Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 22 July 2025 AT 7:00 PM

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

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

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

The Livestream can be viewed here:

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

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

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

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

The Oath or Affirmation taken is as below:

Oath:

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

Affirmation:

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

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Documents Circulated to Councillors

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

NOTE:

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

C.1 Update on Council land acquisitions for open space

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

NOTE:

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

GB.8 RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground

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

Attachment 2: RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade - St Ives Showground - List of Submitters

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

Attachment 3: RFT57-2024/R Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground - Tender Evaluation Report

GB.9 Tender NSROC - RFT1-2025 - Road Surfacing, Patching, and Associated Works – 2025 to 2027

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

Attachment 1: Asphalt-2027 - Tender evaluation report FINAL

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Council 14

File: EM00046/5

Meeting held 5 June 2025

Minutes numbered 81 to 87

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 62

File: EM00046/5

Meeting held 17 June 2025

Minutes numbered 88 to 106

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) preferred scenario update 82

File: S14427

The purpose of this Mayoral Minute is to update Council and the community on the current situation since Council adopted the preferred scenario for new development along the Gordon to Roseville rail corridor.

Background

In May 2024, the Government implemented the TOD planning policy for areas within 400 metres of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon stations.

In cooperation with the NSW Government, Council prepared an alternate preferred scenario to the TOD based on planning principles to preserve important built heritage and the natural environment.

The preferred scenario was developed with extensive community feedback received after the Council consulted with the community on alternative solutions to the TOD.

On 5 June 2025, Council adopted a preferred scenario for new development in the Gordon to Roseville rail corridor, to replace the TOD planning controls.

The preferred scenario was submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for approval (DPHI).

Legal proceedings remain

As part of the legal proceedings Council engaged in mediation with the NSW Government. It was agreed that Council would work to deliver an alternative housing plan with at least the same number of additional dwellings as the TOD. The alternate plan is yet to be gazetted by the government and for the time being the legal proceedings remain on foot.

State Significant Developments

The TOD planning controls allowed State Significant Development (SSD) applications to be lodged with the DPHI up until 13 June 2025.

SSD applications are assessed by DPHI and determined by the Minister for Planning or the Independent Planning Commission. Council is notified of and invited to comment on SSD applications at the exhibition stage, but otherwise plays no part in the assessment process.

Ku-ring-gai Council is a referral body only, without any decision-making authority.

Uniform Apartment Setbacks

There have been recent suggestions that Council implement uniform apartment setbacks. This may undermine the integrity of existing planning principles or potentially compromise well-integrated development.

Uniform setback requirements would not consider the significant difference between the housing typologies included in Council’s alternate scenario, ranging from three story apartments to 9, 12-15 and 20 plus story buildings in town centres and suburban locations.

The NSW Apartment Design Guide already takes into account setbacks when assessing DAs.

Heritage properties

Under the TOD planning policy, individually listed heritage items were not provided with any uplift to planning controls. Under Council’s preferred scenario, these properties have been provided with the same uplift as adjacent properties which provides increased opportunity for consolidation into development proposals.

I have also recently written to The Hon. Paul Scully, Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, seeking his guidance to ask if we could work collaboratively on the future of heritage homes stranded by the TOD and Preferred Scenario - “we are seeking your guidance on how a transparent, case-by-case process might be established to address the concerns of heritage property owners affected by this evolving policy context. Council remains committed to working closely with the Department to find constructive and fair outcomes.”

Heritage conservation areas

Council’s preferred scenario protects as many heritage conservation areas from development as possible, on the east side of Killara and Roseville in particular.

Protecting all conservation areas was not possible given the dwelling targets Council had to meet.

Recommendation:

That this Mayoral Minute be placed on the Council website

Petitions

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 12 June 2025 84

File: CY00458/13

To provide Council with the minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 12 June 2025 for adoption.

Recommendation:

That the minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 12 June 2025 be adopted.

GB.2 Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 5 June 2025 & 2025-26 Heritage Home Grants Allocation 95

File: FY00674/2

For Council to consider the minutes from the previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 5 June 2025 and HRC recommendations for the applications under the Heritage Home Grants (HHG) program for 2025/26.

Recommendation:

A. That Council receive and note the HRC minutes at Attachment A1 from the meeting held on 5 June 2025.

B. That Council approves the Heritage Home Grant funding as set out in Attachment A2.

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

GB.3 Environment Committee Minutes - June 2025 109

File: S14696

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee meeting held on 23 June 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee meeting held on 23 June 2025.

GB.4 Flood Risk Management Committee Meeting Minutes 116

File: S10746

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meetings held on 23 July 2024 and 10 June 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meetings held on 23 July 2024 and 10 June 2025.

GB.5 Investment Report as at 30 June 2025 128

File: FY00623/8

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for June 2025.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for June 2025 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.6 Review of Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy 137

File: CY00474/12

For Council to adopt the updated Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy and expense limits for the first year of this Council term.

Recommendation:

That the updated Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. If any submissions are received, the matter be reported back to Council after the consultation period. If no submissions are received, that Council adopt the updated policy to come into effect on 1 October 2025.

GB.7 Draft Policies
Sportsfields Bookings Policy
Sportsfields Closure Policy 165

File: S03881

For Council to consider and endorse the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and the Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

GB.8 RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground 190

File: RFT57-2024/R

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the tenders received for RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground and to appoint the preferred tenderer for construction.

Recommendation:

In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulation 2021, it is recommended Council accept the Tender submitted by Tenderer ‘A’.

GB.9 Tender NSROC - RFT1-2025 - Road Surfacing, Patching, and Associated Works – 2025 to 2027 196

File: FY00662/6

To seek Council's approval to accept the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) tender for the schedule of rates for supply; supply and delivery; and supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete, including associated road profiling and heavy patching and other work items for the period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

Recommendation:

In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations 2021, it is recommended Council accept the recommendation as detailed in the Confidential Attachment 1.

GB.10 Project Status Report - July 2025 202

File: FY00621/8

To provide Council with the Project Status Report for April – June 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for April – June 2025.

GB.11 Ku-ring-gai DCP - Local Character Areas 208

File: S14276

For Council to consider the amendment of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character Areas and endorse its public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the updates proposed to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14, as detailed in Attachment A2 of this report for public exhibition.

GB.12 Draft Site-Specific DCP - Pymble Golf Club 304

File: S12645

To have Council consider an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include site-specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for Pymble Golf Course (4,12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives).

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP amendments for the purpose of public exhibition.

GB.13 Environmental Levy Grant Program -
Round 27 323

File: CY00848/2

To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the recommendations of the Environmental Levy Grants Assessment Panel to fund sixteen (16) projects, totalling $99,191.00 under round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

GB.14 Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study - Post Exhibition Report 333

File: S12747

For present the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study for Council endorsement.

Recommendation:

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

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Reaffirming Council's position on TOD SEPP, and addressing the cancellation of the Extraordinary Meeting of Council (2 July 2025) 635

File: S14427

Notice of Motion from Councillors Devlin and Smith dated 4 July 2025

On 27th June 2025, an Extraordinary Meeting of Council (EMC) was called at the request of two Councillors, Cr. Cedric Spencer & Cr. Jeff Pettett, purportedly to consider a motion relating to “Proposed Additions to the GB1 TOD Alternative on the Preferred Scenario”. This was widely interpreted as an attempt to revisit Council’s formally adopted position on the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP Preferred Scenario. A position established through rigorous & robust debate, lengthy & comprehensive community consultation, and proper process, and currently under active review by the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI).

The calling of the EMC caused significant and unnecessary confusion within the community. Many residents, some of whom had been active and constructive participants in the consultation process, were misled into believing that Council’s position had changed, or was in the process of changing. Others were left questioning the integrity of Council’s processes and decision-making.

Most concerning was the way in which a handful of residents were drawn into this political exercise under false pretences. Their genuine concerns were weaponised, used as a prop to give legitimacy to a poorly conceived, procedurally questionable motion that was hastily cobbled together without policy basis. Residents were offered false hope that individual concerns could be resolved by bypassing Council’s established processes. That hope was misplaced, and the blame for that lies squarely with the Councillors who orchestrated this stunt masqueraded as planning reform.

The EMC motion and its accompanying proposal not only sought to re-litigate resolved matters, it did so based on flawed reasoning, misstatements of planning law, and a fundamental misunderstanding of Council’s operational, legal and policy constraints. Multiple elements of the EMC proposal were factually incorrect, procedurally invalid, or potentially legally unworkable. Council seeks to formally correct the public record on numerous counts, including:

· False claims about legal proceedings: The EMC motion called for Council to drop legal action prematurely, despite no certainty from the State Government regarding the adoption of Council’s alternate TOD scenario (whilst noting that at present there has been positive engagement with DPHI). Doing so could have exposed Council to strategic risk and weakened its negotiating position. Something the proponents either failed to grasp or deliberately ignored;

· Baseless innuendo around conflicts of interest: The original motion (not sent to Councillors by the proponents, but to residents and only shared to Councillors by a resident upon request) implied that Councillors may not have declared conflicts of interest, despite the fact that all relevant disclosures had been made. This implication is untrue;

· Legally flawed proposals around heritage: The motion attempted to allow for widespread demolition or delisting of heritage properties based purely on context loss. This approach is entirely contrary to NSW heritage law. It misled residents into thinking Council had power it does not possess, and proposed changes that would likely undermine the very protections residents expect Council to uphold;

· Misleading references to planning instruments: The proposal wrongly suggested that Council could dictate oversight of State Significant Developments (SSD), when in fact Council is a referral body only. Similarly, it misrepresented the processes and timelines for preparing a Development Control Plan (DCP) and amending the LEP, processes which depend on the Department's support and cannot be bypassed;

· Developer-aligned planning amendments: Elements of the EMC motion, including proposals for uniform apartment setbacks and increased floor space ratios for “luxury homes”, bore the hallmarks of developer lobbying. These amendments ignored the evidence-based and strategic logic behind Council’s alternative, and could have led to adverse outcomes in terms of urban tree canopy, biodiversity, and local character; and,

· Recycling a previously rejected policy: The motion’s calls for an “LGA-wide” approach were virtually identical to an earlier proposal that had already been debated and rejected by Council in March 2024. The attempt to resurrect it via an Extraordinary Meeting, rather than through standard policy channels, reflected a disregard for process and institutional memory.

These actions not only misled residents but also insulted the extensive engagement process already undertaken. To suggest that the community had not been consulted, as implied in the EMC notice’s reference to a need for “thoughtful, community-driven urban planning rather than piecemeal adjustments”, was not only disingenuous, but demonstrably false. The TOD SEPP response was arguably the subject of the most extensive community consultation ever undertaken by Ku-ring-gai Council. There were three phases of consultation commencing in January 2024, through until May 2025 were; Phase 1 – “Initial Consultation”, Phase 2 – “Development Scenarios”, and Phase 3 – “Preferred Scenario Feedback”.

Statistics on the multiple community engagement campaigns highlight the breadth of the process and depth the response:

• Phase 1 (January 2024) – Initial Consultation:

o Communications Reach:

▪ 48,000 flyer mailout (residential and business ratepayers and occupiers);

▪ 23,388 project webpage visits (6 January – 16 February);

▪ 36,000+ E-newsletter subscribers;

▪ 3,000 reach on Facebook posts;

▪ 2,388 impressions on NextDoor;

▪ 715 impressions on LinkedIn; and,

▪ High-level media coverage: ABC Radio, 2GB, Channel 9, Channel 7,

Channel 10, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Sky

News.

o Engagement:

▪ 5,307 survey responses (largest opt-in survey in Ku-ring-gai in past 10-

years);

▪ 508 attendees at public forum (144 in-person, 364 online);

▪ 774 registrations for information session;

▪ 7,000+ clicks on e-news articles; and,

▪ Peak daily participation of 929 survey responses on 15th February.

