Granny Springs Reserve at the rear of the site and (part) of the new Stonex Street.

Council car parking

The Letter of Process refers to the required reclassification of the current council car park from community to operational land and that reclassification process is underway as part of the planning proposal. The in-principle provision of a replacement 30 spaces of public car parking has been discussed over the inception period of the project from its earliest iteration in 2021. In each Letter of Offer, this proposed public car parking is listed as “Other Public Benefits” to be covered by the proposed Planning Agreement. It is presumed at this point that this intended provision will take the form of stratum space to be dedicated to council.

As Ku-ring-gai Council does not levy for the provision of car parking, any value to be attributed to the dedication of land or stratum space for public car parking must be taken into consideration as part of the overall property transaction but the proposed Planning Agreement can manage the logistics of this dedication. A final decision on the inclusion or otherwise of council-owned car parking will need to be made prior to the lodgement of a development application for the site. It should be noted that the redevelopment of the site will be required to fully cater for its own parking demand under the DCP and, as such, unlike the current situation, additional car parking for the existing IGA and other business fronting the Pacific Highway should no longer be required. A limited amount of car parking along Stonex Street near the Duff Street intersection is also not included within the site of the planning proposal.

The most recent letter of offer does acknowledge that these parking spaces must be considered within the context of the overall land transactions rather than as a contributions offset but remain listed for delivery in the current offer.

Stonex Street

Stonex Street requires both land dedication and construction. The required construction is located only partially on the area that forms part of the subject site and partially immediately adjoining the site, including directly behind part of the subject site near the intersection with Stonex Lane; but the whole makes up a continuous route providing direct vehicular access to the subject site from both Duff Street and Kissing Point Road. There sems to be agreement in the Letter of Offer that the Stonex Street as delivered will run from Duff Street to Kissing Point Road (and renamed Stonex Drive to distinguish it from the current alignment).

The dedication area cited in the letter of offer is smaller in area that the works area for the full length of Stonex Street (approximately 200 metres). The area for the works-in-kind is not cited in the Letter of Offer. As it is not logical or practical to construct / upgrade only that part of the road that is located on the dedication land, as such, for the relief of any doubt, the Planning Agreement needs to include separate sections for the delivery of the works-in-kind and the dedication of land and the land area of the works, as distinct from the dedication, should also be quantified.

It is understood that the Planning Agreement will make provision for works-in-kind that it is not practical to deliver other than concurrent with a construction phase, which cannot commence until a decision to act on a development consent. The granting of any development consent is also not fettered by the existence of this planning agreement. While this is a fact in law, it should also be explicitly understood and acknowledged by the proponent. No part of the existing area of Stonex Street or Lane should be demolished or subjected to restricted access prior to the formal commencement of the works that will trigger the delivery of the new road.

Stonex Lane

Stonex Lane has a direct connection to the property along the side boundary and provides pedestrian access from the Pacific Highway to Stonex Street. Its upgrade is valued by the s7.11 contributions plan however, offsets can only be up to the inflated value of the baseline contributions plan (in today’s dollars). Additional work may be undertaken at the applicant’s cost if they wish noting the direct benefit to the presentation of the redevelopment.

Other works valued by the Contributions Plan

Works surrounding the site and valued by the s7.11 Contributions Plan are also open to discussion for possible offsets as works-in-kind up to the inflated value within the baseline contributions plan. Additional works may be undertaken with agreement but cannot be offset.

References to Regional Contributions under s7.24 (HAPs Contributions)

The Letter of Offer continue to inappropriately refer to s7.24 as a contribution that can be offset. Ku-ring-gai Council has no control, influence or management capacity in respect of the NSW Government Housing and Productivity Contributions (HAPs) inclusive of calculation and collection which are exclusively via the Planning Portal. No local infrastructure provision will be offset against HAPs contributions. Nor can Council enter into any agreement impacting Division 7.1 Subdivision 4 without Ministerial approval. Any agreement regarding HAPs must be exclusively with the NSW State Government. The proposed Planning Agreement will not exclude the application of s7.24 to the proposal nor include any agreement regarding works being offset against it.

Registration on title, dispute resolution, security and costs agreements

These are standard matters and will be discussed and formalised within the Planning Agreement. A costs agreement will need to be agreed at the engagement of council’s legal team and prior to work officially commencing on the detailed planning agreement.

This matter will be the subject of a separate report to Council and has not been considered in this report.

Site Specific Merit Assessment Summary

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

Does the proposal give regard and assess impacts to:

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

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

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

As outlined above it is considered that the documentation submitted subject to the recommended amendments adequately demonstrates that the site is suitable for the Planning Proposal proposed controls as the Reference Scheme submitted with the Planning Proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts and generally demonstrate that it is able to comply with relevant controls and/or achieve a high quality, high amenity development. Accordingly, it is considered that, subject to the recommended amendments, the Planning Proposal demonstrates site specific merit.

Recommendations to Gateway Determination

Having regard to the above assessment it is recommended that Council:

1. submit the matter to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to:

a. amendments to the proposed LEP Height of Building map that provide for:

i. two (2) height limits across the developable part of the site being 34.5m in the location of the proposed eastern tower (corner of Kissing Point Road and Pacific Highway) and 28.5m for the remainder of the developable site including the through site link and the western tower)

ii. No mapped height in the location of the proposed new park, new Stonex Drive and areas proposed to be dedicated for road widening (Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road)

b. amendments to the Reference Scheme such that it demonstrates compliance with the Apartment Design Guide and in particular addresses the following identified non-compliances:

i. Improved solar access to the lower pedestrian plaza area / through site link area to comply with the ADG requirement that solar access be provided year round to public spaces, to provide for a high level of comfort and amenity for pedestrians and to enable use for outdoor dining throughout the year including at lunch time in midwinter

ii. Incorporation of a minimum of 7% of the developable part of the site (having an area of approximately 5,636m²) as deep soil area (having a minimum dimension of 2m) and generally being located within the through site link adjacent to the Stonex Drive frontage.

iii. A minimum of 70% of units to comply with the solar access requirement of 2 hours of sunlight to balconies and living rooms between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (Note: units currently in question comprise the northern cross through units in the eastern tower and some of the lower units in the eastern tower facing the courtyard ).

iv. A minimum of 60% of units to comply with natural cross ventilation requirement Note: Note: units currently in question comprise single aspect units facing north over the courtyard on the eastern tower, and single aspect units at the southeast corner facing east on the eastern tower at the lower levels).

v. Design of units to address noise amenity impacts and ventilation requirements to habitable rooms given site affectation by traffic and rail noise.

vi. Subject to resolution of (iii) and (iv) above compliance with the maximum number of units off a circulation core in accordance with the ADG.

vii. Demonstrate appropriate loading arrangements within the basement including provision of entry and exit in a forward direction for service vehicles.

c. Preparation of a Draft amendment to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre to reflect the subject Planning Proposal and key aspects of the Reference Scheme and to incorporate additional provisions which:

i. promote pedestrian activity between Pacific Highway and the future park at the rear of the site

ii. ensure that new development is appropriately sited and designed to manage amenity and visual impacts to neighbouring residential properties

iii. provide active frontages along the internal through site link

iv. ensure all service and loading areas are to be located in the basement

v. clarify the road widening width of 1.5m to Kissing Point Road

vi. provide a 3m setback along Stonex Lane

vii. require that the pedestrian through site link should be open to the sky

viii. minimise opaque and blank walls at ground level

ix. provide 30 car spaces for public use within the basement of the future development

x. require a minimum level of articulation to tower footprints (i.e. maximum wall length)

xi. design the lower pedestrian plaza area / through site link area to comply with the ADG requirement that solar access be provided year round to public spaces, to provide for a high level of comfort and amenity for pedestrians and to enable use for outdoor dining throughout the year including at lunch time in midwinter

xii. require a minimum of 7% of the developable part of the site (having an area of approximately 5,636m²) as deep soil area (having a minimum dimension of 2m) and generally being located within the through site link adjacent to the Stonex Drive frontage. This area is to incorporate specimen trees to form an idyllic corridor for pedestrian traffic and shoppers

xiii. ensure that the design is compatible with its heritage context including HCA to the east, nearby heritage items and that it reflects the character of the Tummamurra Local Centre.

xiv. Ensure that planting within the site is to comprise endemic species as far as possible.

xv. Require additional street tree planting on all street frontages where practicable.

xvi. Require underground power along street frontages

xvii. Require a Detailed Site Investigation to be submitted with any DA for the subject site.

xviii. Require a minimum of 5% affordable housing.

d. amendment of the Planning Proposal to address Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Practice Note PN 16-001 in respect of the classification and reclassification of public land.

2. Advise the Proponent of the above and direct that it submit an amended Reference Scheme and Draft amendment to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre in accordance with the recommendations above prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

KU-RING-GAI LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

As noted above, the matter was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice on 22 July 2024 as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The KLPP supported the Planning Proposal and advised as follows:

B. Should a Gateway Determination be issued for public exhibition of the Planning proposal, the site-specific amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre as outlined in this report, be placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

C. That Council authorise the General Manager to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the planning making process.

In providing this advice the KLPP endorsed the recommendations of the assessment report and concluded that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the E1 zoning of the site, will facilitate development of the site for appropriate uses, provides public benefits and demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit.

A copy of the KLPP minutes including resolution in relation to the Planning Proposal is provided at Attachment A16.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

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

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

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

Risk Management

This is a Planning Proposal initiated by a private landowner however affects land owned by Council and accordingly has been assessed by an independent planner. Council should, to determine its position on the matter, specifically consider whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination having regard to the Local Planning Panel’s advice and decide whether to proceed to public exhibition.

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

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s 2024/2025 Fees and Charges Schedule. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal is considered to have positive social benefits including the delivery of a new public park, land dedications, pedestrian footpath and road upgrades, new roadway and additional housing choice. In addition, it will provide for the replacement of the existing Council owned 30 x public car parking spaces on site.

Environmental Considerations

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

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is forwarded for a Gateway Determination, and granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the Planning Proposal would be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s publication ‘A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’. As recommended by the KLPP an amendment to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre in respect of the subject land would also be exhibited concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

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

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers. In addition, independent advice was provided in respect to economic impacts and urban design as outlined herein. Council officers attended the site inspection with the independent planning and urban design consultants to provide a briefing. Specialist referrals are addressed within the body of this report.

Summary

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct an independent assessment of this Planning Proposal. Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was also engaged to provide an independent urban design advice. A

peer review of the economic impact assessment was also undertaken by Hill PDA. Assessment of traffic and transport, heritage and biodiversity issues have been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers respectively.

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

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m to 34.5m (9 storeys);

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 3:1;

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 0.85:1;

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

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

The subject assessment concludes that the Planning Proposal is supportable subject to amendments and that recommends to Council that:

1. the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to:

a. amendments to the proposed height of buildings mapping;

b. the preparation of an amended Reference Scheme

c. the preparation of revised Draft DCP amendment, and

d. amendment of the Planning Proposal to address Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Practice Note PN 16-001 in respect of the classification and reclassification of public land

in accordance with the detailed recommendations outlined above.

2. the Proponent be advised of the above and directed to submit an amended Reference Scheme and Draft amendment to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre in accordance with the recommendations above prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

This recommendation is in accordance with the advice received from the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel.