• Phase 2 (November/December 2024) – Development Scenarios:

o Communications Reach:

▪ 26,995 letters sent to property owners/occupants in Roseville and Gordon

Wards;

▪ 63,000 e-newsletter subscribers across multiple lists:

• Ku-ring-gai News: 37,865 subscribers;

• Business Bulletin: 20,972 subscribers;

• Business E-news: 1,814 subscribers;

• Special planning e-news: 2,046 subscribers; and,

• Yoursay E-news: 1,187 subscribers.

▪ 37,011 total page visits to engagement hub;

▪ 12,561 unique visitors;

▪ 20,108 document downloads;

▪ 60 Council-owned bus shelters with advertising across LGA; and,

▪ Electronic billboard over Pacific Highway at Gordon.

o Engagement:

▪ 3,815 total survey responses (2,946 online verified + 869 paper)

▪ 303 meeting attendees across sessions:

▪ 210 at two public meetings

▪ 93 at online forum

▪ 65 at two paid workshops

▪ 51 at drop-in sessions

▪ 193 telephone survey participants

▪ 657 written submissions (514 regular + 143 late)

• Phase 3 (April 2025) – Preferred Scenario Feedback:

o Communications Reach:

▪ 27,000 letters sent to property owners/occupants in Roseville and Gordon

Wards;

▪ 660 emails sent to Phase 1 participants;

▪ 38,000+ e-newsletter subscribers across multiple lists:

• Ku-ring-gai News: 38,000 subscribers;

• Business E-news: 1,800 subscribers;

• Yoursay E-news: 1,187 subscribers; and,

• Housing e-news: 2,046 subscribers.

▪ 1,505 reach, 119 engagement on Facebook;

▪ 12,341 total page visits to engagement hub;

▪ 5,270 unique visitors;

▪ 844 document downloads; and,

▪ Media distribution to 40+ local and national media contacts.

o Engagement:

▪ 2,020 verified survey responses;

▪ 120 individuals attended community drop-in session (approximately 80

groups); and,

▪ 293 written feedback items received via email.

To claim this process was “piecemeal” is not only misleading, it’s an insult to the thousands of residents who took the time to participate in good faith. Arguably, no planning process in the Municipality’s history has achieved greater reach, participation or transparency. To suggest otherwise undermines the integrity of process and those involved.

The EMC was ultimately cancelled after the two Councillors who had requested it, Cr. Cedric Spencer & Cr. Jeff Pettett, withdrew their support. By then, however, the damage was done: staff time had been wasted, residents had been misled, and Council’s public credibility had again been eroded by political gamesmanship masked as policy reform.

This motion seeks to place on the public record a clear repudiation of that behaviour. It reaffirms Council’s legitimate, evidence-based position on the TOD SEPP, and sends a message to residents and Councillors alike, that Council’s processes are not for political manoeuvring. Councillors have a responsibility to use their powers with integrity, and to work in the service of the whole community, not to advance personal agendas, or to play to the gallery.

The process adopted by Council arguably represents best practice within the time constraints imposed.

We, therefore, move that Council:

1. Notes that the Extraordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for 2nd July 2025 was cancelled following the withdrawal of support from the two Councillors who originally requested it;

2. Acknowledges that the meeting was convened for the purposes of reconsidering elements of Council’s adopted position on the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP response. A position that was subject to extensive community consultation and is currently under active review by the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure;

3. Further acknowledges the significant concern and confusion caused in the community by the calling of the Extraordinary Meeting of Council, which gave the false impression that Council was reconsidering or overturning its resolved position;

4. Confirms that the proposed motion for the Extraordinary Meeting of Council was inconsistent with Council’s previous resolution on the matter and was not supported by Council or the community;

5. Requests the General Manager to publish this resolution on Council’s website and to

communicate it in the next available Council newsletter and social media update, to provide

clarity to residents.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

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

Questions With Notice

QN.1 Transport Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP Legal Proceedings 640

File: S14427

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 Update on Council land acquisitions for open space

File: S04601/16

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

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

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

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

Report by Director Strategy & Environment

David Marshall

General Manager

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

MINUTES OF Extraordinary Meeting
HELD ON Thursday, 22 May 2025 (ADJOURNED)

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor Christine Kay (Chairperson) Councillor M Devlin (online) (Comenarra Ward) Councillors I Balachandran & B Ward (Gordon Ward) Councillors S Ngai & A Taylor (Roseville Ward) Councillor M Smith (St Ives Ward) Councillor K Wheatley (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:	General Manager (David Marshall) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Director Corporate (Angela Apostol) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) 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) Governance Support Officer (Eliza Gilbank-Heim)

Others Present:	Team Leader Urban Design (Bill Royal) Team Leader Urban Planning (Craige Wyse) Senior Urban Designer (Stephanie Griffiths) Urban Design Projects Officer (Fae Sarshoghi)

The Meeting commenced at 7:30 PM

The Mayor offered the Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer.

Apologies

File: S02194

The Mayor advised of an apology from Councillor Pettett due to a prior commitment and from Councillor Spencer due to a work commitment.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Taylor)

That the apologies be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor Taylor declared a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in GB.1 as his principal place of residence may be impacted by the proposed planning controls. Councillor Taylor tabled a special disclosure of pecuniary interest under clause 4.36(c) of the Code of Conduct and will remain in Chambers during this debate.

Councillor Ward declared a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in GB.1 as her principal place residence may be impacted by the proposed planning controls. Councillor Ward tabled a special disclosure of pecuniary interest under clause 4.36(c) of the Code of Conduct and will remain in Chambers during this debate.

Councillor Ngai declared a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in GB.1 as his parents-in-law’s principal place of residence may be impacted by the proposed planning controls. Councillor Ngai tabled a special disclosure of pecuniary interest under clause 4.36(c) of the Code of Conduct and will remain in Chambers during this debate.

Councillor Balachandran declared a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in GB.1 as both her principal place of residence and her parents principal place of residence may be impacted by the proposed planning controls. Councillor Balachandran tabled a special disclosure of pecuniary interest under clause 4.36(c) of the Code of Conduct and will remain in Chambers during this debate.

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:

GB.2 - SSD and local development applications in the TOD - change to savings provisions - Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 19 May 2025.

Memorandums:

Confidential Memorandum for GB.1 TOD alternative – preferred scenario – proposed amendments – post exhibition (copies of submissions received by Council) from the Director of Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 16 May 2025.

Memorandum for GB.1 TOD – alternative – preferred scenario – proposed amendments – post exhibition and GB.2 SSD and local development applications in the TOD – change to savings provisions from the Director of Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 22 May 2025. A copy of this Memorandum is attached to the Minutes.

PETITIONS

82	Stop the inappropriate R4 zoned 12 metre developments on the fence lines of Treatts Road, Blenheim Road and 18 Kenilworth Road Heritage Conservation Area properties in Lindfield File: EM00047/3 Vide: PT.1

	Petition to Ku-ring-gai Council We, the undersigned call upon Ku-ring-gai Council to reject the proposed development of R4 zoned 12 metre high dwellings on the fence lines of Treatts Road, Blenheim Road and 18 Kenilworth Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) properties in Lindfield. This proposal threatens the heritage character, residential amenity and community integrity of our neighbourhood. Key Objections: 1. Heritage and Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) Impact · The proposed 12-Meter dwellings are incompatible with the character and scale of the heritage conservation area. · A 12-meter-high built form at the end of a traditional garden will create an overbearing presence and destroy the established visual harmony of the area. The scale and bulk are entirely inconsistent with the low-rise character that defines HCAs. · Protecting Ku-ring-gai’s heritage means more than preserving individual buildings—it requires a commitment to the broader context, including garden settings, view corridors, and cohesive streetscapes. Allowing R4 zoned 12-meter-high dwellings in these sensitive interfaces contradicts this purpose. 2. Loss of Amenity · The proximity of the apartments to the fence line will result in a loss of privacy, overshadowing, and visual bulk. · The height will block natural sunlight to existing gardens and living spaces. · The noise and traffic from increased density will degrade the peaceful residential environment. 3. Traffic, Parking, and Infrastructure Stress · Increased traffic and parking pressure on narrow heritage streets. · Potential strain on local infrastructure, including drainage and utilities, not designed for this density. We urge Ku-ring-gai Council to: · Adhere to a road-based transition principle versus fence line to protect Heritage Conservation Area properties. · Remove the R4 12-meter zoning for properties in 2-16 Kenilworth and 1-19 Highgate Road, Lindfield. (609 signatures) (updated on 5 June)
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Taylor/Ngai) That the petition be tabled and forwarded to the relevant officer for appropriate action. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Wheatley)

That the meeting be adjourned until 7pm on Thursday 5 June 2025 at Council Chambers.

For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Kay, Councillors Devlin Smith and Wheatley

Against the Motion: Councillors Balachandran, Ngai, Taylor and Ward

The voting being EQUAL, the Mayor exercised her casting vote IN FAVOUR of the Motion and it was declared CARRIED.

CARRIED

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

Nil.

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

Nil.

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Nil.

The Meeting closed was adjourned at 7:39pm and reconvened at 7:00pm on 5 June 2025.

MINUTES OF Extraordinary Meeting
reconvened on 5 June 2025

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

Staff Present:	General Manager (David Marshall) Director Corporate (Angela Apostol) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) 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) Team Lead Governance (Jane Fitzpatrick)

Others Present:	Team Leader Urban Design (Bill Royal) Team Leader Urban Planning (Craige Wyse) Senior Urban Designer (Stephanie Griffiths) Urban Design Projects Officer (Fae Sarshoghi)

The Meeting was reconvened at 7:06 PM

The Mayor offered the Acknowledgement of Country

Apologies

The General Manager advised of an apology from Director Community (Janice Bevan) and that Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) would be acting in the role.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor Spencer declared a conflict of interest in respect of items GB.1 and GB.2 due to concerns about conflicts of interest and would withdraw from the Chamber during these items.

Councillor Pettett declared a conflict of interest in respect of items GB.1 and GB.2 due to concerns about conflicts of interest and would withdraw from the Chamber during these items.

The Mayor noted that Councillors Balachandran, Ngai, Taylor and Ward had declared special disclosures of pecuniary interest at the meeting on 22 May 2025.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

The Mayor referred to additional 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.1 - Mayoral Minute - State Significant Developments (SSD) and Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Applications, including Attachment A1 (SSD and TOD Applications)
Memorandums:	Memorandum for GB.1 TOD alternative – preferred scenario – proposed amendments – post exhibition from the Director of Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 3 June 2025. A copy of this Memorandum is attached to the Minutes.

minutes from the Mayor

State Significant Developments (SSD) and Transport Oriented Development (TOD) applications

File: S14846

Vide: MM.1

The purpose of this Mayoral Minute is to update Council and the community on State Significant Developments (SSD) and Transport Oriented Development (TOD) applications that have been lodged for Ku-ring-gai.

Background

In December 2023, the NSW Government announced a range of major planning reforms to deliver additional housing.

These included:

· The establishment of Transport Oriented Development precincts between Roseville and Gordon.

· The Low and Mid-Rise reform to allow additional terraces, townhouses, multi-unit dwellings and apartment buildings near stations and town centres.

Ku-ring-gai Council has consistently expressed concern that the proposed one-size-fits-all reforms will have a range of unnecessary and unwanted impacts on the local area, particularly in relation to Ku-ring-gai's environment and heritage and the strain on existing infrastructure and facilities.

These impacts are now being accelerated by an influx of state significant development applications.

The impacts of SSD

SSD applications are for large scale or complex projects deemed important to the state for economic, environmental or social reasons. Developments for in-fill affordable housing with a capital investment value of more than $75 million qualify for an SSD application.

In May 2024, the Government implemented the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) planning policy for areas within 400m of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon stations.

In response - and in cooperation with the NSW Government - Council prepared an alternate preferred scenario to the TOD for submission to the state government, based on planning principles that respect Council’s heritage, environment and community engagement.

Notwithstanding, the current TOD planning controls have already allowed many SSD applications to be lodged with the Department of Planning, Heritage and Infrastructure.

SSD applications are assessed by the Department and determined by the Minister for Planning or the Independent Planning Commission. Council is notified of and invited to comment on SSD applications at the exhibition stage, but otherwise plays no part in the assessment process.

The SSD assessment process

SSD projects are assessed under the EP&A Act and require development consent from the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) or the Minister for Planning (or delegate) before proceeding.

Integral to the assessment process is a mandatory environmental impact statement (EIS) that must be prepared before any development application is lodged.

Generally, all SSD applications must be exhibited for a minimum 28 days.

Submissions received during each public exhibition period are published online on the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure website, including those from statutory authorities such as Council. The applicant must then prepare a submissions report.

After publishing the submissions report, the Department of Planning will complete its assessment

report which is also published online. The relevant consent authority will then determine the project.

In some cases, there may be additional steps in the assessment process, including amendments to the application and public hearings.

“Total number of SSD applications and status below as at 1pm 4 June 2025:

• 13 applications are lodged

• 3 applications are lodged and being checked by the Department.

• 5 with valid SEARs.

• 2 with SEARs requested.

• 2 likely to request SEARs soon.

• 6 enquiries awaiting further information from potential applicants.”

See Attachment 1 for more detail on the lodged SSD applications

Where to from here?

It is important for our community to be aware that many of these SSD applications are inconsistent with the Council’s preferred scenario for increased housing in the four TOD precincts of Gordon, Roseville, Killara and Lindfield.

On that basis we are urging community members to submit feedback on each SSD and TOD development application during the public exhibition period. Council will also prepare a submission on each application lodged.

It is expected that the Department will take several months to assess Council’s preferred scenario, if the Council decides to proceed at its meeting on June 5, 2025.

The Department has advised that ‘upon Ku-ring-gai Council formally submitting to the Department an alternate scheme that seeks to replace the existing TOD planning controls, steps will be taken to disapply those existing controls after Friday 13 June 2025’.

This is critically important, as it means that SSD applications will still be able to be lodged but the TOD planning controls will no longer apply.

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor Councillor Kay)

A. That this Mayoral Minute be placed on the Council website.

B. The community is encouraged to provide submissions to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure planning portal at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

De-list isolated heritage houses in town centres for better outcomes in Ku-ring-gai

File: 2025/170135

Vide: PT.2

Petition to Ku-ring-gai Council

Principal Petitioner: David Tindale (on behalf of A Better Outcome Under TOD (ABOUT))

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) is set to change the face of Ku-ring-gai. There is a critical housing shortage in NSW, so with 23 000 new dwellings planned for Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville, we believe it’s vital that new development be well planned to meet the needs of Ku-ring-gai into the future.

Both TOD and Council's Preferred Scenario retain individual heritage homes in the midst of high-density new town centres in Ku-ring-gai. These heritage houses will be isolated, lose their context and their value in both heritage and monetary terms.

For the wider community, retaining isolated heritage homes will result in compromising achievable density in the areas zoned to become the new town centres. They will reduce the housing yield and force future rezonings deeper into our leafy suburbs. There is no value in preserving isolated heritage houses, nor those that will lose their context due to sweeping changes in the streetscape.

Heritage owners need your support before the Ku-ring-gai Council Meeting on 5th June. Please add your address in the comments.

We, the undersigned, ask that these orphaned heritage houses be de-listed in consultation with their owners, to allow the development of clever, innovative new town centres designed to maximise benefit for the new communities of these areas.

(412 signatures as at 5 June 2025)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ward)

That the petition be tabled and forwarded to the relevant officer for appropriate action.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Petition: Protect The Lindfield Area - Stop the Disproportionate Development Burden and Safeguard Our Heritage

File: 2025/181514

Vide: PT.3

Petition to Ku-ring-gai Council

Principal Petitioner: Lee Coomber (HOLD)

We, the undersigned residents and stakeholders of the Ku-ring-gai local government area, strongly oppose the treatment of the Lindfield area under the proposed Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Preferred Scenario. While we support sustainable growth and strategic planning, the current proposal places an unfair and disproportionate share of new dwelling targets on the Lindfield area, with little regard for its unique character, infrastructure constraints, or heritage value.

Our concerns include:

1. Disproportionate Dwelling Allocation: The Lindfield area is being asked to accommodate a significantly higher percentage of new dwellings (~9000) compared to other suburbs in the LGA (Killara ~3000, Roseville ~3000). This results in Lindfield accommodating apartment towers that are 61 meters in height / 18 stories. Note: This is prior to the affordable housing uplift of +30% for some dwellings. This approach lacks equity and fails to consider a balanced distribution of growth across the area.

2. Neglect of Heritage Conservation: The proposed scenario threatens numerous Heritage Homes and Heritage Conservation Areas in the Lindfield area. These historically significant homes and precincts contribute to the cultural fabric and identity of our community and must be preserved.

3. Lack of Transparent Community Engagement: The process to date has not adequately included or responded to resident feedback. Decisions of such magnitude should not proceed without meaningful consultation with the communities most affected.

We respectfully call on Ku-ring-gai Council to:

· Reassess the TOD Preferred Scenario to ensure a fairer, more balanced distribution of housing targets across all Ku-ring-gai suburbs;

· Strengthen protections for Heritage Homes and Heritage Conservation Areas, particularly in the Lindfield area;

· Engage transparently with the community. providing adequate opportunity for Input and revision before final decisions are made.

The Lindfield area deserves thoughtful planning that respects its past while responsibly considering its future. We urge Council to revise the current proposal to reflect the values and voices of our community.

(547 signatures)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Ngai)

That the petition be tabled and forwarded to the relevant officer for appropriate action.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council resolved to deal with item GB.2 first under General Business after a Motion moved by the Mayor Councillor Kay and Councillor Taylor was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Council adjourned for a short interval after a Motion moved by Councillors Devlin and Wheatley was CARRIED.

For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Kay, Councillors Balachandran, Devlin, Ngai, Smith, Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Motion: Councillors Pettett and Spencer

The Meeting resumed at 7:40 pm

GENERAL BUSINESS

After having declared an interest in GB.1 and GB.2, Councillor Pettett and Councillor Spencer withdrew from Chambers during discussion and did not vote on the following matters.

SSD and local development applications in the TOD - change to savings provisions

File: EM00047/3

Vide: GB.2

To advise Council of a change of position by the NSW Government on the savings provisions for State Significant Development (SSD) applications in the TOD.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That the report be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

87	TOD alternative - preferred scenario - proposed amendments - post exhibition File: EM00047/3 Vide: GB.1
	To advise Council of the outcomes of the public exhibition and to recommend amendments to the exhibited version of the Implementation Strategy and Maps.
	MOTION: (Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ngai) That Council: A. Adopt the draft LEP maps at Attachment A6 and draft clauses at Attachment A7 subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A8 plus the additional revisions as set out in the Memo from the Director of Strategy & Environment dated 3 June 2025. B. Submit the amended LEP maps and clauses and a revised implementation strategy reflecting these amendments to DPHI for the purposes of preparing a State Environmental Planning Policy to implement Council’s alternate TOD scheme. C. Commission a preliminary assessment of heritage items proposed to be retained in the TOD or alternative scenario areas envisaged to have controls varied from those under KLEP 2015, or items that are impacted directly by development applications including for SSDs that rely on controls contained in the TOD SEPP as described in this report. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. D. That as part of consideration of Council’s Preferred TOD Alternative, the Minister for Planning be requested to work collaboratively with Council to develop a process and solutions for current owners of listed local heritage items “stranded” as a consequence of the TOD planning controls, Council’s alternate option to those controls, and SSDAs, on a case by case basis. Council has sought advice on whether the DPHI will consider bulk de-listings of heritage-listed properties in response to heightened concerns from residents. The DPHI has advised that unjustified de-listings will not be considered and that the process for Council or the Department to unilaterally delist heritage items requires a justified position through a full planning proposal process. E. Commence preparation of all required amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP including site-specific development controls and site amalgamation controls around all heritage items within R4 – High Density Residential zones. That the draft DCP amendments be reported back to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition. F. Notes that the draft DCP amendments in point E. above will pay particular attention to the transitional impacts of R4 TOD properties backing onto R2 TOD HCA properties, including regard for site-specific side and rear setbacks, heights, and tree planting provisions. To retain the character of each conservation area, manage transition impacts, and promote housing diversity, Council will also commence an assessment to consider whether there are more appropriate controls within the revised TOD boundary for all R2 HCA properties. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. G. Commence preparation of a Public Domain Plan (PDP) for Killara and amendments to PDP for Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville. H. That Council authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to correct any anomalies in the documentation to be submitted to the NSW DPHI.
	AMENDMENT: (Moved: Councillors Ward / Balachandran) That Council: A. Adopt the draft LEP maps at Attachment A6 and draft clauses at Attachment A7 subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A8 plus the additional revisions as set out in the Memo from the Director of Strategy & Environment dated 3 June 2025. In addition, 924 Pacific Highway Gordon will be amended to FSR 5.0:1, height 51.5m and affordable housing requirement of 5%. B. Submit the amended LEP maps and clauses and a revised implementation strategy reflecting these amendments to DPHI for the purposes of preparing a State Environmental Planning Policy to implement Council’s alternate TOD scheme. C. Commission a preliminary assessment of heritage items proposed to be retained in the TOD or alternative scenario areas envisaged to have controls varied from those under KLEP 2015, or items that are impacted directly by development applications including for SSDs that rely on controls contained in the TOD SEPP as described in this report. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. D. That as part of consideration of Council’s Preferred TOD Alternative, the Minister for Planning be requested to work collaboratively with Council to develop a process and solutions for current owners of listed local heritage items “stranded” as a consequence of the TOD planning controls, Council’s alternate option to those controls, and SSDAs, on a case by case basis. Council has sought advice on whether the DPHI will consider bulk de-listings of heritage-listed properties in response to heightened concerns from residents. The DPHI has advised that unjustified de-listings will not be considered and that the process for Council or the Department to unilaterally delist heritage items requires a justified position through a full planning proposal process. E. Commence preparation of all required amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP including site-specific development controls and site amalgamation controls around all heritage items within R4 – High Density Residential zones. That the draft DCP amendments be reported back to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition. F. Notes that the draft DCP amendments in point E. above will pay particular attention to the transitional impacts of R4 TOD properties backing onto R2 TOD HCA properties, including regard for site-specific side and rear setbacks, heights, and tree planting provisions. To retain the character of each conservation area, manage transition impacts, and promote housing diversity, Council will also commence an assessment to consider whether there are more appropriate controls within the revised TOD boundary for all R2 HCA properties. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. G. Commence preparation of a Public Domain Plan (PDP) for Killara and amendments to PDP for Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville. H. That Council authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to correct any anomalies in the documentation to be submitted to the NSW DPHI. The Amendment was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Amendment became the Motion. The Motion was put and declared CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Ward/Balachandran) That Council: A. Adopt the draft LEP maps at Attachment A6 and draft clauses at Attachment A7 subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A8 plus the additional revisions as set out in the Memo from the Director of Strategy & Environment dated 3 June 2025. In addition, 924 Pacific Highway Gordon will be amended to FSR 5.0:1, height 51.5m and affordable housing requirement of 5%. B. Submit the amended LEP maps and clauses and a revised implementation strategy reflecting these amendments to DPHI for the purposes of preparing a State Environmental Planning Policy to implement Council’s alternate TOD scheme. C. Commission a preliminary assessment of heritage items proposed to be retained in the TOD or alternative scenario areas envisaged to have controls varied from those under KLEP 2015, or items that are impacted directly by development applications including for SSDs that rely on controls contained in the TOD SEPP as described in this report. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. D. That as part of consideration of Council’s Preferred TOD Alternative, the Minister for Planning be requested to work collaboratively with Council to develop a process and solutions for current owners of listed local heritage items “stranded” as a consequence of the TOD planning controls, Council’s alternate option to those controls, and SSDAs, on a case by case basis. Council has sought advice on whether the DPHI will consider bulk de-listings of heritage-listed properties in response to heightened concerns from residents. The DPHI has advised that unjustified de-listings will not be considered and that the process for Council or the Department to unilaterally delist heritage items requires a justified position through a full planning proposal process. E. Commence preparation of all required amendments to the Ku-ring-gai DCP including site-specific development controls and site amalgamation controls around all heritage items within R4 – High Density Residential zones. That the draft DCP amendments be reported back to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition. F. Notes that the draft DCP amendments in point E. above will pay particular attention to the transitional impacts of R4 TOD properties backing onto R2 TOD HCA properties, including regard for site-specific side and rear setbacks, heights, and tree planting provisions. To retain the character of each conservation area, manage transition impacts, and promote housing diversity, Council will also commence an assessment to consider whether there are more appropriate controls within the revised TOD boundary for all R2 HCA properties. This assessment will be commissioned in the month following the gazettal of Council’s scenario. G. Commence preparation of a Public Domain Plan (PDP) for Killara and amendments to PDP for Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville. H. That Council authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to correct any anomalies in the documentation to be submitted to the NSW DPHI. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Nil