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

It is considered that the Planning Proposal demonstrates sufficient strategic and site specific merit such that it should be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination following amendments as outlined above and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

A. Council resolve, that following amendment as outlined above, the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination

B. should a Gateway Determination be issued for public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, the site-specific amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre as outlined in this report be placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal, and

C. the Proponent be advised accordingly.

Helena Miller

Director, MG Planning Pty Ltd

Attachments:	A1⇩	Planning Proposal Assessment Table - Turramurra Plaza Planning Proposal - MG Planning		2024/231267
	A2 ⇩	Planning Proposal prepared by The Planning Studio Final (May 2024) - Turramurra Plaza		2024/231302
	A3	Planning Proposal Appendix 1 - Urban Design Study - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231308
	A4	Planning Proposal Appendix 2 - Traffic and Transport Study - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231314
	A5	Planning Proposal Appendix 3 - Survey Plan - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231318
	A6	Planning Proposal Appendix 4 - Need + Impact Assessment - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231340
	A7	Planning Proposal Appendix 5 - Preliminary Site Investigation (Contamination) - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231324
	A8	Planning Proposal Appendix 6 - Arborist Report - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231352
	A9	Planning Proposal Appendix 7 - Bushfire - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231358
	A10	Planning Proposal Appendix 8 - Flora + Fauna - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231360
	A11	Planning Proposal Appendix 9 - Heritage - Turramurra Plaza	Excluded	2024/231365
	A12 ⇩	Planning Proposal Appendix 10 - Amended Letter of Offer - Turramurra Plaza		2024/231366
	A13 ⇩	Urban Design Review - Studio Zanardo - Turramurra Plaza Planning Proposal		2024/231270
	A14	Turramurra Planning Proposal Economic impact assessment peer review - Final by Hill PDA	Excluded	2024/189535
	A15 ⇩	Draft Site Specific DCP - Turramurra Plaza		2024/231370
	A16 ⇩	KLPP 22 July 2024 - Advice - Planning Proposal Pacific Highway Turramurra		2024/249953

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.15 / 1

Item GB.15	S13985

Planning Proposal
51-53 Rohini St, Turramurra (Anglicare)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal for 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare Village).

background:	The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 26 September 2023. Following two adequacy checks, the proposal was updated by Anglicare and re-submitted with fees. The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to enable the following: · increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1); · increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m); · include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool. The key objective of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the site’s redevelopment as it no longer meets design standards for seniors housing, nor is it in line with current customer expectations. The Planning Proposal was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 22 July 2024 for advice.

comments:	The Planning Proposal is generally supported; however, a number of amendments are required to ensure its consistency with State and Local Environmental Planning Instruments, and to make the proposal transparent to the community on the outcomes it will deliver.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council supports the Planning Proposal being submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the amendments stated in this Report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal for 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare Village).

Background

On 26 September 2023 Council received a Planning Proposal for land at 51–53 Rohini Street, Turramurra, known as the Anglicare Village (housing for seniors).

The site is owned by the Anglican Community Services and contains 110 existing senior’s independent living units, generally in a 2-3 storey unit and townhouse style development.

The proposal states that the existing facility has been in operation since the late 1960s and requires complete renewal as it no longer meets accessibility or design standards, nor is it in line with customer expectations and current market demand for larger sized units.

Adequacy checks on submitted documents

The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 26 September 2023. Two adequacy checks were conducted to ensure the proposal complied with the Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Making Guideline August 2023, Council’s Meeting Notes from the two pre-lodgement meetings held with the proponent and to ensure the proposal provided sufficient justification to commence its assessment.

The adequacy checks were sent to the proponent on 10 October 2023 and 28 February 2024.

Updated versions of the Planning Proposal, responding to the issues raised, were submitted by the proponent on 12 December 2023 and again on 2 May 2024.

A number of the issues raised in the adequacy checks remain outstanding and are now listed as part of the required amendments to enable the Planning Proposal to progress to Gateway Determination. These include:

Mapping

· Amendment of the KLEP Maps, not the Written Instrument, is required to deliver the proposed Height and FSR standards.

· The proposed approach is highly irregular and not consistent with LEP Practice note PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio. Where an LEP contains Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings and/or Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio, then heights and FSRs are to be specified on the Height of Buildings Map and Floor Space Ratio Map respectively.

Shadow diagrams

· To enable the general public to understand the shadow diagrams, enlarge the provided single colour small thumbnails of the shadow diagrams so they are clearly seen and understood, remove the multiple colours on the provided larger diagrams as the multiple colours make it difficult to understand the diagrams and appear deceptive with lighter colours being used for the most impactful shadow extents.

· There is no hierarchy in shadow. People cannot differentiate between the shadow from an 11.5m height and shadow from a 21.3m height building. Shadow is homogenous. Use one colour to clearly show the extent and outline of the proposal’s shadow for the total built form. These diagrams need to be easily understood by the general public.

Planning Agreement

· The Letter of Offer is to be a stand-alone document. The attached draft Planning Agreement is to be removed. A draft Planning Agreement cannot be created prior to Council agreeing to enter into the Planning Agreement based on the Letter of Offer.

· The items listed for consideration within the Letter of Offer must clearly explain the public benefit proposed and not include items for the sole benefit of the development site.

Assessment Timeframes

Formal assessment of the Planning Proposal commenced on 31 May 2024. To meet the timeframes stated in the LEP Making Guideline, this matter must be reported to Council for determination by 29 August 2024; with the next available meeting being the OMC 13 August 2024. Failure to meet this timeframe will enable the proponent to submit a Rezoning Review with the Department of Planning, Housing and Industry (DPHI).

The Site

The land, subject of this Planning Proposal (the Site), is located at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is strategically located close to transport links, shops, services and local facilities including parks, library and gymnasiums.

LOCATION MAP (PLUS Architecture)

The site is triangular/irregular in shape and adjoins the North Shore train line. The land is generally flat with a fall of 4-7m across the site. The land is elevated and slopes down towards the surrounding lands to the north, east and south.

Turramurra train station, bus interchange and local shops are located within walking distance, 100-200m, south-east of the Site along Rohini Street. Trains and buses connect to other key local centres such as Gordon, Lindfield, Chatswood and Hornsby. The Pacific Highway provides vehicular access to the M1 freeway to the north, Ryde Road connecting to the M2 and M4 freeways linking the western suburbs, and Mona Vale Road connecting to the Northern Beaches.

The Site comprises three lots with a total area of 9,193sqm:

· Lot 2 DP 302942

· Lot 21 DP 533032

· Lot 26 DP 585038

Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 21 DP 533032 are not burdened nor benefited by any easements. Lot 26 DP 585038 is burdened by a right of way along the south-east boundary (45m length and 3m width), and contains a separate Lot 25 DP 585038 owned by Ausgrid (containing a sub-station). The Planning Proposal does not seek to discharge any of the existing easements; however, the Urban Design Report mentions this may occur at a later date.

SITE DETAILS – land ownership and use

The Site has a 100 m frontage to Rohini Street and a 100 m frontage to the Turramurra Station railway corridor. A public dog-leg pathway on Council owned land abuts the north-western end of the Site and connects Cherry Street to King Street. A separate pedestrian pathway on the adjacent Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Railway lands (zoned SP2 Infrastructure) abuts the south-western boundary of the Site, connecting Cherry Street to the Rohini Street cul-de-sac.

The site is surrounded by residential development except along the railway corridor. Adjacent development ranges from one to three storey houses and apartment buildings. Heritage Conservation Area C5 (Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area) is located to the Site’s north and mainly comprises single dwellings.

ADJACENT TO THE SITE: 1-3 storey residential development on neighbouring land and HCA C5 to the north

The Planning Proposal

This Report presents the assessment of the Planning Proposal with full details provided in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

A copy of the proponent’s Planning Proposal and its Appendices are included at Attachments A2-A14 and comprise the following:

· Planning Proposal Anglicare “Rohini Village” 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

o Appendix A - Urban Design Report and Site Photo Panel

o Appendix B - Title Documents & Surveys

o Appendix C - Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report

o Appendix D - Heritage Impact Statement

o Appendix E - Traffic & Transport Assessment

o Appendix F - Utility and Infrastructure Plans

o Appendix G - Biodiversity Advice

o Appendix H - Landscape Concept & Drawing Schedule

o Appendix I - Feasibility Analysis

o Appendix J - Letter of Offer and Draft Planning Agreement - Rohini Village

o Appendix K - Rohini Village Study

o Appendix L - Pre-Consultation Minutes and Responses

Planning Standards

In general, the Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015):

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m/5 storey (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m/6 storey);

3. include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a café (Commercial use) and a wellness centre with an indoor pool (Recreational Facility (Indoor) use).

Concept Design Standards

The Planning Proposal is supported by an Urban Design Report prepared by Plus Architecture. This presents a concept design for the site.

The purpose of the Urban Design Report concept design is to demonstrate that a scheme which represents the proposed maximum Height, FSR and Additional Uses can readily be accommodated on the site, and can comply with applicable controls and requirements without resulting in any unreasonable environmental impacts.

The key development standards achieved in the concept design are indicated in the below Table:

	PROPOSED STANDARDS
Site Area	· 9,193 m²	EXISTING STANDARDS
Height	· 6 storey including the SEPP bonus	3 storey
FSR	· 1.725:1 including the SEPP bonus	0.85:1
Units	· 110 Independent Living Units 66 x 2 bedroom units 44 x 3 bedroom units	110 Independent Living Units 82 x 1 bedroom units 24 x 2 bedroom units 2 x 3 bedroom units
Other facilities	· 700sqm Internal Communal Space (including 100sqm café) Chapel, pool, clinic, salon, library, café, multi-purpose space, communal rooftop and ground level gardens. Communal open space 25% site area	Lounge areas, library, clinic, salon, dining area, communal gardens, communal laundry
Car parking	· 2-3 level basement parking · Total parking spaces – 199 Residential parking - 171 Emergency parking – 1 Visitor parking – 18 Staff parking – 8 Car share space - 1 Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements	42 spaces
Gross Floor Area	· Total: 15,850 sqm
Solar access	· 77/110 units achieve 2 hour solar access – 70% · 22/110 units receive less than 2 hour solar access · 11/110 receive no solar access Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements
Natural ventilation	· 86/110 units have natural ventilation – 78% · 24/110 units do not have natural ventilation Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements
Note: The proponent states the concept design achieves the minimum standards of the SEPP (Housing) 2021 and AS1428.1 Design for access and mobility.

The proposed concept plan retains the same number of independent living units (110), replacing the existing 2-3 storey mainly townhouse style buildings with 6 storey apartment buildings.

The proposal augments the internal community facilities by including a new café and wellness centre with swimming pool which are proposed to be opened to the general public. A clearer through-site link will replace the existing informal access from Rohini Street to King Street and is also proposed to be made open to the wider public via a Planning Agreement between Council and the landowner.

PLANS - EXISTING AND PROPSED DEVELOPMENT (PLUS Architecture)

SECTIONS - EXISTING AND PROPSED DEVELOPMENT (PLUS Architecture)

Public Benefit

The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a draft Letter of Offer which seeks to negotiate the delivery of some items claiming public benefit. Whilst the Letter of Offer is unclear and includes items not relevant to the Letter but rather relevant in a subsequent agreement between parties, the following five items are noted as part of the offer:

· Public access across the site from Rohini Street to King Street via an 88m pathway labelled Rohini Walk.

· Upgrades to the turning circle at the end of Rohini Street directly adjacent to the Site.

· Upgrade to part of the footpath to the north-western side of Rohini Street (165m length).

· Upgrade to one section of Council’s dog-leg footpath connecting Cherry Street to King Street, the section from the end of the Site to King Street only.

· Creation of a pocket park on the Site adjacent to Rohini Street, comprising a strip of land 25m length x 7m wide.

The Letter of Offer is discussed in detail, including required amendments, at Attachment A1 to this Report. A summary of the issues are presented in the below Table:

Amendments to the Offer

Reason

Column 1 of the Works Table within the Letter are the key items indicating to Council what the subject of the Planning Agreement negotiations will be.

The following item is to be removed from the Letter of Offer as it conflicts with Council’s policy on provision of parks. The plans may still be included in the Proponent’s landscape plans for their front set-back area if they wish.

“Creation of new pocket park (25m x 7m) with seating, adjacent to Rohini Street.”

The following item should be extended to include the entirety of Council’s public dog-leg footpath abutting the Site, not just one third of that footpath. The negotiation process can determine what constitutes upgrade of the pathway.

”Upgrade the King Street pedestrian pathway from the ‘shared driveway’ to the northern end of Rohini Street”

The following items should be considered carefully given the complexities of upgrading road verges with crossovers into multiple residential properties and underground services and associated liabilities.

“Upgrade of Rohini Street footpath for the length of 165m, as shown in the Landscape Planning Proposal Concept dated 6 September 2023.”

“Upgrade northern end of Rohini Street adjacent to the Site with new turning head.”

Request must not conflict with Council’s policies and equitable consideration of provision of public facilities.

Progression of the Planning Proposal should not be construed as concurrence with the proposed works outlined in the Letter of Offer nor any future Draft Planning Agreement.

Comments

Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel (KLPP)

The Planning Proposal for 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare Village) has been referred to the KLPP for advice as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The KLPP considered the Planning Proposal on 22 July 2022 and advised the following:

A. The Panel advises Council that, following amendments to the Planning Proposal as outlined in the Report and the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1, the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

That Council authorise the General Manager to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that might arise during the plan making process.

The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel recommends deletion of:

1(b) Floor Space Ratio Map with maximum FSR 1.3:1 contingent on further detailed information from the proponent as per page number 157 of the Assessment Report.

The Panel supports the proponent’s FSR of 1.5:1.

B. Date of decision: 22 July 2024

C. Reasons for the recommendation:

1. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the present R4 high density residential zoning of the site.

2. The Panel supports the findings in the assessment report and endorses the recommendation in that report, subject to the deletion of 1(b) as per page number 157 of the Assessment Report.

3. The Panel concurs with the proponent’s preferred FSR of 1.5:1.

4. The site is strategically located close to transport, shops, services and local facilities.

5. The Planning Proposal demonstrates strategic and site specific merit, including being generally consistent with a number of planning objectives, including the Greater Sydney Region Plan, the North District Plan, the Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, the Council’s Community Strategic Plan, the State Environmental Planning Policies and Ministerial directions.

6. The proposal demonstrates a better urban design outcome than the existing development on the site.

The proponent provided some additional information in response to the KLPP report prepared by Council officers. Further information was also received from Council’s Landscape and Ecology Officers. The information and the KLPP’s advice have been incorporated into the final recommendations presented in this Report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Overview

The aim of the Planning Proposal to increase height and FSR and enable additional uses on the site to allow for the renewal of the Seniors Housing on the site is supported; however, to make the Planning Proposal acceptable for progression to Gateway Determination, a number of revisions are required as stated in this Report and detailed at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ (August 2023) and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed amendments to a Local Environmental Plan have strategic and site specific merit. A detailed evidence-based assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies has been conducted. In summary it has been concluded that the Planning Proposal demonstrates sufficient evidence that the proposal has strategic and site-specific merit subject to recommended amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is supported in this instance.

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

Strategic Merit

Regional Plan

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

· Objective 4 – Infrastructure use is optimised

· Objective 6 - Services and Infrastructure Meet Communities’ Changing Needs

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

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply

· Objective 11 – Housing supply is more diverse and affordable

· Objective 13 - Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

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

· Objective 22 – Investment and business activity in centres

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

· Objective 30 - Urban Tree Canopy Cover is Increased

· Objective 32 - The Green Grid Links Parks, Open Spaces, Bushland and Walking and Cycling Paths

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify the Planning Proposal against some of these Objectives. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

Mixed-use neighbourhoods close to centres and public transport improve the opportunity for people to walk and cycle to local shops and services. Enhancing the safety, convenience and accessibility has many benefits, including healthier people, more successful businesses and centres. The proposal is therefore consistent with these principles.

North District Plan

The North District Plan, made in March 2018, highlights that the North District will continue to grow over the next 20 years with demand for an additional 92,000 dwellings. The five-year target (to 2021) for Ku-ring-gai is to provide an additional 4,000 dwellings.

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

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

· Planning Priority N2 – Working through collaboration

· Planning Priority N3 – Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

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

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

· Planning Priority N6 - Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

· Planning Priority N7 – Growing a stronger and more competitive harbour CBD

· Planning Priority N8 – Eastern Economic Corridor is better connected and more competitive

· Planning Priority N9 – Growing and investing in health and education precinct

· Planning Priority N10 – Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

· Planning Priority N11 – Retaining and managing industrial and urban services land

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

· Planning Priority N16 – Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

· Planning Priority N17 – Protecting and enhancing cultural landscapes

· Planning Priority N19 – Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering green grid connections

· Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify the Planning Proposal against some of these Priorities. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal will allow for the rebuild and upgrade of the existing 110 independent living units on the site, including new commercial facilities (café and indoor swimming pool) proposed to be open to the general public on a well-located site close to the Turramurra Local Centre, public transport and major road routes.

The co-location of residential dwellings, social infrastructure and local services in centres provides for a more efficient use of land and enhances the viability of the centres and public transport. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan which is to focus housing density in areas close to public transport as well as within the concept of a 30-minute city.

The Government recently (mid 2024) committed to building 377,000 new homes across the State in the next 5 years to align with the National Housing Accord. As part of this, it announced new housing targets by LGA. The housing target identified by the State Government for Ku-ring-gai is 7,600 dwellings to be completed by 2029. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with this target as it will maintain the existing 110 dwellings in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

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

The Planning Proposal states it is consistent with relevant planning priorities of the LSPS including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· K10. Promoting Turramurra as a family focused urban village

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

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

· K14. Providing a range of cultural, community and leisure facilities to foster a healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected Ku-ring-gai.

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

· K18. Ensuring recreational activities in natural areas are conducted within ecological limits and in harmony with no net impact on endangered ecological communities and endangered species or their habitats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· K32 Protecting and improving Green Grid connections

· K33. Providing a network of walking and cycling links for leisure and recreation

· K39. Reducing the vulnerability, and increasing resilience, to the impacts of climate change on Council, the community and the natural and built environment

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

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the LSPS as it provides for the redevelopment of a site proximate to the Turramurra centre at a scale that is consistent with the locality.

Local Housing Strategy

The revised Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036 was adopted by Council in December 2020. The purpose of the Strategy is to identify how Council intends to respond to the Greater Sydney Region Plan and District Plan and how it plans to deliver on housing targets.

The Housing Strategy identities that the District Plan sets a target of 4,000 new dwelling in Ku-ring-gai for the 5 year period from 2016 to 2021 (Note: as outlined above this target has recently been updated to 7,600 new dwellings by 2029). It notes that more than half of the required housing supply quota has been met, with the remaining amount fully deliverable through current development approvals and existing capacity within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

The Housing Strategy states that “this means that the 0 - 5 year housing supply target of 4,000 dwellings is achievable under Council’s existing planning policies and no amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan is necessary”. It goes on to state:

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

The subject Planning Proposal seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site to prevent the further loss in the existing 110 on-site dwellings. The numbers on the site have declined over the past years due to amalgamation of vacant one-bedroom units into larger units to meet the demand for multiple bedroom accommodation allowing family to visit the residents. The prevention of loss of dwelling count on the site is consistent with the Housing Strategy.

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify Priority H2 – Encourage diversity and choice of housing. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

Community Strategic Plan – Our Ku-ring-gai 2032 (28-6-2022)

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan which is the long-term strategic plan for the future of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area. It reflects the vision and aspirations of the Ku-ring-gai community through long-term objectives that address environmental, social, economic and civic leadership issues.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

Whilst the Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site, additional information and amendments are required to clarify and ensure alignment with the following:

· SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

· SEPP (Housing) 2021 – Seniors Housing

· SEPP (Housing) 2021 -Design Quality of Residential Flat Development & Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

Other studies

The Planning Proposal has demonstrated consistency with the following additional studies:

· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (March 2022) including Turramurra Public Domain Plan

· Ageing Well in NSW: Seniors Strategy 2021–2031 (2020)

Strategic Merit Assessment Summary

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

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

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

Accordingly, it is considered that the Planning Proposal demonstrates strategic merit.

Site Specific Merit

The key objective stated in the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the site’s redevelopment as it no longer meets design standards for seniors housing, nor is it in line with current customer expectations. As such the Planning Proposal seeks a significant uplift in standards as follows:

· increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

· increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m).

It also seeks to include certain additional permitted uses to enable the operation of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool.

To demonstrate that the proposed Height and FSR is appropriate, having regard to the site’s specific opportunities and constraints, an Urban Design Report with a concept plan has been submitted with the Planning Proposal. The concept plan intends to demonstrate site specific merit. Other specialist Attachments to the Planning Proposal also provide discussion and evidence of merit in the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal and its Attachments may be viewed at Attachments A2- A14.

In general, the Planning Proposal, its concept plan and the other specialist reports demonstrate site specific merit; however, a number of clarifications and amendments are sought prior to any progression of the Planning Proposal.

The required amendments to the Planning Proposal and its Attachments are described in this Report and within the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Some of the key considerations requiring further detail and amendment include:

A. MECHANISM TO DELIVER THE NEW BUILDING HEIGHT AND FSR

As indicated in the below table taken from the Planning Proposal, the Planning Proposal seeks to make the amendment to the Building Height, FSR and Additional Permitted Uses only through the KLEP Written Instrument with an Additional Permitted Uses Map:

Table 2: Proposed KLEP Amendments (EXCERPT FROM PLANNING PROPOSAL)

Amendment to the KLEP2015 Schedule 1 - Additional Permitted Uses and Map to denote 51-53 Rohini Street as Area “#” and insert new clause that states the following;

(1) This clause applies to land described as 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra comprising Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038 and identified as “Area #” on the Additional Permitted Uses Map.

(2) Development for the purposes of the following is permitted with development consent.

(a) Independent Living Units and

(b) Ancillary resident facilities, recreational facility (indoor) and commercial premises with a maximum gross floor area of 700m².

Proposed Additional Permitted Uses Map

Amend KLEP2015 Part 6 Additional Local Provisions and insert the following;

6.14 Rohini Village

(1) The objective of this clause is to facilitate the renewal of the existing seniors housing development and to provide ancillary community facilities which may be used by the wider community.

(2) This clause applies to land described as 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra comprising Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038 and identified as “Area #” on the Additional Permitted Uses Map.

(3) Development for the purpose of Independent Living Units and ancillary community and commercial uses as described in Schedule 1 (“XX”) may have –

(a) a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1.5:1, and

(b) a maximum building height of 17.5 m

The above proposed KLEP amendment would not require changes to the Building Height or Floor Space Ratio KLEP 2015 Maps. All other planning controls applying to the Site will remain unchanged.

There are a number of issues associated with this approach as described below:

a. Independent Living Units

The proposal lists “Independent Living Units” as an additional use. This must be removed as it duplicates a use permitted by the SEPP (Housing) 2021 in the R4 zone. LEP practice note, PN 11-002 - Preparing LEPs using the Standard Instrument: standard zones states that

“where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP…, there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs”.

b. Additional Uses

The words “Ancillary resident facilities” is not a defined use in the Standard Instrument definitions and therefore must be removed. The relevant definitions to enable the required additional uses are as follows:

commercial premises means any of the following—

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

recreation facility (indoor) means a building or place used predominantly for indoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain, including a squash court, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, table tennis centre, health studio, bowling alley, ice rink or any other building or place of a like character used for indoor recreation, but does not include an entertainment facility, a recreation facility (major) or a registered club.

Ø Recommendation:

The wording requesting the additional uses should be corrected to the below recommendation.

KLEP 2015 Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses

Use of certain land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

· This clause applies to land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra, being Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038.

· Development for the following purposes is permitted with development consent.

- recreation facility (indoor)

- commercial premises

· Development consent must not be granted under this clause to development that results in the gross floor area of the combined recreation facility (indoor) and commercial premises exceeding 700m2.

c. Additional Permitted Uses map

The Planning Proposal does not require an Additional Permitted Uses map. The description of the Site Lot and DP are sufficient to legally identify the land, and a list of additional uses is sufficient to attach those uses to the site. A map is only useful for complex sites where further issues are required to be addressed in additional clauses within the KLEP.

Ø Recommendation:

Remove the Additional Permitted Uses map

d. Additional Local Provisions

The Planning Proposal seeks to make amendment to the FSR and Height on the site via KLEP Part 6 Additional Local Provisions.