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

Nil

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Nil

The Meeting closed at 8:05pm

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 22 May and 5 June 2025 (Pages 1 - 17) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on <Insert confirmation date …>.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 22 May 2025.

Memorandum for GB.1 TOD alternative – preferred scenario – proposed amendments – post exhibition from the Director of Strategy & Environment.

Circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 3 June 2025.

Special disclosures of pecuniary interest

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 17 June 2025

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

Staff Present:	General Manager (David Marshall) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Director Corporate (Angela Apostol) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) 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) Governance Support Officer (Eliza Gilbank-Heim)

Others Present:	Manager Urban and Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro) Acting Manager Finance (Mette Kofoed)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00 PM

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.

No Interest was declared.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:

MM.1 – The King’s Birthday Honours 2025 – Report by The Mayor, Councillor Kay dated 10 June 2025.

MM.2 – Vale Stuart Clark AM AFSM – a distinguished Rural Fire Service volunteer – Report by The Mayor, Councillor Kay dated 16 June 2025.

Memorandums:

A Confidential Memorandum for GB.6 Post exhibition – Draft Community Strategic Plan, Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan from the Manager of Governance and Corporate Strategy was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 3 June 2025.

A Confidential Memorandum for GB.12 Ku-ring-gai Draft Green Grid – Post Exhibition Report from the Director of Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 6 June 2025.

A Memorandum for GB.6 Post exhibition – Draft Community Strategic Plan, Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan from the Manager of Governance and Corporate Strategy was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 13 June 2025.

Council resolved that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, these documents be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential memorandums, after a Motion moved by Councillors Taylor and Smith was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: EM00046/4

Meeting held 20 May 2025

Minutes numbered 64 to 80

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Minutes numbered 64 to 80 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

The King's Birthday Honours 2025

File: S14221

Vide: MM.1

I am pleased to inform you that five Ku-ring-gai citizens, through their outstanding achievements and services to the community, have been awarded 2025 King’s Birthday Honours.

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

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

Mrs Roslyn Elaine PHILIPS OAM of St Ives, for service to the community through charitable roles

Mr David Hugh ARMSTRONG AM of Gordon, for significant service to the not-for-profit sector, to the arts, and to the financial sector

Mrs Margaret Phillippa MIDDLETON OAM of Lindfield, for service to the community as a volunteer

Mr John McKenzie MIDDLETON OAM of Lindfield, for service to the community, particularly through music

Mr Ronald Bruce YORK OAM of Lindfield, for service to the community of Sydney, and to charitable organisations.

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

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

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Kay)

A. That Council acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by these recipients of the King’s Birthday Honours 2025 to the Ku-ring-gai community and to the well-being of our society.

B. That the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the recipients to congratulate them.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Vale Stuart Clark AM AFSM - a distinguished Rural Fire Service volunteer

File: CY00455/13

Vide: MM.2

It is my sad duty to advise Council and our community of the passing of Stuart Clark, who gave over 50 years of voluntary service to the Rural Fire Service in Ku-ring-gai.

Stuart lost his battle with cancer recently and his death is being widely mourned not only by his immediate family, but also by the Rural Fire Service family.

Stuart Clark joined the Rural Fire Service in 1973 in the Elouera Brigade, later renamed the Westleigh Brigade, and served with them for 15 years.

In 1988 Stuart moved into the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Communications Brigade where he was made a Life Member after serving as Deputy Captain and then Captain of the Brigade.

In 2014 Stuart also joined Ku-ring-gai Brigade, where he continued to undertake firefighting duties and subsequently became a founding member of the newly formed Killara Brigade.

In recognition of his leadership, Stuart was elected as President and Deputy Captain of Killara Brigade, a rank he held while fighting the intense fires of the 2019-2020 bushfire season.

Stuart’s years of advocacy and campaigning in the community, as well as in government and professional circles, led to the Killara Brigade going from strength to strength. By 2024 the Brigade was operating with 56 members with two fire trucks.

He was also instrumental in ensuring a purpose-built fire station for the Killara Brigade was built – a first for the local area. It was my pleasure to open that station earlier this year.

For over 50 years Stuart provided outstanding leadership to the Rural Fire Service. In addition to his significant volunteer contribution as a firefighter, he also used his professional expertise to benefit the RFS.

He helped draft the Rural Fires Act 1997, advised the RFS executive team on a range of legal options and processes and trained volunteers and staff on the Incident Controller Major Incident training program

For almost a lifetime, Stuart Clark gave the Ku-ring-gai community and the RFS the most dedicated level of service. On behalf of Council, I extend my deepest sympathies to his widow Narelle, sons Richard and Andrew and the extended Clark family.

Additional comments from Councillor Devlin:

Thank you, Madam Mayor, for your heartfelt tribute.

Tonight, I rise not only as a Councillor but as a fellow firefighter and friend, to honour the extraordinary life of Samuel Stuart Clark AM AFSM, who last week lost his battle with cancer. As Dan Meijer shared with RFS Members when breaking the news: “It puts an end to considerable suffering”.

Stuart’s journey with the NSW Rural Fire Service spans more than five decades, beginning at the Elouera Brigade — now Westleigh. He later joined the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Communications Brigade, before eventually serving with the Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Brigade — where I had the privilege of meeting him when I joined the Service some years later.

But Stuart was never one to sit idle. His next goal was the ‘raising’ of the Killara Rural Fire Brigade, and in that he was central. While it would be unfair to overlook the contributions of many others, it is my firm view — and the view of many — that without Stuart’s ambition, knowledge, connections, and steely focus, the raising of that Brigade would not have been achieved.

This was no ordinary accomplishment. Killara was the first new Rural Fire Brigade raised across the State for many years, and given its location on the North Shore of Sydney, was an ambitious project — very much warranted given the thousands of homes with bushland interface at risk of fire. It represents a significant investment in, and enhancement to, community safety within our LGA — and strengthened the strategic capability of the Service across the metropolitan area, as well as bolstering support for regional deployment to help the regions when in crisis. A remarkable achievement — and one, I suspect, that some still find hard to believe he accomplished given its challenges and opposition.

Earlier this year, it was my great honour to attend the opening of the newly built Killara Fire Station with both Council and Brigade colleagues. Madam Mayor, I know you’ll recall what a wonderful day it was for the community. What stood out most for me, however, was the moment the Commissioner himself presented Stuart with the 50-year clasp for his national Long Service Medal. A truly outstanding and well-deserved recognition.

Beyond the fireground, Stuart’s legal acumen significantly shaped the NSW RFS. While tonight’s Mayoral Minute rightly notes his contribution to the drafting of the Rural Fires Act 1997, his influence extended far beyond that. Stuart played a central role in the development of the Code of Conduct and Ethics, disciplinary procedures, Brigade constitutional reform, and the Brigade Management Handbook — now used by more than 2,200 brigades across the State.

He was often the first point of contact for legal advice — whether it be from the Commissioner or from local brigade Captains like my own, perhaps seeking clarity on how best to deal with someone like me. Stuart mentored countless volunteers and staff over the years, always generous with his knowledge and time.

He was also instrumental in the formation of the Rural Fire Service Association (the RFSA). As he would proudly remind me in our many discussions on RFSA matters, he was the only volunteer present in the room when the Association was officially formed. His legacy of advocacy, support, and representation for RFS members is deeply embedded in both the RFS and the RFSA. For that, Stuart — thank you.

Stuart’s legal expertise, of course, extended well beyond the Rural Fire Service. He spent more than 31 years at Clayton Utz, almost all of them as a Partner. He served as Managing Partner of Litigation for five years, and later as Chief Operating Officer and Managing Partner — overseeing nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of Australia’s legal market, at a time of unprecedented upheaval and intense competition.

His commitment to knowledge-sharing was equally formidable. Since 2010, Stuart served as an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University’s Law School — further testament to his dedication to mentoring the next generation of legal minds.

And you might think that would be more than enough to keep a person busy. But not Stuart.

He served as a Director of the Law Council of Australia from 2012 and was elected its President in 2016. He was also a Director and Deputy Chair of Australian War Widows NSW Limited from 2019. And following his retirement from Clayton Utz, he founded SSC Advisory to continue serving his profession and community.

In 2021, he took on another significant leadership role — as Chair of the Board of NSW Volunteer Rescue Association (VRA). Under his stewardship, the VRA underwent meaningful reform, modernisation, and renewal — becoming more effective and relevant than ever before. The lives positively impacted by his work in that role are uncountable. Again — thank you, Stuart.

In 2015, Stuart was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the Queen’s Birthday Honours, for “significant service to the law, through senior roles with professional legal bodies, to strategic reform, and to the rural fire service”.

In this year’s Australia Day Honours, he was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal (AFSM) for his “unwavering commitment to the NSW Rural Fire Service”.

He was also a Fellow of both the Australian Academy of Law, and the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

But for me, I will always remember his big smile, his quirky laugh, his trademark red suspenders when in uniform — made completely redundant by his tactical belt — and most of all, his constant willingness to help.

I’ll never forget climbing into the back seat of a truck beside him for the first time, nor the last time I picked him up from his home after treatment last year to grab a coffee, pie and cake at East Killara. We talked about all things RFS, how I was settling into my role as Councillor, and then — true to form — he proudly gave me a personal tour of the yet-to-be-opened Killara Fire Station. He was, as they say, proud as Punch.

Until his health declined after the Station opening, Stuart would often check in with me — always asking how his “little mate Barbara” — Cr Ward — was going?

Stuart Clark: thank you for your friendship, your mentorship, your counsel, and for a legacy that will be near impossible to surpass.