This approach is highly irregular and not consistent with LEP Practice note PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio. Where an LEP contains Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings and/or Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio, then heights and FSRs are to be specified on the Height of Buildings Map and Floor Space Ratio Map respectively. Clause 4.4 does allow for a table to be used in conjunction with a map so that separate FSRs may be set out depending on the mix of land uses.

The effect of the proposed local provision stipulated in the Planning Proposal would be to allow only development for the purpose of Independent Living Units, and ancillary community and commercial uses to achieve the proposed maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and maximum Height of buildings of 17.5m. All other permitted uses on the site would be restricted to the existing FSR of L: 0.85:1 and Height of building of K:11.5m thus removing future flexibility of the land use.

There is no justification in the Planning Proposal for the proposed variation of the development standards to differentiate between the use of the site for independent living units plus ancillary community/commercial uses, and all other potential uses on the site.

It would be assumed that the potential bulk, scale and environmental impact of a seniors housing development would be similar to that of an alternate use such as a residential flat building. Therefore, if it is deemed that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed FSR and Height for a seniors housing use, then those standards should apply to all permissible uses on the site.

Ø Recommendation:

The proposed amendment to the Height and FSR must be shown on the following KLEP maps:

1. Height of Building Map

2. Floor Space Ratio Map

All references to their inclusion within “Part 6 Additional Local Provisions” are to be removed from the Planning Proposal and all its Attachments.

B. BUILDING HEIGHT AND FSR – RESULTANT DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES

The Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) mapped standards:

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m/5 storey

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m/6 storey);

The Planning Proposal claims the increased standards will achieve the required compliance with the below policy and guidance:

· SEPP (Housing) 2021

· Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023

· Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

However, some of the claims are questioned and further justifications, amendments, clarifications and considerations must be addressed prior to the proposal being progressed towards any Gateway Determination, and they are to demonstrate both the said compliance and the integration of the development outcomes on a Site located within Ku-ring-gai with its unique high quality environment and housing provision.

Key to the majority of the required amendments and considerations stated in Attachment A1 is whether the proposed significant increase in FSR will enable development on the site to be reflective of residential flat buildings within the Ku-ring-gai locality.

FSR Considerations

The proposed FSR of 1.5:1, which will be increased to 1.725:1 with the SEPP (Housing) bonus, is inconsistent with the FSR that is generally applied to R4 (High Density Residential) development in Ku-ring-gai - which has an FSR of 1.3:1 associated with the 17.5m Height.

Similar sites zoned R4 (High Density Residential) in this locality applying the FSR of 1.3:1 and Height of 17.5m standards have delivered buildings which demonstrate cohesion with the Ku-ring-gai character of buildings within high quality landscaped settings including tall canopy trees. The standards have been calculated to ensure achievement of appropriate on and off site amenity, including managing overlooking and over shadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

The Planning Proposal does not clearly justify the increased 1.5:1 FSR in the following areas:

· achievement of the clear (without paths) 6m dimensioned deep soil as required by the ADG, and the associated delivery of tall canopy trees not identified for delivery;

· whether the landscaped areas that are dissected into small portions by multiple paths and hardstands have the ability to provide large/ mass planting and ability to provide communal garden areas and outdoor recreation/barbeque areas for its senior residents;

· why it has delivered units with no solar access and no natural ventilation;

· why there is a single long building, rather than small footprint buildings, to the south-east boundary to ameliorate overshadowing impacts on the 2-3 storey properties to the south.

The Planning Proposal states minimum compliance with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements but does not sufficiently consider the Ku-ring-gai locality and character, the elevated position of the site exacerbating overlooking and overshadowing impacts, and importantly, the nature of its residents that will increasingly remain on the site and in their apartments as they move into age related frailty. These issues are required to be satisfied in accordance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and the Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023 including sections on streetscape, local and neighbourhood character and impacts.

According to the ADG the minimum unit sizes required in this proposal would equate to:

· 2 bedroom units with 2 bathrooms: 75sqm

· 3 bedroom units with 3 bathrooms: 100sqm

The proposal seeks to deliver 66 x 2 bedroom units and 44 x 3 bedroom units.

Council has calculated 2 and 3 bedroom units in the current scheme range in size from 115sqm to 145sqm which is significantly larger than standard unit sizes in a residential flat building and much larger than the minimum requirements of the ADG.

As such, Council’s calculations of the amendments to the height and FSR across the total site plus the bonus provisions under the Housing SEPP identify there is potential for the scheme to yield an average of the below, noting that:

· 211 units as per the ADG, based on an average unit size of 75m2; and

· 176 units based on an average apartment size of 90m2.

Whilst there is no requirement to justify the provision of larger apartments, the issue is that a future DA based on the amended standards will have the right to deliver minimum sized apartments. The consequences of increased units will then impact the traffic, parking and other on-site and neighbouring amenity considerations determined by unit numbers, and therefore alter the basis of this assessment which considers whether the proposed standards can manage negative impacts.

This issue must be addressed in the Planning Proposal to provide certainty on the site outcomes. The unit size and numbers might be the result of the multiple requirements on the site, such as landscape and deep soil. The reasoning should be provided to avoid question during the exhibition of the proposal.

Commentary on the FSR - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· The issue of the FSR was reported to the KLPP with a recommendation to reduce the Planning Proposal’s 1.5:1 FSR. Key to the majority of the required amendments and considerations stated in Attachment A1 is clarification of calculations on the drivers for the proposed increase in FSR.

· The only further information provided by the proponent is that the extra FSR will enable provision of:

- the required 700sqm of communal facilities and café, and

- 110 units that are compliant with seniors housing standards and that meet current market demands.

· The proposal is basically a residential development with some commercial type uses mainly to facilitate the on-site residents. This is similar to other 17.5m high residential flat buildings within Ku-ring-gai with FSR of 1.3:1, and which may also contain a gym, pool and communal rooms for their residents, no additional FSR is granted to those developments.

· The Planning Proposal is not transparent on how they have calculated the proposed FSR 1.5:1 and if they only seek to provide 110 units. While the increased FSR is supported in principle, given the location of the site close to the Turramurra Local Centre, the Planning Proposal must include the evidence/ calculations/ diagrams to support their position for the increased FSR.

· It is unclear how the comparatively minimal commercial floor area, which sits at 4% of the overall site, can drive up the requirement for the excess in FSR. As per the below Table, Council’s calculations cannot verify the proponent’s claims; therefore clarification from the proponent is required to be inserted into the Planning Proposal.

TOTAL GFA: 15,850sqm
Residential GFA – 110 independent living units	Commercial GFA – communal facilities and cafe
15,150sqm	700sqm
96%	4%
Proposed communal GFA component is insignificant at approx 0.07:1 FSR. It has no major impact on overall FSR. Proposed 1.5:1 FSR (1.725:1 FSR including SEPP bonus) is driven by abnormally large apartments (avg 135sqm).
Table – Planning Proposal Residential and Commercial Gross floor Area

· It is unclear why the proposed FSR of 1.5:1 is required to achieve the same number (110) units, with no increase to dwelling yield. Apart from saying the sizes are market driven, there is no evidence attached on this statement.

· Anglicare’s recently completed seniors housing units at the Gordon Quarter show units (assumed to be compliant with all the required SEPP (Housing) and Australian Standards) are significantly smaller than those proposed at Rohini Street, with each 3 bedroom unit at Rohini Street being 25sqm larger than those at Gordon Quarter.

· Council’s calculations indicate if the FSR is reduced to the standard 1.3:1 (1.495:1 including the 15% bonus) and height to 21.3m (6 storey), the size of the units reduces on average by 14sqm to 121sqm to retain the 110 unit yield. This is still a very large apartment and is representative of other Anglicare developments such as Gordon Quarter. A reduced 1.3:1 FSR and ILU’s with a retained yield of 110 would still comply with the requirements of the SEPP Housing Schedule 4 and AS1428.1.

UNIT SIZES
	ADG	Planning Proposal	Recent Anglicare Gordon Quarter Units (link)
2 bedroom/ 2 bathroom	75sqm	115sqm (66 units)	Advertised Unit sizes (1 bathroom) 101sqm	Units with ADG 5sqm/additional bathroom 106sqm
3 bedroom/ 3 bathroom	100sqm	145sqm (44 units)	110sqm	120sqm
		Yield: 110 units		Yield: 132 units
· Proposed units are larger than the recent Gordon Quarter Anglicare units (SEPP and AS 1428 compliant). · Proposed 2 bedroom/2 bathroom units each have an extra 9sqm/unit. · Proposed 3 bedroom/3 bathroom units each have an extra 25sqm/unit.
Table – Planning Proposal Low Dwelling Yield with Oversized Units

· The key issue regarding the proposed oversized units, which appear to be driving up the FSR to the proposed 1.5:1, is that:

- when a future Development Application (DA) is submitted for the site, the landowner does not have to adhere to the concept plan being presented here;

- it is possible for new plans to reduce unit sizes to include a greater dwelling yield in the region of the demonstrated 132 units, 22 extra units.

The Planning Proposal states all minimal requirements under SEPP (Housing) 2021 and the Apartment Design Guide are achieved for 110 units. The concern at this stage are questions around:

· whether the extra dwelling yield of 132 units, possible on the site under the current FSR 1.5:1, will still be able to deliver the claimed compliance;

· what will be the consequence of increased units on the on-site and neighbouring amenity provisions including traffic, parking, solar access, ventilation, landscape, deep soil, overshadowing and overlooking.

No evidence is provided in the Planning Proposal nor its Appendices to verify the figures stated for the majority of the above parameters, which are all claimed to be compliant with SEPP (Housing) 2021, Apartment Design Guide and AS1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility.

Notwithstanding the above, since the site is located close to the Turramurra Local Centre and has good access to public transport and other services and facilities, there is merit in the increased FSR to 1.5:1 (1.725:1 with SEPP bonus); however, modifications to the concept plan are required to improve the strategic outcomes of the site and to be consistent with the requirements of the Regional Plan, District Plan, SEPPs, Ministerials and the age-related studies referenced in the Planning Proposal.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

The Urban Design Study is to include the following amendments to the concept plan diagrams and demonstrate that the 1.5:1 FSR and 17.5m Height can achieve compliance with the required standards of SEPP (Housing) 2021, Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023, Apartment Design Guide, AS 1428.1 Design for access and mobility :

· include the indicated 8 high care units and carer room to result in 115 yield;

· incorporate the recommended design changes provided in relation to T19, T22, T49 and T50 stated in the proposal’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment;

· amend the single long building to the south-western boundary to smaller footprint buildings that reduce overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties;

· amend the building layouts to provide some solar access to all units and remove units with zero sunlight.

The amendments must be reflected in the Planning Proposal and across all Attachments.

C. PROVISION OF HOUSING CHOICE AND AGEING IN PLACE.

The proposal comprises seeks to delive110 independent living units as:

· 66 x 2 bedroom units

· 44 x 3 bedroom units.

The proposal does not offer housing choice through a provision of apartment mix. It does not include serviced apartments to enable residents to transition into partial care and further downsizing, nor for high care services.

The concept of “ageing in place” is one where people move into these types of facilities as a last home. Requiring elderly and frail people to be relocated off this site as they deteriorate does not constitute ageing in place.

Commentary on Housing Choice and Ageing in Place - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· In their response to the KLPP, the proponent pointed out the potential to provide 8 high care units on the site with carer accommodation, and the standard practice of providing care services to residents in the standard units; however, these are not included in the Planning Proposal and therefore do not guarantee the delivery of housing choice, nor the opportunity for ageing in place.

· To ensure the site offers housing choice and true ageing in place, the Planning Proposal needs to be explicit in the provision of these two additional levels of care in response to Objective 11 of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and include them in the appropriate Appendices, noting that other required standards must still achieve compliance.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

Include reference to the provision of the following within the body of the Planning Proposal and all Attachments:

· 8 high care units on the site with carer accommodation (to be shown on all Urban Design drawings), and

· in-home care services as required by residents.

D. LANDSCAPED AREA AND DEEP SOIL AREA

The proposal states compliance with the Landscape and Deep Soil requirements of the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

It is noted that the SEPP (Housing) definitions do not exclude the pathways from the calculation of landscaped area. The proposal has extensive hard surfaces/pathway systems all around the buildings, including in the boundary setbacks, with landscaping fitting into the remnant spaces. The ability for large and significant planting, typical of the Ku-ring-gai area, within these relatively small spaces is questionable.

Similarly, while the SEPP (Housing) 2021 speaks of 3m dimensions for deep soil provision, the SEPP (Housing) 2021 shows a clear policy intent that apartment buildings are to align with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to ensure good outcomes.

This pathway is demonstrated in the Seniors Housing Design Guideline, related to the SEPP, which includes a table at Part 4 -18.0 Alignment with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), directing designers to the ADG standards. Therefore, the ADG definition, which requires a 6m minimum dimension for effective deep soil around Residential Flat Buildings must be applied to this development. It is unclear if this has been done in the urban design and landscape area calculations.

Provision of effective deep soil and landscaped areas will enable the proposal to comply with the ADG requirements on integration with neighbourhood and area character, and meet the Ku-ring-gai local character of buildings within high quality garden settings including tall canopy trees.

Commentary on the Landscape Area and Deep Soil Area - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· In their response to the KLPP, the proponent provided some further explanation on landscape provisions; however no calculations nor diagrams were included to verify the figures stated in the Planning Proposal. The proponent also disputes the requirement to align with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) standards and sticks to the minimal compliances under the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

· The SEPP (Housing) 2021 provides basic standards that apply across all densities including low density, medium density and high density seniors housing. The SEPP then refers to its Seniors Housing Design Guideline which is explicit in the requirements for alignment with the ADG for high density development.

· Council has conducted further calculations, with assumptions, and derived numbers that are different to those presented in the Planning Proposal documentation for landscape and deep soil provisions.

· It is unclear how the proponent has calculated the stated 4534sqm landscaped area. Council’s calculations based on the current scheme find the following varying landscape areas which differ from that stated in the Planning Proposal:

- approximately 3444 sqm (excluding all paths/hardscape)

- approximately 4956 sqm (including all paths/hardscape).

· It is unclear what areas the deep soil calculations have included, particularly with regard to 6m wide areas that will enable the planting of tall canopy trees. The Planting Strategy included in the Planning Proposal attachments states tall tree species, but no indicative location is provided in the landscape diagrams to ensure there is a match between the tall trees and the deep soil.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

Include calculations/diagrams on the provided landscape and deep soil area figures:

· showing the assumptions/inclusions/exclusions that the final figures are based on,

· giving clear indication where the deep soil areas will be able to sustain tall canopy trees.

E. TREE REMOVAL

The documentation of tree removal to the boundaries of the site is not supported. Only trees clearly identified as weed or having a significant safety concern may be cited for removal at this Planning Proposal stage.

Regardless of trees being identified as having low, medium or high retention value, all trees are to be retained and removal can be documented as part of a future DA application. The Planning Proposal can identify the trees and their value, but removal can only be considered and agreed when a final DA design and detail is developed.

The removal of 4 trees to the centre of the development is agreed as part of this Planning Proposal to facilitate the concept plan as those trees are also identified in the Arborist Report as having limited value. However, all other trees on all boundaries are not to be cited for removal nor pruning at this stage. Reference to the transplanting of the Magnolia is equally to be removed as this is not a DA and the proper investigations conducted through a DA cannot be done at this strategic planning proposal stage.

Specific tree removal around the boundary can be nominated at DA stage when detailed investigation into their value and impacts of removal within retained tree TPZs can be explored.

This Planning Proposal is not to fetter investigation nor prematurely influence the tree removal outcomes at the DA assessment stage.

In addition, some inconsistent comment is made regarding the biodiversity mapped land (remnant Blue Gum High Forest) and the impacts on the associated Blackbutt tree. These must be corrected to stress the importance of protecting that single remnant tree.

Commentary on Tree Removal - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· The proponent has provided further information clarifying some of the issues raised on tree removal.

· Council has now received further advice from specialist landscape and ecological officers that the Planning Proposal must not fetter the DA process of investigation into all tree removal, tree pruning and tree transplanting. Citing certain trees for removal in the Planning Proposal is revised as Council is unable to investigate and verify the stated conditions of those trees at this planning proposal stage. Therefore, the Planning Proposal and its Appendices are to remove all reference to any tree removal, tree pruning and tree transplanting.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

All references to tree removal, tree pruning and tree transplanting in the Planning Proposal and its Attachments are to be removed to avoid fettering of the DA process and the ability for Council to conduct proper and transparent investigation.

F. CANOPY PROVISION

The proposal claims an increase of canopy from the existing 3,656 sqm to the proposed 3,897sqm. However, there is no documentation on the tree species that will contribute to that canopy, nor on the heights of the canopy trees.

Canopy in Ku-ring-gai is delivered through significant numbers of tall trees. The proposal gives no indication on whether this key feature of the LGA will be delivered on this site.

Many of the new trees shown in the diagram are located on top of the basement parking areas or in between the multitudes of path systems which do not provide the dimensions of garden beds able to sustain healthy large specimen trees to contribute to tall tree canopy.

Commentary on canopy - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· The proponent has provided further information stating trees and species type have been included in the Planning proposal documentation. The Planting Strategy included in the proponent’s Landscape Concept and Drawing Schedule names trees, shrubs, and groundcover selected for the landscaping. It includes the mature height and spread of these trees; however, it does not state the location of the trees nor how many trees will be planted. The landscape drawings show good planting outcomes but it is difficult to know what proportion of the canopy will be small trees, medium trees, large trees. A key feature of Ku-ring-gai is its canopy which includes distinctive tall trees both endemic and exotic species.

· The Planting Strategy list names 6 tree species that are 15m+ tall and 4 tree species that are 18m+ tall but no indication of how many of these will be planted and at what location.

· Detail is still required to understand how many and where tall trees will be provided to demonstrate that the deep soil areas are capable of enabling those species to grow and remain healthy, particularly with the criss-cross of pathway systems across the entire site. Without the actual numbers of trees and their location, it is not possible to verify the proponent’s claims of providing 3,897sqm of canopy.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

The Planning Proposal and its landscape and flora related Appendices require details of the numbers and location of the tree species mentioned in the Planting Strategy and demonstrate the calculation of the expected tree height and canopy spread. This way the canopy that is claimed to be delivered on the site can be verified.

G. SOLAR ACCESS AND NATURAL VENTILATION

70% of units or 77/110 units achieve the required ADG 2 hour solar access – therefore 33/110 units achieve less than 2 hours solar access of which 11/110 receive no direct sunlight.

Solar access into units designed for ageing in place is vital. Units with no solar access highly compromise the amenity for the 11 elderly people living in the units with zero sunlight especially as they will spend increasing amounts of time within their homes as they age.

78% of units or 86/110 units achieve the required ADG natural ventilation standards - therefore 24 units fail to achieve natural ventilation.

Whilst the provision may comply with the baseline requirements of the SEPP Housing, natural ventilation is important in units designed for an ageing population who will spend increasing amounts of time within their homes as they age.

Ø Recommendation:

Given the type of population this Site will house (elderly and vulnerable frail people), the concept design in the Urban Design Report is to be modified to increase numbers of units with solar access and ventilation and reduce the 11 units that will receive zero sunlight.

H. HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

The Heritage Impact Statement, attached to the planning proposal, makes recommendation to retain the pillars as mentioned in the response to Ministerial 3.2. This is supported.

It is noted that the Rohini House gates located on the site are currently listed in Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 (Item 161). However, the listing identifies the previous location of the gates (Railway lands; Part Lot 1, DP 1129573) prior to their relocation onto the grounds of Rohini Village.

It is noted that the original pair for No. 2 is different to that photographed in Figure 23 in the Heritage Impact Statement. The second set of pillars shown in Figure 23 of the Statement have three rather than two pillars, with the original post and gate now in the garden bed to the side framing a vehicular entrance, not shown in the photograph, and the third pillar a replica to form a new pedestrian entrance.

The significance is with the original pairs of pillars and associated gates, rather than the replica.

The Chery Kemp Heritage Impact Statemen concludes the three sets of pillars meet at least one Heritage Council criterion of heritage significance. This meets the threshold for local heritage listing.

As there are no planning provisions proposed to support retention in the Planning Proposal. The proposal should make provision for conservation of these significant features by inclusion of heritage listing in the Planning Proposal. As such, the description of the locational description of the heritage item in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan should be amended to reflect the current location of the Rohini House Gates.

The proponent’s heritage consultant is to recommend an appropriate curtilage map, as adjusted for the No. 2 set to capture the original pillars.

Ø Recommendation:

The Planning Proposal is to amend Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan and the Heritage Map within the KLEP 2015 to reflect the current location of the Rohini House Gates. The proponent’s heritage consultant is to recommend an appropriate curtilage map, as adjusted for the No. 2 set to capture the original pillars. The curtilage will inform the required amendment to the KLEP Heritage Map for all 3 sets of pillars.

I. OVERSHADOWING OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

The Planning Proposal’s Urban Design Report includes investigation into overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties. The diagrams indicate significant impact on properties to the south of the proposal’s site.

The provided shadow diagrams include very small thumbnails in a single colour and larger diagrams of the same in multiple colours. These drawings are sufficient however the size of the thumbnails are too small for most people to see/understand.

The multicoloured diagrams are a good size but difficult to understand. The use of lighter colours for the extreme extents of the shadow diminish and disguise the shadows on the adjacent development.

The proponent has been requested multiple times to provide the simple single colour shadow diagrams that will be legible to the general public. The Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Making Guideline August 2023 states “The planning proposal should be drafted to ensure that a wide audience including departmental staff, authorities and government agencies, councils, stakeholders and the community, can clearly understand the scope and impacts of the proposal.”

The shadow diagrams are required to be revised to show only a single colour to all shadow cast by the proposed development. This can be produced by enlarging the monochrome thumbnail diagrams so they are easily read.

The redevelopment of the site provides opportunity to deliver improved overshadowing results both on the site and to neighbouring residences by orienteering building footprints and considering building bulk across the site to avoid replicating any poor standards of the existing development.

There is lengthy justification on the solar impacts to the neighbouring properties to the south. The diagrams again utilise the multiple shade shadowing which again visually diminish the shadow impacts and the reach of shading on those neighbouring buildings.

The issue of overshadowing will be dealt with at DA stage, however it is noted that the impacts to the south-eastern neighbours are likely to be high. The planning proposal’s concept design should demonstrate it can minimise the impacts by reducing building footprints and altering building orientation to enable solar corridors that reduce the continuous bulk shadow to the south-eastern boundary properties.

SHADOW DIAGRAM MONOCHROME AND MULTICOLOURED (PLUS Architecture)

Ø Recommendation:

Amend the concept plans to reduce building footprints and altering building orientation to reduce the continuous bulk shadow to the south-eastern boundary properties at 47-49 Rohini St and 22, 24, 26 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

Amend the shadow diagrams to improve legibility for the general public by making the easily understood small monochrome thumbnails the same size as the multicoloured diagrams.

J. CAR PARKING

A parking assessment was undertaken and found that if car parking for the proposal were to be provided in accordance with SEPP Housing 2021, only 22 resident car parking spaces would need to be provided as Anglicare is deemed to be a ‘social housing provider’.

However, the proponent is suggesting that the target market for the new development would be downsizers approaching or in retirement, and is seeking to provide car parking at the equivalent rate to residential flat buildings to cater for this market. This results in the provision of 199 parking (171 resident parking spaces, 18 visitor spaces, 8 staff spaces, 1 ambulance space and 1 car share space).

While the site has the capacity to accommodate this level of car parking (across 2-3 basement levels), a study of current residents conducted by Anglicare attached to the Planning Proposal (Appendix K: Anglicare Village Study – Rohini Village) indicates over half the residents at Rohini Anglicare do not drive.