To Narelle, Richard, Andrew, and the Clark family — we extend our deepest sympathies. Stuart’s legacy of service, leadership, and community spirit will continue to inspire us all.

Madam Mayor, I support the recommendations in your Mayoral Minute, and ask that a copy of my remarks be included in your correspondence to the Clark family.

I thank the Chamber for its time.

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Kay)

A. That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted

B. That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Stuart Clark

C. That the Mayor write to Stuart Clark’s family and enclose a copy of the Mayoral Minute and Councillor Devlin’s speech.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

Save the Synthetic Field at Norman Griffiths Oval - Deliver what was promised

File: EM00046/5

Vide: PT.1

Petition to Ku-ring-gai Council

Principal Petitioner: Michael Wootton

For years, we’ve waited patiently while Norman Griffiths Oval sat idle. It’s time for Council to stop dragging its feet and deliver the synthetic surface our community was promised. Help us hold them to account, sign and share this petition today!

We, the undersigned members of the Ku-ring-gai community and wider sporting public, call on Ku-ring-gai Council to deliver the originally approved synthetic turf upgrade at Norman Griffiths Oval in West Pymble, as committed in previous planning and budget announcements.

We oppose any move to revert the project to a natural turf surface, particularly after extensive delays, disruptions, and the removal of the FIFA-approved contractor assigned to the job.

Our community needs reliable, safe, all-weather facilities to support grassroots sport, including junior football, community sports, and local recreation. With countless games and training sessions already lost due to field closures and weather impacts, the synthetic upgrade is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.

The synthetic surface has been promised, approved, budgeted, and partially prepared. To backtrack now is a breach of trust and a waste of public money. Council must uphold its commitment and complete the synthetic upgrade as planned.

We respectfully urge the Council to:

· Reaffirm its support for a synthetic surface at Norman Griffiths Oval

· Engage qualified contractors to complete the project

· Provide transparency about the project’s delays and next steps

(103 signatures – as at 20 May 2025)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Devlin/Pettett)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Arts and Culture Committee Minutes - 5 May 2025

File: S04141

Vide: GB.1

To provide Council with the minutes from the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee meeting held on 5 May 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That Council consider and endorse the minutes from the Arts and Culture Committee meeting held on 5 May 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee - Minutes of Meeting 28 May 2025

File: CY00022/17

Vide: GB.2

To consider the Minutes from the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee (KTC) Meeting held on 28 May 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

A. That Council receive and note the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee Minutes from 28 May 2025.

B. That Council approve the recommendations of the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Status of Women's Advisory Committee
Minutes - 6 May 2025

File: S13683

Vide: GB.3

To provide Council with the minutes from the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee meeting held on 6 May 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That Council endorse the minutes of the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee meeting held on 6 May 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Youth Advisory Committee
Minutes - 7 May 2025

File: S04477

Vide: GB.4

To provide Council with the minutes from the Youth Advisory Committee meeting held on 7 May 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That Council endorse the minutes of the Youth Advisory Committee meeting held on 7 May 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor and Councillor Fees - 2025/26 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination

File: EM00046/5

Vide: GB.7

To determine the mayoral and councillor fees for the 2025/26 financial year.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That effective 1 July 2025:

A. The annual councillor fee be set at $29,550; and

B. The annual mayoral fee be set at $78,480, in addition to the councillor fee.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Investment Report as at 31 May 2025

File: FY00623/7

Vide: GB.8

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for May 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for May 2025 be received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Submission on the Explanation of intended effect: Changes to deter illegal tree and vegetation clearing

File: S14545

Vide: GB.10

To approve a submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) in response to the Explanation of Intended Effect: Protecting Our Trees – Changes to Deter Illegal Tree and Vegetation Clearing.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

A. That Council approve the draft submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Explanation of Intended Effect: Changes to Deter Illegal Tree and Vegetation Clearing, at Attachment A2.

B. That Council also share the submission with NSROC to assist in preparation of a separate coordinated submission.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Response to Notice of Motion - Doggy Daycare and 'Animal boarding or training establishments'

File: S14398

Vide: GB.11

For Council to consider the outcomes of investigation into the feasibility of allowing ‘animal boarding or training establishments’ within the E1 Local Centres and MU1 Mixed Use zones.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

It is recommended that Council does not amend the KLEP 2015 to permit ‘animal boarding and training establishments’ within the E1 Local Centre and MU1 Mixed Use zones.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

100

Ku-ring-gai Draft Green Grid - Post Exhibition Report

File: S12691

Vide: GB.12

To provide an overview of the finalised Ku-ring-gai Green Grid Strategy and seek Council’s adoption of the strategy following public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Green Grid Strategy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

101

Acquisition of easement by Council at
43-47 Dumaresq Street Gordon

File: CY00470/12

Vide: GB.13

To create an easement in favour of Council as part of a proposed development on freehold land at 43-47 Dumaresq Street Gordon comprising Lot 1 DP 1314831.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

A. That Council resolves to acquire an easement over Lot 1 DP 1314831 (43-47 Dumaresq Street Gordon) for drainage purposes. The easement is to be in the form of a section 88B Instrument over that part of the freehold property depicted in Attachment A1 and at no cost to Council and subject to final survey.

B. That the General Manager or his delegate be given delegation to complete negotiations for the easement on the basis set out in this report and execute all associated documentation to give effect to the easement.

C. That all costs associated with the easement in favour of Council, including legal and survey costs and all costs associated with the new drainage works be borne by the Applicant.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

102

Draft Community Engagement Strategy incorporating Community Participation Plan

File: S14384

Vide: GB.5

To present the draft combined Community Engagement Strategy (CES) and Community Participation Plan (CPP) to Council for consideration.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Ward)

A. That Council endorse the draft combined Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan after increasing the minimum notification mailout radius for traffic management changes from 50m to 150m, and it be placed on public exhibition for 42 days.

B. That, at the end of the public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council summarising any community feedback and changes to the draft Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan. If no submissions are received, Council adopt the draft Plan as attached to this report.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Ward)

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Wheatley left and returned to Chambers during the following discussion.

103

Post Exhibition - Draft Community Strategic Plan, Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan

File: S14767

Vide: GB.6

To adopt the Community Strategic Plan 2035, Resourcing Strategy 2025-2035, Delivery Program 2025-2029 and Operational Plan 2025-2026, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2025-2026.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ngai)

That Council:

Subject to part B, adopts the Community Strategic Plan 2035, Resourcing Strategy 2025-2035 comprising Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy, DP&OP, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue and fees and charges for 2025– 2026 with recommended amendments discussed in this report

Change the Scenarios for a special rates variation to be as per the following table:

That Council adopts the rates structure as presented in this report.

Subject to part B, commence comprehensive community engagement on the rate rise options described in the Long Term Financial Plan, and include an action to reflect this in the DP&OP.

That Council writes to all residents and groups that made submissions in relation to the draft Community Strategic Plan, draft Resourcing Strategy, draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and advise them of the outcomes of Council’s consideration.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ngai)

That Council:

Subject to part B, adopts the Community Strategic Plan 2035, Resourcing Strategy 2025-2035 comprising Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy, DP&OP, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue and fees and charges for 2025– 2026 with recommended amendments discussed in this report

Change the Scenarios for a special rates variation to be as per the following table:

That Council adopts the rates structure as presented in this report.

Subject to part B, commence comprehensive community engagement on the rate rise options described in the Long Term Financial Plan, and include an action to reflect this in the DP&OP.

That Council writes to all residents and groups that made submissions in relation to the draft Community Strategic Plan, draft Resourcing Strategy, draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and advise them of the outcomes of Council’s consideration.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Kay, Councillors Balachandran, Devlin, Ngai, Smith, Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Spencer

CARRIED

104

DCP housekeeping amendment Environmental Sensitivity and sustainability towards Net Zero

File: CY00441/13

Vide: GB.9

To have Council consider an update on Environmental Controls for Council’s Development Control Plan.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Wheatley)

A. That Council note the findings presented in this Report and endorse the continued investigation into Development Control Plan sustainability provisions to be included in the update of controls for the TOD and LMR building typologies.

B. That a report be brought back to Council to consider amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan prior to public exhibition.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Councillor Ngai left and returned to Chambers during the following discussion.

105

Improve asset utilisation and support the arts in
Ku-ring-gai

File: S02211

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Balachandran and Wheatley dated 30 May 2025

The draft Community Strategic Plan 2035 – Our Ku-ring-gai: Growing Together identifies community infrastructure as a vital community asset and commits Council to providing, upgrading, and maintaining facilities that meet the needs of residents.

Council’s community facility utilisation rate is currently less than 30%. Given financial limitations for capital expenditure and time taken to build new facilities, it is imperative that Council actively seek low-cost, high-return opportunities to improve utilisation of existing assets.

The Arts and Culture Committee have identified the need for venues as the major concern for Ku-ring-gai. Arts organisations such as Pymble Players have left the area and sought support in neighbouring councils. Some groups, such as Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra, cannot find venues when they need them. Yet others, such as MSTYP, cannot afford rehearsal space and are at risk of shutting down.

The Inner West Council has addressed a similar issue with asset utilisation and a need in the creative sector. They have invested $800,000 on upgrading seven town halls with sound systems, audio-visual equipment, performance and recording studios to be used across all the venues. These have been provided free of charge as spaces for live performance, rehearsal, and exhibition. “Rather than sitting empty for much of the time, our town halls will be filled with music, dance, theatre and film.”

A targeted facilities review is required to identify low-cost, high-impact upgrades, such as lighting, AV, acoustic improvements, or other improvements to increase utilisation at selected venues. This review can identify potential “quick wins” to increase utilisation rates.

Alongside this - to leverage underutilised council assets and inject support for local arts and creative groups - Council can develop a pilot program offering free access to Council facilities to the arts and creative sectors. The program can be developed in collaboration with the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee including usage guidelines, eligibility criteria, levels of support, and the evaluation framework. The pilot can prioritise bookings that minimise impact on regular, paid bookings to maximise facility use without adversely impacting Council’s revenue. An evaluation is required to assess its impact on facility use, creative output, and creative sector engagement, and opportunities to improve utilisation in the longer term.

This initiative provides a practical opportunity to trial increased access, address a critical need in the arts and creative sectors, and improve the use of existing community assets. Council can help cultivate a vibrant, inclusive, and creative Ku-ring-gai.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Wheatley)

That Council:

A. Undertake a targeted review of selected community facilities to identify low-cost upgrades that support increased utilisation, with recommendations by November 2025 to inform the FY26/27 budget process.

B. Develop and implement a 12-month pilot program to increase facility utilisation and support the arts and creative sectors in Ku-ring-gai:

a) Designed in collaboration with all relevant Council Committees and reported to Council including potential financial impacts at the November 2025 Council Meeting.

b) To implement the pilot program from January 2026.

c) To evaluate the pilot after 12 months.

C. Incorporate learnings into the Cultural Facilities Review

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Wheatley)

That Council:

B. Develop and implement a 12-month pilot program to increase facility utilisation and support the arts and creative sectors in Ku-ring-gai:

a) Designed in collaboration with all relevant Council Committees and reported to Council including potential financial impacts at the November 2025 Council Meeting.

b) To implement the pilot program from January 2026.

c) To evaluate the pilot after 12 months.

C. Incorporate learnings into the Cultural Facilities Review

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Kay, Councillors Balachandran, Devlin, Ngai, Smith, Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Spencer

CARRIED

106

Sydney North Planning Panel

File: CY00844/2

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillors Taylor and Devlin dated 30 May 2025

That Council review its nomination of membership of North Sydney Planning Panel.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Devlin/Taylor)

A. That the existing appointments to SNPP be revoked to permit fresh appointments from the pool of currently elected Councillors.

B. That Council appoint the following Councillors as Council’s nominees to the SNPP: Councillors Smith & Taylor, and the following Councillors as the alternates: Councillors Wheatley & Balachandran, all for a period of 2 years.

C. Each pair of Councillors will attend alternate SNPP meetings. If a Councillor is unavailable, a Councillor from the other pair may attend the meeting.

D. That the appointment of new nominees and alternates be subject to completion of probity checks in accordance with the Operating Procedures.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Devlin/Taylor)

A. That the existing appointments to SNPP be revoked to permit fresh appointments from the pool of currently elected Councillors.

C. Each pair of Councillors will attend alternate SNPP meetings. If a Councillor is unavailable, a Councillor from the other pair may attend the meeting.

D. That the appointment of new nominees and alternates be subject to completion of probity checks in accordance with the Operating Procedures.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Kay, Councillors Balachandran, Devlin, Smith, Taylor, Ward and Wheatley

Against the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Pettett and Spencer

CARRIED

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

Nil.

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

Nil.

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Nil.

The Meeting closed at 8:27pm.

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 17 June 2025 (Pages 1 - 33) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on <Insert confirmation date …>.

__________________________ __________________________

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
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets	Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions.	Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	S03881

Draft Policies
Sportsfields Bookings Policy
Sportsfields Closure Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider and endorse the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

background:	The use and management of Sportsfields has become an important issue to community and other users both from an allocation and access perspective.

comments:	These policies will assist in the sustainable management of Council’s sportsfields in consideration of all users.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorses the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and the Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider and endorse the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

Background

The use and management of sportsfields has become an increasingly important issue for Council to manage as sporting numbers increase and sporting user groups diversify. Equitable access to sportsfields and associated facilities while managing appropriate impacts would benefit from a formalised approach.

While the Generic Sportsground Plan of Management provides an overarching framework for the requirements, conditions and use of the land, it is considered a more specific policy is required to prescribe a process for the appropriate allocation to user groups for seasonal, permanent and casual hirers.

There is not an existing Sportsfield Booking Policy, this will be the first of this type of policy for Council. Previously, conditions of use and historical practices have been used to determine bookings.

The existing Wet Weather Policy has been reviewed and is now proposed to be a Sportsfields Closure Policy which addresses closures that may be required for reasons other than just wet weather. It incorporates improvements that have been made to notification of closures to user groups and the general public.

Comments

The development of these policies has included the review of internal processes and of other Councils’ processes and policies in relation to the booking of sportsfields and sportsfield closures. These policies will assist in the sustainable management of Council’s sportsfields in consideration of all users.

Sportsfields Booking Policy

The intent of the new proposed Sportsfields Booking Policy is to:

“Provide equitable access and safe playing conditions for users whilst sustainably managing available Sporting Fields.”

This policy would apply to all hirers wishing to use sporting fields in Ku-ring-gai on either a casual, seasonal, or permanent hire basis.

Objectives of the Sportsfields Booking Policy are to:

· Ensure Council has the capacity to provide safe playing fields for the community.

· Provide the opportunity for a diverse range of recreation activities for sporting user groups.

· Support the outcomes prescribed in Council’s Plan of Management for Sportsgrounds with reference to appropriate use.

· Establish timeframes for seasonal allocation and specify where sportsfields will not be available due to annual season changeover and renovation periods as well as other scheduled maintenance or capital works activities are undertaken.

· Provide a hierarchy for booking approvals.

Sportsfields Closure Policy

The Sportsfields Closure Policy is intended to apply in situations where Council’s sportsfields are impacted by adverse weather (wet or dry) and to assist in guiding the decision to play or train on sportsfields to prevent damage to the playing surface and provide a safe surface for use.

The emphasis of the current policy is closure due to wet weather and the process followed to make these decisions. The existing process allows Council to decide to close a field during the week and leaves the decision to close a field to the Club or Association that has booked the field for weekend use based on Council’s recommendation on a Friday. Historically, there has been conjecture over this point, and it has become increasingly difficult to manage the expectations of users versus the condition of sportsfields, recovery and management of a large number of users and teams by associations and clubs.

Objectives of the new proposed Sportsfields Closure Policy are to:

· Ensure Council has the capacity to provide safe sportsfields for the community.

· Provide a process for assessing the suitability of sportsfields for play when impacted by adverse weather

· Provide a transparent process for all users and stakeholders to make decisions.

· Support the outcomes prescribed in Council’s Plan of Management for Sportsgrounds with reference to appropriate use.

· Determine ground closures including what areas and for what period the sportsfield is to be closed.

Both policies have been drafted in consideration of the objectives and initial consultation has already occurred. The policies have been developed to the point that full external consultation is required.

integrated planning and reporting

Outcome: Infrastructure and assets support community needs

Community Strategic Plan

Strategy

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Action

A2: Provide, upgrade and maintain open space, recreation and sporting facilities to meet the needs of current and future user groups and a growing population.

A2.1: A program is implemented to provide, improve and maintain open space, recreation and sporting facilities including multi-use facilities.

A2.2: Partnerships with community groups and organisations assist to optimise the availability and use of open space, recreation and sporting facilities.

A2.1.2: Maintain existing recreation and sporting facilities in accordance with the Asset Management Plan.

A2.1.3: Actively engage with sporting organisations and clubs, user groups and residents during the preparation of plans, policies and strategies for sport and recreation.

Governance Matters

The Sportsfields Bookings Policy is a new policy and as such will be saved to the policy register and require regular updates.

The Sportsfields Closure Policy will replace the existing Wet Weather Policy and will be saved to the policy register and require regular updates.

Risk Implication statement

There are no material risks that arise from the recommendations contained in this report. Minor issues may occur, but these can be managed within Council’s current policies, procedures, resources and budget.

Financial Considerations

There are no costs associated with the development of these policies.

Council’s approved Fees and Charges are utilised for the implementation of the policy.

Social Considerations

The establishment and update of these policies will allow for more structured and fair access to sportsfields for all users and set out guidelines for sportsfield closures.

Access to sportsfields is considered to be a significant social benefit for the community.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations associated with either of these policies.

Community Consultation

Consultation for both policies commenced at the Annual Sports Forum in July 2024.

Attendees at the Sports Forum were surveyed to gauge their support with the content of the policies. Questions were put to the group and live responses were recorded and are summarised below:

Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy

The policy will define a Community Sporting group as one that provides benefit to the community (non- profit) to be evidenced by the group’s constitution, legal status and annual report. Indicate your level of agreement with this definition

· Strongly Agree 53%

· Agree 47%

· Neutral 0%

· Oppose 0%

· Strongly Oppose 0%

· Don’t Know 0%

We have developed the following approvals hierarchy:

1. Community Sporting Groups

2. Public Schools

3. Private Schools

4. General community/commercial and casual hirers

Indicate your level of agreement with this definition.

· Strongly Agree 82%

· Agree 18%

· Neutral 0%

· Oppose 0%

· Strongly Oppose 0%

· Don’t Know 0%

We have developed a draft proposal for dealing with bookings dispute resolution:

“Where a clash exists for allocation between two or more groups that cannot be separated by the bookings hierarchy, Council bookings staff will work with all parties to accommodate each request which may mean an alteration to the requested time, day or location for one or both hirer/s. If no resolution can be made between parties, Council’s Manager Infrastructure Services will make a determination of the booking and priority will be given to the user group that has a greater connection with the Ku-ring-gai Community and community sport or the specific facility, such as a lease of a clubhouse.”

Indicate your level of agreement with this process:

· Strongly Agree 52%

· Agree 44%

· Somewhat Support 6%

· Do not support 0%

Would you be happy to explore a different process that could consider refunds or credits for wet weather if it meant seasonal rates were charged at a higher rate?

· Yes 29%

· No 35%

· Maybe 35%

Please indicate your level of support for what we have presented regarding the draft Sportsfields Booking Policy today.

· Strongly support 29%

· Support 59%

· Neutral 12%

· Do not Support 0%

The results show support for the proposed wording and intentions of the policy in relation to hierarchy of allocations and definition of community sport were accepted by the sporting user groups in attendance. The draft policy was refined to reflect the feedback received from the sporting user groups in relation to other points.

Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy

The current Wet Weather Policy dated (2003) is being reviewed. The new proposed policy focuses on the closure of the fields due to the impact of any adverse weather i.e. in times of wet weather or drought conditions.

Questions were put to the 2024 Annual Sports Forum to assist in the development of a new policy as outlined below.

Who would you prefer to make the call regarding ground closure due to wet weather on weekends or public holidays?

· Council 12%

· The Club/Association 53%

· Unsure 18%

· Either 18%

Rate the effectiveness of Council notification to clubs/associations regarding wet weather closures (e.g. wet weather line, website, subscription to website).

· Great 18%

· Good 71%

· Average 12%

· Poor 0%

Please indicate your level of support for what we have presented regarding the draft Sportsfields Closure Policy today.

· Strongly support 12%

· Support 35%

· Neutral 35%

· Do not Support 18%

From the feedback at the Sports Forum, it was considered that the existing process for Council to close fields during the week and clubs and associations to make the decisions on the weekend should remain unchanged. It was considered that the existing process of communication of closures was working well and supported by the user groups. The Draft Policy was updated to reflect these considerations.

Following adoption of this report, it is proposed to put both policies out to community consultation through Council’s “Your Say” page on our website, Council’s eNews and a more focussed discussion at the upcoming Annual Sports Forum on 30 July 2025.

Internal Consultation

Consultation on both policies has been undertaken internally with relevant staff from the Strategy and Environment, Community and Operations departments.

Summary

The Sportsfields Booking Policy and the Sportsfields Closure Policy have been drafted in consideration of the objectives and initial consultation has already occurred.

The policies have been developed to the point that full external consultation is required prior to their final endorsement by Council.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorses the Draft Sportsfields Bookings Policy and the Draft Sportsfields Closure Policy to be released for community consultation for 4 weeks.

Matthew Drago

Acting Manager Assets & Technical Services

Peter Lichaa

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1⇩	Controlled Document Number 223 - Sportsfields Closure Policy - Version 1 - Draft - OMC Attachment		2025/216113
	A2⇩	Controlled Document - Sportsfields Booking Policy - Draft - OMC Attachment		2025/216115

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	FY00662/6
	26 June 2025

Tender NSROC - RFT1-2025 - Road Surfacing, Patching, and Associated Works – 2025 to 2027

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council's approval to accept the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) tender for the schedule of rates for supply; supply and delivery; and supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete, including associated road profiling and heavy patching and other work items for the period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

background:	Tenders for the supply and delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete were called by NSROC on behalf of all member Councils. Submissions for these services for 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 closed on 14 February 2025.

comments:	Tender submissions were received from twenty-seven (27) companies, with twenty-four (24) assessed as conforming. The submissions were evaluated by a Tender Evaluation Panel comprising representatives from participating councils using a weighted evaluation methodology. The process identified suppliers offering the best value and capability across multiple service panels.

recommendation:	In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations 2021, it is recommended Council accept the recommendation as detailed in the Confidential Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report

Background

Tenders for the supply, supply and delivery, and supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete including associated works such as road reconstruction, re-sheeting, patching, heavy patching, profiling, crack sealing, line marking, and other surfacing services were called by the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) for the periods 2025/2026 and 2026/2027. The tender closed on 14 February 2025.

The process consisted of an open tender published on Tenderlink and participating council websites and asked for:

a. non-price submissions establishing qualifications and capability of tenderers to deliver asphalt and associated services, and

b. price offers for road reconstruction, patching and specialist asphalt services based on defined work packages.