Parking should be provided to closer align with this characteristic from Anglicare’s records, which would substantially reduce excavation, material costs and environmental impacts, and improve affordability.

The Anglicare Village Study also indicates that 30% of current residents drive infrequently, so provision of car share vehicles could be increased to further reduce parking provision.

Reduced parking provision over that shown in this Planning Proposal was also supported by Transport for NSW in its early correspondence with the proponent.

Commentary on car parking provision - KLPP meeting and further information from proponent:

· The proponent provided further information again stating the parking provisions are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 and in line with market requirements.

· The KLPP questioned the excessive parking provision given the location close to public transport.

· It is again noted that Anglicare’s own studies show their residents have low car ownership.

Ø Recommendation following the KLPP meeting:

Given the location of the site adjacent to train and bus public transport and close to local shops and facilities, the population profile and statistics from Anglicare showing low car ownership of aged population, the car parking provision is to be substantially reduced to reflect the strategic approach, both locally and at the State-level, on parking provision close to transport hubs.

In conclusion

Notwithstanding the above issues requiring further consideration, confirmation and amendment, and others noted within Attachment A1 of this Report, the Planning Proposal is generally considered to have Strategic Merit and Site Specific Merit contingent on the amendments required in this Report and within Attachment A1.

Recommendations to progress to Gateway Determination

Having regard to

· the assessment provided in this Report, and

· the Attachment A1 Table of Assessment, and

· the advice provided by the KLPP,

it is recommended that Council:

1. supports the Planning Proposal and recommends the matter progress to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the Planning Proposal and its Attachments being amended as stated in this Report and within the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1, and including:

a. provision of three new KLEP Maps showing the proposed amendments within Part 4 of the Planning Proposal (showing existing and proposed maps with keys taken from the Legislation website):

i. Height of Buildings Map

ii. Floor Space Ration Map

iii. Heritage Map

b. inclusion of updated amendment to the KLEP Written Instrument

i. Schedule 1 - to allow Additional Permitted Uses enabling a café and swimming pool on the site.

ii. Schedule 5 - to amend the heritage listing of the three sets of pillars on the site.

2. recommends that the proponent be advised of the above and directed to submit the required amended Planning Proposal and its Appendices, in accordance with the recommendations of this Report and the Attachment A1 Table of Assessment, prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

If Council fails to make a decision within 90 days (from the commencement of the review of the application), by 29 August 2024, or if Council makes a decision to not support the Planning Proposal, the Proponent can make a request to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Rezoning Review.

Risk Management

This is a Planning Proposal initiated by a private landowner. Council should determine its position on the matter and whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination, having regard to the KLPP’s advice and decide whether to proceed to public exhibition.

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

Financial Considerations

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal is considered to have positive social benefits including the replacement of dated housing for Seniors that no longer meets accessibility standards and current market demand. A Letter of Offer accompanies the Planning Proposal seeking to enter agreement on the provision of a new through site link and upgrades to the public domain.

Environmental Considerations

The potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment and it has been determined that the Planning Proposal should be supported as it will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and is suitable for the site, particularly when the required amendments are included. The impacts of any specific development that may occur on the site as a result of the proposal would be considered in detail at the development application stage.

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is forwarded for a Gateway Determination and granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the Planning Proposal would be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s publication ‘A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’.

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

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage, Biodiversity, Contributions and Urban Design Officers. Council Officers attended a site inspection. The referrals of specialist staff are included within this Report.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for land at 51-53 Rohini St, Turramurra, also known as Anglicare Village. The proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m

(the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m);

3. include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool.

Assessment of traffic and transport, urban design, public benefit, heritage and biodiversity issues have been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Urban Design, Contributions, Heritage, Biodiversity, Landscape and Ecological Officers respectively.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal, presented at Attachment A1, has resulted in a number of revisions being required.

All amendments noted in this Report and in Attachment 1 – Table of Assessment are to be made and returned to Council for finalisation and forwarding for Gateway consideration. The key amendments to the Planning Proposal include:

· delivery of the increased Height and FSR standards through Mapping amendments consistent with PN 11-002 - Preparing LEPs using the Standard Instrument: standard zones and PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio, with amendment to the Height and the FSR maps;

· amend the heritage listing for the three sets of pillars on the site and include their location and curtilage in an amendment to the KLEP 2015 Heritage Map;

· amend the KLEP Written Instrument to make provision for Additional Permitted Uses in Schedule 1;

· amend the KLEP Written Instrument to describe the heritage listing of the three sets of pillars in Schedule 5;

· other amendments as detailed in this Report and its Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

The following is a summary of all recommendations in this Report, noting that further recommendations are provided at Attachment A1.

Ø The wording requesting the additional uses should be corrected to the below recommendation.

KLEP 2015 Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses

Use of certain land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

· This clause applies to land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra, being Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038.

· Development for the following purposes is permitted with development consent.

- recreation facility (indoor)

- commercial premises

Ø Remove the Additional Permitted Uses map.

Ø The proposed amendment to the Height and FSR must be shown on the following KLEP maps:

1. Height of Building Map

2. Floor Space Ratio Map

All references to their inclusion within “Part 6 Additional Local Provisions” are to be removed from the Planning Proposal and all its Attachments.

Ø The Urban Design Study is to include the following amendments to the concept plan diagrams and demonstrate that the 1.5:1 FSR and 17.5m Height can achieve compliance with the required standards of SEPP (Housing) 2021, Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023, Apartment Design Guide, AS 1428.1 Design for access and mobility :

· include the indicated 8 high care units and carer room to result in 115 yield;

· incorporate the recommended design changes provided in relation to T19, T22, T49 and T50 stated in the proposal’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment;

· amend the single long building to the south-western boundary to smaller footprint buildings that reduce overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties;

· amend the building layouts to provide some solar access to all units and remove units with zero sunlight.

The amendments must be reflected in the Planning Proposal and across all Attachments.

Ø Include reference to the provision of the following within the body of the Planning Proposal and all Attachments:

· 8 high care units on the site with carer accommodation (to be shown on all Urban Design drawings), and

· in-home care services as required by residents.

Ø Include calculations/diagrams on the provided landscape and deep soil area figures:

· showing the assumptions/inclusions/exclusions that the final figures are based on,

· giving clear indication where the deep soil areas will be able to sustain tall canopy trees.

Ø All references to tree removal, tree pruning and tree transplanting in the Planning Proposal and its Attachments are to be removed to avoid fettering of the DA process and the ability for Council to conduct proper and transparent investigation.

Ø The Planning Proposal and its landscape and flora related Appendices require details of the numbers and location of the tree species mentioned in the Planting Strategy and demonstrate the calculation of the expected tree height and canopy spread. This way the canopy that is claimed to be delivered on the site can be verified.

Ø Given the type of population this Site will house (elderly and vulnerable frail people), the concept design in the Urban Design Report is to be modified to increase numbers of units with solar access and ventilation and reduce the 11 units that will receive zero sunlight.

Ø The Planning Proposal is to amend Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan and the Heritage Map within the KLEP 2015 to reflect the current location of the Rohini House Gates. The proponent’s heritage consultant is to recommend an appropriate curtilage map, as adjusted for the No. 2 set to capture the original pillars. The curtilage will inform the required amendment to the KLEP Heritage Map for all 3 sets of pillars.

Ø Amend the concept plans to reduce building footprints and altering building orientation to reduce the continuous bulk shadow to the south-eastern boundary properties at 47-49 Rohini St and 22, 24, 26 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

Amend the shadow diagrams to improve legibility for the general public by making the easily understood small monochrome thumbnails the same size as the multicoloured diagrams.

Ø Given the location of the site adjacent to train and bus public transport and close to local shops and facilities, the population profile and statistics from Anglicare showing low car ownership of aged population, the car parking provision is to be substantially reduced to reflect the strategic approach, both locally and at the State-level, on parking provision close to transport hubs.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal finds the proposal has sufficient strategic merit. The proposal indicates it has site specific merit much of which is contingent on the required amendments presented in this Report and in Attachment 1 Table of Assessment

It is therefore recommended that Council:

1. supports the Planning Proposal and recommends the matter be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the Planning Proposal and its Attachments being amended as stated in this Report and within the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1, and including:

a. provision of KLEP Maps indicating the proposed amendments as follows:

i. Height of Buildings Map with maximum Height 17.5m.

ii. Floor Space Ratio Map with maximum FSR 1.5:1.

iii. Heritage Map listing of pillars and their curtilage.

b. inclusion of updated amendment to the KLEP 2015 Written Instrument as follows:

i. to allow Additional Permitted Uses enabling a café and swimming pool on the site via amendment to Schedule 1;

ii. to amend Heritage listing of the pillars via amendment to Schedule 5.

2. recommends that the Proponent be advised of the above and directed to submit the amended Planning Proposal and its Appendices in accordance with the recommendations of this Report and in Attachment 1: Table of Assessment, prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

It is considered that the Planning Proposal demonstrates sufficient strategic and site specific merit such that it should be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination following amendments as outlined in this Report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Recommendation:

A. The Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this Report and Table of Assessment (Attachment A1).

B. That the amended Planning Proposal be submitted for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That Council authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that might arise during the plan making process.

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Table of Assessment - Planning Proposal - 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare)		2024/252285
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal Anglicare “Rohini Village” 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra		2024/174688
	A3	Appendix A - Urban Design Report	Excluded	2024/174687
	A4	Appendix B - Title Documents & Surveys	Excluded	2024/174686
	A5	Appendix C - Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report	Excluded	2024/174685
	A6	Appendix D - Heritage Impact Statement	Excluded	2024/174684
	A7	Appendix E - Traffic & Transport Assessment	Excluded	2024/174683
	A8	Appendix F - Utility and Infrastructure Plans	Excluded	2024/174681
	A9	Appendix G - Biodiversity Advice	Excluded	2024/174680
	A10	Appendix H - Landscape Concept & Drawing Schedule	Excluded	2024/174678
	A11	Appendix I - Feasibility Analysis	Excluded	2024/174677
	A12	Appendix J - Letter of Offer - Planning Agreement	Excluded	2024/174674
	A13	Appendix K - Rohini Village Study	Excluded	2024/174673
	A14	Appendix L - Pre-Consultation Minutes and Responses	Excluded	2024/174672

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.16 / 1

Item GB.16	S13761

Post exhibition report for a planning agreement for the extension of Dorset Drive in St Ives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report to council following the exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement for the extension of Dorset Drive on 139 Rosedale Road St Ives as part of an approved subdivision.

background:	The six (6) lot subdivision of Lot X DP442469 at the end of Dorset Drive, St Ives was the subject of a formal pre-Development Application process followed by the lodgement of DA0109/23.

comments:	A deferred commencement development consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court on 17 April 2024. The deferred commencement condition relates to the progression of the planning agreement. Lot X has been divested by the original owners and is now in the ownership of the developer, Jun Chao Pty Ltd. The draft Planning Agreement has now been exhibited in accordance with the legislative requirements and is returned to Council for consideration.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	To enter into the Planning Agreement to give effect to the dedication of land and the extension of Dorset Drive thereon on 139 Rosedale Road St Ives as part of an approved subdivision under DA0109/23.

Purpose of Report

To report to council following the exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement for the extension of Dorset Drive on 139 Rosedale Road St Ives as part of an approved subdivision.

Background

The proposed six (6) lot subdivision of Lot X DP442469 at the southern end of the present northern part of Dorset Drive in St Ives was the subject of a formal pre-Development Application process. Subsequently DA0109/23 was lodged and was under assessment until April 2024.

Lot X was, at the time of lodgement, in the ownership of Hobbytex Pty Ltd, which retains ownership of two larger blocks to the south of Lot X. The subject Lot X has now been sold to Jun Chao Pty Ltd.

Following an appeal against the deemed refusal (permitted after the DA has not been determined within a set period of time), a formal hearing of the Land and Environment Court was held early in April 2024. The Land and Environment Court determined the Development Application by way of a deferred commencement consent on 17 April 2024.