A total of twenty-seven (27) submissions were received, with twenty-four (24) submissions assessed as conforming. Conforming submissions were assessed by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) which included representatives from participating councils.

The proposed contract term will initially commence on the date of the relevant contract or 1 July 2025 (whichever is earlier) and expire on 30 June 2027. Each council also has the option to extend the contract for up to two (2) additional one-year periods at Council’s discretion and subject to satisfactory performance at annual contract reviews.

When allocating projects to contractors under the NSROC asphalt services panel, staff will consider the capacity and capability of the contractors to carry out the specific project/s as well as a cost comparison to ensure value for money, as unit rates may vary for the type of work required. To support this process, NSROC will provide a standardised cost comparison tool.

Comments

The TEP was established by NSROC with representatives from participating Council members to evaluate the tender submissions received.

Each submission was reviewed independently, and any exclusions or significant clarifications to tenders were noted.

A total of twenty-seven (27) submissions were received, with twenty-four (24) assessed as conforming tenders. Three (3) submissions were excluded due to non-conformance or limited-service coverage. The remaining submissions were evaluated against both non-price and price criteria, in accordance with the approved Tender Evaluation Plan.

The TEP conducted pricing analyses using composite work packages across three service categories:

· Panel A: Road reconstruction and re-sheeting

· Panel B: Patching and heavy patching

· Panel C: Specialist services including line marking, crack sealing, spray seal and other surfacing works.

The NSROC Tender Evaluation Report endorsed multiple conforming suppliers for each panel, listed as follows:

Panel A – Road Reconstruction and Re-sheeting

1. NSW Building & Civil Pty Ltd

2. Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd

3. Bitupave Ltd T/A Boral Asphalt

4. Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

5. Convil Group

6. All Pavement Solutions / Bernipave Road Solutions

7. Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

8. NA Group Pty Ltd

9. State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd

10. Resco Civil Pty Ltd

11. ANJ Asphalt

Panel B – Patching and Heavy Patching

1. NSW Building & Civil Pty Ltd

2. Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

3. Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd

4. Convil Group

5. All Pavement Solutions / Bernipave Road Solutions

6. State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd

7. ANJ Asphalt

8. NA Group Pty Ltd

9. Roadworx Group Pty Ltd

10. Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

11. JM Schembri Pty Ltd

12. Planet Civil Pty Ltd

13. Bitupave Ltd T/A Boral Asphalt

14. Optimal Civil

15. Fenworx Pty Ltd

16. Resco Civil Pty Ltd

Panel C – Specialist Services (Line Marking, Crack Sealing and Other Surfacings)

1. Complete Linemarking Services Pty Ltd

2. RPQ Spray Seal Pty Ltd

3. SuperSealing

Confidential Attachment 1 provides the NSROC Tender Evaluation Committee Report.

Intergrated planning and reporting

Outcome 3: Project delivery - design and construct. Deliver projects in accordance with Council’s programs for capital works and community engagement

Strategy - Community Strategic Plan

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan Actions

A1: Strategically plan, manage and fund public infrastructure and assets to meet the needs of the community, defined levels of service and intergenerational equity.

A1.2: Assets are managed in accordance with asset management plans and agreed

service standards.

A1.2.4: Deliver adopted Road and Carparks Capital Works Programs on time and

within budget

Governance Matters

Tenders were called in accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.

Attachment 1 is considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they contain commercially sensitive information relating to the evaluation and scoring of tenderers, which, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on a competitor.

In accordance with Paragraph 3.18 of the Office of Local Government Tendering Guidelines, NSW Government Memorandum 2007-01 – Public Disclosure of Information Arising from NSW Government Tenders and Contracts, and Part 3 Division 5 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA), once the contract becomes effective, the names of the successful tenderers and other relevant details (excluding pricing) will be published on Council’s website in the Contracts Register.

In addition, in accordance with Clause 179 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, all unsuccessful tenderers have already been notified as part of the NSROC procurement process.

Risk Management

Road surfacing, patching and associated works are considered a high-risk operation from a Work Health & Safety (WHS) perspective. Four (4) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the Tender:

· That work needed to be carried out by a suitably qualified company with experience in works prescribed under the Specifications in a Local Government context.

· Capacity and availability.

· Proven ability to undertake works to appropriate safety, quality and environmental standards with necessary systems in place to ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

· That participating Councils should not be exposed to financial risk.

The following evaluation approaches were developed to address the key risk areas:

· An Evaluation Plan was developed prior to the assessment to appraise the relevant Tender Schedules.

· An independent financial and related part risk assessment be done on each tenderer to ensure they were trading responsibly and had the financial capacity to undertake the work as detailed within the tender submission.

Financial Considerations

The rates submitted by Tenderers under the Asphalt-2027 contract will be utilised to undertake works on Council’s adopted road programs.

The contract allows for schedule of rates pricing across a range of asphalt, patching, and specialist surfacing services. These rates will form the basis for estimating, budgeting, and delivering the road resurfacing and rehabilitation programs during the contract period.

Annual price adjustments will apply in accordance with the Producer Price Index (PPI), as outlined in the contract terms. Councils also retain the option to extend the contract by up to two additional one-year periods, subject to satisfactory performance and funding availability.

Social Considerations

The tender will be utilised to renew roads across Council’s area, offering improvements to local infrastructure for the community.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental measures are included in the contract specification.

Community Consultation

Consultation has taken place with other Council members of Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) for the preparation of the tender.

Internal Consultation

Consultation has taken place with staff from the Council’s Corporate Department to ensure probity.

Summary

Tenders for the supply, supply and delivery, and supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete—including associated works such as road reconstruction, re-sheeting, patching, profiling, and heavy patching—were called by the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) for the periods 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

A total of twenty-seven (27) submissions were received, of which twenty-four (24) were assessed as conforming and evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

Recommendation:

A. That Council accept the NSROC Tender Evaluation Panel’s recommendations as detailed in the

Asphalt-2027 Tender Evaluation Report.

B. That the tender rates submitted by the contractors recommended under Panel A – Road

Reconstruction and Re-sheeting be accepted for the period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

C. That the tender rates submitted by the contractors recommended under Panel B – Patching and

Road Pavement be accepted for the period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

D. That the tender rates submitted by the contractors recommended under Panel C – Specialist

Services (including line marking, crack sealing and other surfacing works) be accepted for the

period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

E. That authority be given to the Mayor and General Manager to affix the Common Seal of Council to

the contract instrument for the supply; supply and delivery; and supply, delivery and laying of

asphaltic concrete, including associated road profiling, patching and other asphalt-related

works, for the period 2025/2026 and 2026/2027, with options to extend in accordance with the

contract.

Gurpreet Grewal

Infrastructure Assets & Driveways Engineer

Peter Lichaa

Director Operations

Matthew Drago

Acting Manager Assets & Technical Services

Attachments:

Asphalt-2027 - Tender evaluation report FINAL

Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.11 / 1

Item GB.11	S14276

Fblu

Ku-ring-gai DCP - Local Character Areas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the amendment of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character Areas and endorse its public exhibition.

background:	At its 15 June 2021 meeting, Council resolved to adopt the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study. Following this, Council’s Delivery Program & Operational Plan included actions to deliver controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (DCP). The aim of this was to put in place a mechanism that would manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s character. This report presents the amendment to DCP to include local character considerations.

comments:	The eight character areas formalised in the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study are proposed to be inserted at the beginning of Part 14 of the DCP. Inclusion of DCP controls relating to Ku-ring-gai’s local character will provide a due diligent process requiring consideration and assessment of development applications, including their impacts on local character and the settings of buildings. This is particularly pertinent within heritage conservation areas and around heritage items. Improved reference to local character matters will enable better retention of the area’s values, including trees and landscaping, which are key across Ku-ring-gai, and which are vital in the reduction of heat island effects and maintaining the integrity of biodiversity and riparian areas. The inclusion of this amendment will mean that the many applications being submitted to Council will have to have regard to local character. Without this insertion, there is no onus on developers to consider any aspect of Ku-ring-gai’s local character.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorse the updates proposed to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14, as detailed in Attachment A2 of this report for public exhibition.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the amendment of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character Areas and endorse its public exhibition.

Background

During 2020 Council staff prepared a baseline local character study in response to:

· the long-term objective of the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan - Our Ku-ring-gai 2038 seeking preservation of the unique visual character of the Ku-ring-gai LGA, and

· the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement which identifies managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character.

Since local character is defined as the complex interaction between landscape, buildings and culture, the local character investigation used advanced mapping techniques and on-ground analysis to overlay multiple factors and give a representation of the physical character of Ku-ring-gai.

This work was supplemented by information captured from various sources including residents’ opinions, documenting aspects of the physical, social and cultural characteristics of the area. The study provided a baseline analysis and was intended to provide the groundwork for further research into local character.

The resulting Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study was reported to Council on 8 December 2020 and placed on public exhibition from 15 March 2021 to 26 April 2021.

At its 15 June 2021 meeting Council considered submissions to the exhibition and resolved the following:

A. Council staff incorporate changes to draft Broad Character Area Statements as suggested in submissions and documented in this report into the final version of the Background Study.

B. Council adopt the Local Character Background Study, as amended in recommendation A, as the basis for future studies and that an indicative timetable for these studies is reported to councillors before the end of August.

In accordance with this resolution, the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study was amended and is now publicly accessible on Council’s website. The study can be seen at Attachment A1 to this Council report.

Following Council’s resolution, Council’s Delivery Program & Operational Plan included actions to deliver controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (DCP). The aim of this was to put in place a mechanism that would manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s character. The specific tasks relating to this DCP amendment are stated in the below table:

Community Strategic Plan Focus area P1: Preserving Ku-ring-gai’s character Long-Term Objective P1.1: Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained
Delivery Program Term Achievement - 4 Year	Operational Plan Tasks – Year 3
P1.1.1: Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character.	P1.1.1.1: Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.
Community Strategic Plan Focus area P2: Managing urban change Long-Term Objective Long-Term Objective P2.1: A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai
Delivery Program Term Achievement - 4 Year	Operational Plan Tasks – Year 3
P2.1.1: Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect existing character and effectively manage the impact of new development.	P2.1.1.3: Investigate the inclusion of Local Character Controls within the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

This report presents the proposed amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include local character considerations.

Comments

Proposed DCP amendment

The proposed amendment to the DCP may be viewed at Attachment A2 to this report.

All amended text is shown in blue ink, existing text remains in black ink.

The Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study identified eight areas with distinct local character. Since these areas relate to specific parts of the local government area, the location of the character area controls are considered best placed in Part 14 of the DCP, which currently refers to Ku-ring-gai’s urban precincts and sites. Figure 1 illustrates the eight character areas.

The information included in the local character section of the DCP is taken from the adopted Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study. The character areas are presented at the beginning of the DCP Part 14. Each area includes a location map and a local character statement to which the objective and control relate. The existing Urban Precincts and Sites content in Part 14 is not being altered, except for numbering to accommodate the preceding local character section.

This format and placement is considered the simplest way to include the local character considerations into the DCP, being mindful of avoiding lengthy evaluation requirements that hinder the tight assessment timeframes that Council’s development assessment team are required to meet.

As stated in the proposed Introduction to Part 14, all development applications (including those in the Urban Precinct and Sites) will now be required to state how they are consistent with the local character of the area that they are located within.

Inclusion of DCP controls relating to Ku-ring-gai’s local character will provide a due diligent process requiring consideration and assessment of development applications, and their impacts on local character and the settings of buildings particularly within heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Improved reference to local character matters will enable better retention of the area’s values for current and future populations. This includes reference to trees and landscaping which are key characteristics across Ku-ring-gai, and which are vital in the reduction of heat island effects and maintaining the integrity of biodiversity and riparian areas that support Ku-ring-gai’s critically endangered species.