The deferred commencement condition relates to the execution of a proposed planning agreement in the terms of the letter of offer presented by the developer who now owns the subject property at 139 Rosedale Road St Ives. The development consent cannot operate until the deferred commencement condition is satisfied.

Property Details

Lot X is the northernmost of three lots located between two sections of Dorset Drive in St Ives. It has been sold into the ownership of Jun Chao Pty Ltd and is a wholly separate property that is no longer part of the larger Hobbytex estate. The two lots to the south of Lot X remain in the ownership of Hobbytex Pty Ltd. Dorset Drive also exists to the south of these properties. These lots to the south are currently zoned C4 Environmental Living and Council staff are not aware of any currently active intentions on the part of the property owners to the south at the present time, although it must be noted that it is unlikely that such a large landholding in St Ives will remain as its current use in perpetuity.

At the commencement of the pre-DA and Planning Agreement processes in 2022, the land at 123-139 Rosedale Road was rated as a single property but was made up of two existing allotments being Lot X in DP 442469 (8,625qsm) and Lot A in DP 346690 (2.42ha). In October 2023, the Valuer General created two separate records for the property for valuation and rating purposes and Council’s systems were also consequentially updated. This process facilitated the property at Lot X being separately sold to the developer effective from March 2024. This property is now known as 139 Rosedale Road St Ives and is the only property affected by the development consent [DA0109/23] and this draft planning agreement process.

The property now known as 123 Rosedale Road St Ives, is a separate property of 2.42ha and is not part of these processes. The third property to the south is 115-121 Rosedale Road St Ives being Lot 11 in DP 599537 (1.62ha). Both Lot 11 and Lot A remain in the ownership of Hobbytex Pty Ltd and total just over 4ha in area.

This change in property address, rating and ownership should be borne in mind when viewing earlier reports and references in this process. The draft planning agreement has been updated to the current address reference being 139 Rosedale Road, St Ives. The Land and Environment Court consent for DA0109/23 also references only 139 Rosedale Road St Ives.

The map above also shows the existing subdivision pattern in Dorset Drive to the north of the subject property.

Comments

Public Exhibition

The draft Planning Agreement was exhibited from Wednesday, 26 June 2024 to Wednesday, 24 July 2024 (inclusive), which complies with the minimum of 28 days for public comment to ensure openness and transparency. At the close of the exhibition period eight (8) submissions had been received which have been separately circulated to Councillors.

Two submissions refer to the use of the Sydney Water easement to access Huntley’s Forest at the rear of the properties fronting Dorset Drive. Several of the submissions seem to misconstrue that the cul-de-sac proposed for Dorset Drive and/or the creation of four residential housing lots fronting the cul-de-sac (and two fronting Rosedale Road directly) is being proposed as part of the Planning Agreement and/or that a through road is currently being proposed.

The Planning Agreement does not approve the subdivision or the extension of Dorset Drive. The extension of Dorset Drive is already part of the approved subdivision under DA0109/23 for the site as it is required in order for the new lots to have a street address and vehicular access.

In short, the approved road extension would still be constructed even if the subdivision had been approved as a community title subdivision with the cul-de-sac to be retained in private ownership, but it would not be a public road in the manner of the rest of Dorset Drive. The dedication of the land on which the cul-de-sac extension rests is the primary purpose of the Planning Agreement and contributes to a better public outcome.

The Planning Agreement requires and facilitates the dedication of the land on which the extension of Dorset Drive rests into public ownership, because it is a legal requirement for any land dedication where that land is not explicitly identified and valued within an adopted contributions plan be facilitated by a planning agreement. It also ensures that, because the cul-de-sac will come into public ownership and be maintained by council, that it is constructed to the appropriate standards and inspected during the course of construction to ensure that it is; together with the provision of a defects liability period and a maintenance period where the developer is required to rectify any faults that become apparent. The detailed civil engineering design of the road is required as part of the development consent as approved by the Land and Environment Court on 17 April 2024.

The potential for Dorset Drive to continue into any future subdivision of the lots to the south is not currently being proposed. The sole purpose of ensuring that the edge of the land dedication extends to the southern boundary of Lot X is to retain that possibility into the future rather than effectively terminating one potential outcome prematurely. If the southern lots ever do become the subject of a formal subdivision proposal, that will be the appropriate time to undertake further traffic studies and determine the most appropriate road layout. The dedication area identified at Annexure A of the Planning Agreement simply retains all future options.

Overview of Submissions - Issues and comments

#	Matters raised	Comment
1	On-going use of the Sydney Water easement to maintain Huntleys Forest.	The Sydney Water easement is not being extinguished and is shown clearly on the approved plans associated with the DA. Sydney Water will be further consulted prior to the issue of a Subdivision Works Certificate. It should be noted that the DA was formally referred to Sydney Water shortly after lodgement and the existence of the easement duly iterated at that time.
2	This is impacting Dorset Drive residents to benefit another street; it will make the street busy and cause chaos.	The property that has its formal address as 139 Rosedale Road is approved for a six (6) lot subdivision in an R2 zoned area. Two (2) lots will front Rosedale Road directly. Four (4) lots will front the new cul-de-sac end of Dorset Drive (two on either side). The subdivision reflects the existing allotment pattern in Dorset Drive and Rosedale Road.
3	Construction traffic, accidents, emergency services access. A safe place for children and rare example of a lovely neighbourhood being destroyed for a developer. Residents of Dorset Drive will be heavily impacted.	The approved DA is for four (4) residential lots fronting a new cul-de-sac at the end of Dorset Drive (the other two (2) lots front Rosedale Road directly and do not have access to Dorset Drive) reflecting the existing pattern of subdivision in Dorset Drive. Emergency services (and garbage trucks) will be able to turn around within the new cul-de-sac as distinct from being restricted by the present dead end. This reduces the likelihood of large vehicles reversing in Dorset Drive as it will be made easier to leave the street in a forward direction. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing (Condition #20). The developer must also manage safety in the road reserve (Condition #40).
4	Garbage trucks have to reverse back down Dorset Drive because they are unable to turn around at the bottom of the street. Emergency services find it difficult the access the end of the street. A through road would be disastrous. Traffic management needed for construction phase. Sydney Water’s easement used to access Huntleys Reserve.	The approved DA includes a cul-de-sac head so that garbage trucks and emergency services vehicles will be able to turn around and leave Dorset Drive in a forwards direction. A through road is not being proposed as part of this Planning Agreement or the associated DA. The land dedication extends to the southern boundary of 139 Rosedale Road simply in order to keep that option open as a possibility for future consideration. There are two properties totalling c.4ha between the two sections of Dorset Drive, as such, any future subdivision of the whole would require extensive site-specific masterplanning at some unknown point in the future. Sydney Water’s easement is not being extinguished. Sydney Water will (again) be consulted prior to the issue of a Subdivision Works Certificate and a s73 compliance certificate is also required as part of this process. (Condition #27 & #63 of the approved DA). A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing (Condition #20).
5	Lack of detail for construction traffic management.	The requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing is Condition #20 of the approved Development Application. Roads Act approval is Condition #26. Road Reserve safety is Condition #40. The primary purpose of the Planning Agreement is to facilitate the dedication of the land and the road thereon into public ownership.
6	A holistic plan for this multi-hectare site should be developed including a comprehensive traffic management plan. Access roads during construction must be provided for – recent single dwelling projects have caused problems with construction traffic – all construction traffic for this project should come from Rosedale Road. The intersection of Shinfield & Dorset has restricted visibility (previously advised to council).	Lot X at 139 Rosedale Road is 8,625sqm and is no longer part of the Hobbytex landholding. It existed as a separate lot prior to this process commencing. As such Council is obliged to assess this separate application on its stand-alone merits. DA0109/23 was appealed as a deemed refusal and approved by the Land & Environment Court on 17 April 2024. It is unknown when, or even if, Hobbytex may wish to undertake planning for its multi-hectare landholding and the development of this now separate site cannot be required to wait for that event. There is no concrete proposal for a through road, simply an annotation that this is one of many possibilities that will eventually form part of a future masterplanning process of a potential future subdivision layout on the Hobbytex lots. Retention of this option affects the size and shape of the land dedication area on the subject site so is duly referred to. There is a requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing (Condition #20). The safety issues at the intersection of Shinfield & Dorset cannot be addressed as part of a planning agreement that simply facilitates land & road dedication, but the issue can (again) be drawn to the attention of the traffic planners in council.
7	Supports the new turning circle, especially as an aid to emergency and waste vehicles but concerned about construction traffic as even single house renovations or landscaping works have impacted the street. Concerned about future through traffic. Concerned about intersection of Shinfield & Dorset with restricted visibility from parked vehicles and morning glare. Clearly there is negative impact.	There is a requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing (Condition #20). The safety issues at the intersection of Shinfield & Dorset cannot be addressed as part of a planning agreement that simply facilitates land & road dedication, but the issue can (again) be drawn to the attention of the traffic planners in council. The impacts mentioned arise from the approved development under DA0109/23 and not directly from the planning agreement which only facilitates the dedication of that land (and the road thereon) that is approved by that consent, into public ownership.
8	Safety concerns for the residents of Dorset Drive during construction. Concern regarding the drainage of the land due to the change in topography as a result of the subdivision.	There is a requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted to Council for approval prior to any work commencing (Condition #20) as well as on-going safety in the Road Reserve during construction (Condition #40). Inter-allotment drainage is part of the approved development consent. Further approval from Sydney Water is required as part of the subdivision works. The civil engineering design of the road extension must also address council drainage requirements.

While a number of the issues raised cannot be addressed by a Planning Agreement that simply facilitates the dedication of the land (and the road thereon) that forms part of the approved subdivision of Lot X only, an overriding theme is the significant concern regarding construction traffic during the process of the subdivision works. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions made during this exhibition, be provided internally to staff who will be involved in the future assessment of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to ensure these concerns are noted. It is not the role of this report to recommend that construction traffic for this six (6) lot subdivision should access the site solely from Rosedale Road, as this is a matter for separate detailed assessment, but the issues raised by the residents of Dorset Drive should be a matters for consideration for the future CTMP.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme Three: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.

P8.1.1.1.1.1-2

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan

2010 ensures new development contributes towards the cost of delivering supporting infrastructure.

P4.1 Our centres offer a broad

range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community’s assets

Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

Governance Matters

The negotiation of this draft Planning Agreement has been guided by Ku‑ring‑gai Planning Agreement Policy 2019.

The draft Planning Agreement has been prepared with input from the Property Unit, Operations and the Corporate Lawyer. Council appointed Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers to act on its behalf, the firm which also had carriage of other Planning Agreements involving the dedication of land for the expansion of the road reserve either for increased carriageway and / or for pedestrian improvements. The developers / landowners of the site at 139 Rosedale Road St Ives also retained their own independent legal advisor.

Risk Management

Council has commissioned an external legal team to assist with the drafting of the Planning Agreements. This legal firm has assisted council with several prior matters of land dedication for public road reserves.

Financial Considerations

The dedication of the land at the southern end of Dorset Drive (North) will extend the road reserve in front of four (4) additional standard size allotment residential properties, comparable to similar properties to the north that also front Dorset Drive (two (2) allotments will also front Rosedale Road as part of this six (6) lot subdivision). The approved subdivision will also provide a cul-de-sac and turning facilities for larger vehicles such as garbage trucks and emergency services. At present, Dorset Drive simply ends in a dead end without additional turning space. This improved access for waste service vehicles is also a benefit for the future delivery of these services in Dorset Drive.

The dedication will, after the expiration of the maintenance and defects liability period, result in some additional costs in the future over a relatively small area. However, this is outweighed by the benefit of having the extended section of the public road in public ownership.

Social Considerations

The dedication of the land on which rests an extension to Dorset Drive with a cul-de-sac termination (under DA0109/23) into public ownership and control is appropriate. That is the principal purpose of the proposed Planning Agreement, is to facilitate that dedication and to ensure Council’s requirements are met.

Any social considerations arising from the subdivisions proposal itself were matters for the Development Application assessment rather than the Planning Agreement.

Environmental Considerations

The draft Planning Agreement involves only the dedication of land for the purpose of extending Dorset Drive and the logistics of the delivery of the cul-de-sac. Environmental considerations are a core component of the development assessment process for any application. The development assessment process for the subject site has been completed. Consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court on 17 April 2024.

Community Consultation

Internal Consultation

Staff members from Urban Planning, Operations, the Property Unit and the Corporate Lawyer have been directly involved in this matter. Council appointed Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers to act on their behalf.

Summary

This report summarises the background to the draft Planning Agreement for the dedication of land extending Dorset Drive St Ives onto 139 Rosedale Road St Ives as part of a now DA approved six (6) lot subdivision of that site under DA0109/23 (LEC2023/00167405).

It is desirable that the road land be dedicated into public ownership from the present end of Dorset Drive through to the property boundary to the south to retain the possibility for future extension, subject to the formal assessment, exhibition and reporting of any such application that may eventuate. This is a component of the orderly redevelopment of land and ensures access for services, including refuse and recycling and for emergency services.

It is emphasised that the land dedication extends to the southern boundary of the lot only to retain the possibility of future extension in the event that the larger land holdings to the south are redeveloped at some time in the future. As previously noted, any such proposal would be the subject of extensive future assessment, exhibition and reporting. At present, staff are not aware of any concrete proposals to redevelop that land holding though it must be noted that it is unlikely to remain as a rural holding in perpetuity.

The primary purpose of the planning agreement is to achieve the dedication of the land into public ownership and to manage the process of the road delivery to ensure council’s standards are met and that council retains security for the defects liability and maintenance period after its completion. This is similar to the delivery of Hanson Way in Gordon by two of the adjoining developments, though on a much smaller scale.

It is reiterated that the civil engineering design of the road, construction traffic management plans and other concerns are matters for the either the Development Application, the subdivision works approvals, Sydney Water approvals and/or a future Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). These are not matters for inclusion in the Planning Agreement.

The draft Planning Agreement and Explanatory Note (page 22 of the draft Planning Agreement) is attached at Attachment A1 and it is recommended that council proceed to enter into the planning agreement and to take the necessary steps to execute it in order to facilitate council ownership of the new area of road as a public road. A draft plan of subdivision showing the land dedication area is included within the document at Annexure A.

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolve to enter into the Planning Agreement with Jun Chao Pty Ltd as specified in Attachment A1.

B. That Council grant delegation to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Planning Agreement under the Common Seal.

C. That delegation be granted to the General Manager, or his delegate, to make any minor administrative changes or typographical corrections to the document to protect Council’s interests, provided they do not alter the overall intent.

D. That the Planning Agreement register be updated to include the Planning Agreement for the extension of Dorset Drive on 139 Rosedale Road St Ives upon the execution of the Planning Agreement.

E. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to give effect to the requirements of the Planning Agreement after execution, as they apply to actions required of the Council as particularised in the Planning Agreement.

F. That Council authorises the General Manager and the Mayor to execute all documentation associated with the foregoing transactions and conveyances, including the fixing of the Common Seal, if required.

G. That the public submissions arising from the exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement be provided to staff involved in the assessment and approval of the future Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) especially with regard to access to the site by construction traffic.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Coordinator

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇩

Draft Planning Agreement 139 Rosedale Road and Dorset Drive St Ives

2024/251781

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	CY00458/12

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	S04141

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	S13163

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	FY00432/15

	Name of Organisation	Amount Recommended
1	Salvation Army	$20,000
2	Catholic Care	$20,000
3	Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury Sydney Ltd	$20,000
4	St Vincent de Paul Society NSW	$20,000

purpose of report:	To provide Council with the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 13 June 2024 for adoption.

background:	The current Council Advisory/ Reference Committees Guideline (the Guideline) was adopted by Council on the 11 January 2022. Clause 3.7 (Minutes of Meetings) of The Guideline provides, in part, that: The draft minutes of a meeting will be circulated to committee members within 10 working days of the meeting. Members will be provided with 5 working days to comment on the accuracy of the minutes and will subsequently be referred to the Chair for approval to submit to Council as an accurate record of the meeting. Once approved by the Chair, the minutes will be put to an Ordinary Meeting of Council for adoption. The recommendations of a committee, so far as adopted by the Council at an Ordinary Meeting of Council, are resolutions of the Council. The minutes will also be placed on the agenda to be noted at the subsequent committee meeting.

comments:	In accordance with the Guideline the draft minutes of the Audit Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 21 March 2024 were circulated to the committee members for comment after which they were approved by the Chair. These are now provided to Council for adoption.

recommendation:	That the minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 13 June 2024 be adopted.

purpose of report:	That Council receive and note the minutes from the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group (‘SRAG’) meeting held on 25 June 2024 and endorse the recommendations within.

background:	Council is required to receive and note the minutes of the SRAG and to make them available via Council’s website. SRAG minutes are confirmed by SRAG members prior to being presented to Council.

comments:	The SRAG met on 25 June 2024 and discussed issues relating to recreation in natural areas. The minutes of the meeting have been attached to this report as Attachment A1.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group minutes from 25 June 2024 and endorse the recommendations within.

purpose of report:	To advise Council of applications received for the 2024 Ku-ring-gai Council Emergency Relief Support Grant, and to recommend funding for eligible community organisations.

background:	At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 20 February 2024, Council resolved to create a temporary priority funding area within the existing Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program, to support families and individuals experiencing financial hardship. An additional $150,000 was allocated for this new priority funding area and eligible organisations already providing emergency relief in this area were invited to apply for this funding.

comments:	Emergency Relief Support Grant guidelines and parameters were developed through a co-design process with established organisations experienced in the delivery of emergency relief funding and services. The model for distribution is aligned with emergency relief support delivery models used by Commonwealth and NSW Government agencies. The grants assessment panel has recommended a total of $80,000 for initial distribution to community organisations meeting the eligibility criteria, with top up funding to be allocated in $10,000 increments, requested based on community demand.

recommendation:	That Council approve the recommendations in this report for funding eligible community organisations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	S08654

purpose of report:	To provide Council with a Prevention of Violence Against Women draft Action Plan 2024-2025.

background:	At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 21 May 2024, Council resolved to develop a Prevention of Violence Against Women Action Plan, with the draft plan to be presented to Council by August 2024. A working group comprising experts from the Domestic Family Violence Sector was established to advise and inform the draft action plan.

comments:	The draft Prevention of Violence Against Women Action Plan is a strategic document that seeks to increase awareness and prevent domestic, family, and sexual violence. It identifies specific actions to be implemented over the next 12 months, and a further commitment from Council to continue to work towards these goals.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council adopt the Prevention of Violence Against Women draft Action Plan 2024 – 2025.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	FY00623/7
	24 July 2024

purpose of report:	To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 30 June 2024.

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 quarter ended 30 June 2024, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to the Land and Environment Court were $1,183,240. This compares with the annual budget of $1,338,800.

recommendation:	That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 30 June 2024 be received and noted.

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2019/2020	25
2020/2021	13
2021/2022	18
2022/2023	36
2023/2024 (as at 30 June 2024)	15

Land & Environment Court Costs 2019/2020 - 2023/2024
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
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 (36 appeals lodged)	$1,261,734	$324,397	$300,017	$474,367	$162,953
2023/2024 (15 appeals lodged)	$ 1,183,240	$381,788	$366,869	$204,835	$229,748

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	S09093/12
	25 July 2024

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To seek endorsement from Council to carry forward the attached list of 2023/24 projects into the current financial year.

background:	The attached list of projects was originally included in the 2023/24 budget by formal resolution of Council on 20 June 2023. Budgets voted for some works have not been fully spent and accordingly are requested to be carried forward into the current financial period. Some projects were committed to be completed but work concluded after year end.

comments:	The total requested carried forward works is $62.5m. The proposed expenditure is funded from internal and external reserves.

recommendation:	That Council approve the attached list of 2023/24 carried forward projects into the current financial year.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	FY00382/16

purpose of report:	To report to Council on the progress of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, for the period January to June 2024.

background:	A progress report on the Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be presented to Council every six months under the Local Government Act. This biannual report marks completion of the Delivery Program for this term of Council.

comments:	This report provides a summary of progress and performance for the Delivery Program and Operational Plan for the period January to June 2024.

recommendation:	That the six month progress review of the Delivery -Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

Item	Green traffic light /tick	Amber traffic light	Red traffic light	White traffic light
Tasks	92.5%	6.5%	1%	1 task*
Term Achievements	94%	4.5%	1.5%	1 term achievement*
Performance Indicators (1 year) **	79% achieved	-	21% not achieved
* The task and term achievement indicated with a white traffic light have not been included in % performance calculations. ** Results for five (5) financial performance indicators are not available until completion of the end of year financial review and external audit. Those indicators have not been included in % performance calculations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	FY00623/7
	28 July 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	FY00581/10

purpose of report:	To note key dates for the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Annual Conference 2024.

background:	The LGNSW Annual Conference will be held from 17 to 19 November 2024 at the Tamworth Regional Entertainment and Conference Centre. All LGNSW member councils are invited to submit motions to the Annual Conference.

comments:	A memo was circulated to Councillors before the July meeting of Council requesting that any proposed motions be provided to the General Manager. No motions have been received to date. A report will be provided to the new Council in October to invite Councillors to attend the conference.

recommendation:	That Council note the information in this report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.11 / 1

Item GB.11	FY00621/6

purpose of report:	To provide Council with the Project Status Report for May, June and July 2024.

background:	On 22 May 2018, a Notice of Motion was considered by Council regarding the development of a monthly Project Status Report. On 14 May 2019, Council resolved to extend the reporting timeframe from monthly to a quarterly.

comments:	The Notice of Motion noted that while projects are reported to Council and the community through a number of other reports, the frequency of reporting is a more reliable and recurring method to update Council and the community. The report will be placed on Council’s website following Council’s resolution.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for May, June and July 2024.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.12 / 1

Item GB.12	S12433/5

purpose of report:	To consider the results of the formal tender process for the leasing of fitness equipment, both cardio and strength equipment for the Ku-ring-gai Fitness & Aquatic Centre (KFAC).

background:	The current gym equipment at the KFAC has reached its useful life and requires renewal. Council reviewed The Y NSW’s proposal to upgrade the gym equipment and agreed that Life Fitness, a manufacturer of gym equipment is the logical choice. Council is seeking to enter into a leasing agreement with options up to 5 years, with payments made monthly over the agreed term. The KFAC is currently managed by The Y N.S.W on behalf of Council.

comments:	At the time of closure of tenders on Tuesday, 7 May 2024, Council received a total of four (4) submissions. Two (2) of the submitted tenders were compliant with all procurement and governance requirements, two (2) tenders were non-compliant and in accordance with the requirements of the Tender Evaluation Plan and were therefore excluded from further consideration.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	Council accepts the 5-Year (60 Month) leasing term of Tenderer ‘A’ from the attached RFT12-2024 Tender Evaluation report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	GB.13 / 1

Item GB.13	S06198

purpose of report:	To present the draft revised Planning Agreement Policy to Council for approval to place on public exhibition.

background:	Ku-ring-gai Council has had a formal adopted Planning Agreement Policy since 2008. This policy provides guidelines and procedures for the receipt, negotiation, content and execution of Planning Agreements associated with Planning Proposals or Development Applications in Ku-ring-gai. The policy has been reviewed several times since 2008 with the most recent version being adopted in 2019.

comments:	Since the 2019 review, revised guidelines have been issued by the Department of Planning in 2021 and further revised guidelines were exhibited ended on 23 February 2024. The original target date for review (November 2023) was necessarily extended to accommodate the changes in the policy sphere.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That the draft revised Planning Agreement Policy be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and a report be brought back to council at the close of the exhibition period.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	NM.1 / 1

Item NM.1	EM00043/7

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 August 2024	NM.2 / 1

Item NM.2	S13467