FIGURE 1 – Local Character Areas

Future amendments to integrate the housing reforms

It is acknowledged that the recent housing reforms will result in a change in the character of Ku-ring-gai to that reported in the 2020 Local Character Background Study, particularly in those areas of low and mid-rise development and the local centres impacted by Transport Orientated Development.

Council staff are currently working on DCP controls to address the housing reform areas and new housing typologies. As part of those new and amended DCP controls, this Part 14 Local Character section will be accordingly amended.

The inclusion of this amendment will mean that the many applications being submitted to Council will have to have regard to local character. Without this insertion, there is no onus on developers to consider any aspect of Ku-ring-gai’s local character.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 – Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

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

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

P2.1.1.3: Investigate the inclusion of Local Character Controls within the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

Governance Matters

Council adopted the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study on 15 June 2021. Council’s Delivery Program & Operational Plan includes tasks to deliver DCP controls relating to local character which this DCP amendment seeks to fulfill.

Risk Implication statement

Ku-ring-gai is undergoing extensive change to the established urban and landscape fabric of the area. Developers are giving increasingly less regard to local character somewhat due to the NSW government’s low priority on this issue.

Inclusion of DCP requirements to address local character means architects and developers will have to give documented consideration to the area’s characteristics. Development applications will be required to demonstrate how they will integrate into the prevailing local character.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Urban and Heritage Planning budget.

Social Considerations

Inclusion of DCP controls relating to Ku-ring-gai’s local character will provide a due diligent process, requiring consideration and assessment of development applications and their impacts on local character and the settings of buildings, particularly within heritage conservation areas and around heritage items. Improved reference to local character matters will enable better retention of the area’s values for current and future populations. This includes the reference to trees and landscaping which are key characteristics across Ku-ring-gai, and which are vital in environmental considerations, such as the reduction of heat island effects and maintaining the integrity of biodiversity and riparian areas.

Environmental Considerations

Detailed mapping of environmental factors was undertaken as part of the Local Character Background Study. Each Character Area identifies environmental considerations such as biodiversity and ecology, including critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. The DCP control relating to the area character statement will assist in the preservation, protection, and enhancement of the existing environmental characteristics.

Community Consultation

It is proposed to place the draft DCP amendment on public exhibition for 28 days, during which time the community will be invited to make submissions. The exhibition will be in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has been conducted mainly with the urban planning, urban design and development assessment teams. Further consultation will occur during the exhibition period.

Summary

At its 15 June 2021 meeting, Council resolved to adopt the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study. Following this, Council’s Delivery Program & Operational Plan included actions to deliver controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (DCP). The aim of this was to put in place a mechanism that would manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s character.

This report presents the amendment to the DCP to include local character considerations.

The eight character areas delineated in the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study are proposed to be included at the beginning of Part 14 of the DCP.

Inclusion of DCP controls relating to Ku-ring-gai’s local character will provide a due diligent process requiring consideration and assessment of development applications and their impacts on local character and the settings of buildings, particularly within heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Improved reference to local character matters will enable better retention of the area’s values for current and future populations. This includes the reference to trees and landscaping which are key across Ku-ring-gai, and which are vital in the delivery of positive environmental outcomes, such as the reduction of heat island effects and maintaining the integrity of biodiversity and riparian areas.

The inclusion of this amendment will mean that the many development applications being submitted to Council will have to have regard to local character. Without this insertion, there is no onus on developers to consider any aspect of Ku-ring-gai’s local character.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorse the updates proposed to the Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14, as detailed in Attachment A2 of this report.

B. That the Ku-ring-gai DCP amendments stated in Attachment A2be placed on public exhibition in accordance with provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

C. That delegation be given to the Director, Strategy and Environment to correct any minor amendments or errors and inconsistencies to the draft KDCP prior to public exhibition.

D. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

Rathna Rana

Executive Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Local Character Background Study (adopted June 2021)		2023/271809
	A2⇩	DCP Part 14 Local Character proposed amendments		2025/212853

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.12 / 1

Item GB.12	S12645

Draft Site-Specific DCP - Pymble Golf Club

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include site-specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for Pymble Golf Course (4,12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives).

background:	The site has been subject to a private Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal has been through a rezoning review process and considered by the Strategic Panel of the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) as Council resolved to not support the Planning Proposal. On 6 May 2025 the SNPP determined that the amendments sought by Planning Proposal should be made to the KLEP 2015. Planning Proposal amends the KLEP 2015 to: · Rezone the site from part R3 Medium Density Residential (R3) and part RE2 Private Recreation (RE2) to R4 High Density Residential (R4). A limited portion of R3 land will be rezoned RE2 to make the development site uniform. · increase the maximum building height from 11.5m to part 11.5m (3 storey), part 14.5m (4 storey) and part 17.5m (5 storey); · increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.8:1 to 0.92:1; · introducing a minimum lot size of 1200m2 to the R4 zoned land; and · listing the single storey dwellings at 12 and 14 Cowan Road as local heritage items.

comments:	Council needs to incorporate site-specific controls into the Ku-ring-gai DCP to guide future development outcomes on the site achieved by the rezoning and increased height and floor space ratio.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP amendments for the purpose of public exhibition.

Purpose of Report

Background

A private Planning Proposal has been submitted for the Pymble Golf Club site at 4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives. The Planning Proposal (PP-2022-2519) makes the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:

· Rezone the site from part R3 Medium Density Residential (R3) and part RE2 Private Recreation (RE2) to R4 High Density Residential (R4). A limited portion of R3 land will be rezoned RE2 to make the development site uniform. No development standards will be applied to this land consistent with surrounding RE2 zoned land;

· increase the maximum building height from 11.5m to part 11.5m (3 storey), part 14.5m (4 storey) and part 17.5m (5 storey);

· increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.8:1 to 0.92:1;

· introducing a minimum lot size of 1200m2 to the R4 zoned land; and

· listing the single storey dwellings at 12 and 14 Cowan Road as local heritage items.

The Planning Proposal was reported to the OMC 16 May 2023 with a staff recommendation to support the Planning Proposal and proceed to Gateway Determination. Council resolved to not support the Planning Proposal.

The proponent lodged a Rezoning Review which was considered by the Strategic Panel of the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) on 18 October 2023, who determined that Planning Proposal should progress to Gateway Determination and appointed itself as the Principal Planning Authority.

A Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure on 12 July 2024. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 18 September – 17 October 2024.

The SNPP considered a post exhibition report on 1 May 2025 and determined that the amendments sought by Planning Proposal should proceed to be made. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure will now make the amendment to the KLEP 2015.

Comments

It is proposed to amend the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP):

· Part 14 Urban Precincts and Sites to include site-specific controls for the Pymble Golf Club site (4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives).

· Part 18R Greenweb Maps to include the Angophora costata on the eastern boundary of 10 Cowan Road as ‘Canopy Remnant’ category.

Council staff have reviewed the Planning Proposal documentation including Urban Design Study and the draft site-specific DCP prepared by the proponent, which provides an indication of the possible scale, type, footprint and built outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal.

The draft site-specific controls have been prepared to support the rezoning, increased height and floor space ratio approved by the Planning Proposal for the Pymble Golf Club site, and to guide future development on the site by setting out the key elements which need to be considered and addressed in order to ensure new development fits sensitively with the streetscape.

The draft site-specific DCP amendments are included at Attachment A1.

A brief overview of the key consideration contained in the draft DCP are outlined below:

Urban Precinct

This section of the DCP sets out the planned future character for the site, and key elements any new development must address, including:

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

· conservation of heritage listed cottages at 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives;

· appropriate setbacks to provide suitable separation and transition between the different areas of 5 storey, 4 storey and 3 storey residential development, adjoining residential properties and the Pymble Golf Club recreation areas; and

· retention of existing vegetation including Blue Gum High Forest within and adjacent to the site.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Access

This section of the DCP outlines where the vehicle entry/exit points are to be located, and where pedestrian access to the site is to be provided. A key requirement is that separate vehicle and pedestrian entry points are provided for the golf club and the residential development, and the siting of access points takes into consideration the location of existing significant vegetation.

Building setbacks

This section of the DCP outlines appropriate building setbacks for future development on the site, with key considerations including:

· Setbacks from heritage listed cottages;

· setbacks from adjoining residential properties;

· setback from Cowan Road; and

· provision of deep soil landscaped front setback to Cowan Road.

Built Form

This section of the DCP outlines the specific built form requirements for future development on the site. Key considerations include:

· Built form to comply with the areas of 5 storey, 4 storey and 3 storey residential development, with upper level setbacks;

· built form to Cowan Road must include clearly defined building entries, balconies, or communal rooms to promote passive surveillance and a positive public interface; and

· fencing requirements include height and materials.

Heritage

This section of the DCP includes objectives and controls to ensure the conservation and protection of the two new heritage items listed as part of the Planning Proposal, cottages at 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives. Controls are also proposed which enable the relocation, repair and reuse of the cottages and a future curtilage area.

Greenweb

As part of Council’s original assessment of the Planning Proposal as reported to OMC May 2023, an amendment is proposed to Council’s Greenweb Mapping at Part 18R of the DCP to include the Angophora costata on the eastern boundary of 10 Cowan Road as ‘Canopy Remnant’ category.

The amended Greenweb Map is included at Attachment A2 and Attachment A3.

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, places and processes are in place to protect existing character and effectively manage the impact of new development

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

Governance Matters

This report relates to draft site-specific DCP amendments that have been prepared to support the amendments approved by the Planning Proposal for the Pymble Golf Club which include:

· increase the maximum building height from 11.5m to part 11.5m (3 storey), part 14.5m (4 storey) and part 17.5m (5 storey);

· increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.8:1 to 0.92:1;

· introducing a minimum lot size of 1200m2 to the R4 zoned land; and

· listing the single storey dwellings at 12 and 14 Cowan Road as local heritage items.

The site-specific DCP controls are required to be consistent with the proposed LEP provisions contained in the Planning Proposal. Under Section 4.43(5)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a provision of a development control plan has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent or incompatible with a provision of the LEP applying to the land.

Risk Implication statement

The preparation and inclusion of the site-specific DCP provisions for the Pymble Golf Club site will provide Council with greater assurance and control over future development outcomes on the site consistent with the Planning Proposal which has been approved by the SNPP.

Financial Considerations

The cost to prepare, exhibit and report on the site-specific DCP provisions have been paid by the Planning Proposal proponent in accordance with Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges 2024-2025.

Social Considerations

The draft site-specific DCP amendment includes objectives and controls to conserve heritage items on the site and ensure that any future development responds to the scale, design, setting and character of the items.

Environmental Considerations

The draft site-specific DCP amendments include requirements to ensure the retention and protection of existing trees and vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest on the site.

Community Consultation

It is proposed that the draft site-specific DCP amendments will be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Community Participation Plan and the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has taken place for the preparation of the site-specific DCP provisions with relevant staff with expertise in the areas of urban planning, urban design, heritage and traffic.

Summary

The Planning Proposal for the Pymble Golf Club site at 4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives has been the subject of the Rezoning Review process. On 6 May 2025 the SNPP have determined that the amendments sought by the Planning Proposal should be made to the KLEP 2015. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure will now make the amendment to the KLEP 2015.

Draft site-specific development controls and objectives have been prepared by Council in order to guide future development outcomes on the site achieved by the rezoning, increased height and floor space ratio.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorses, for the purpose of public exhibition, the amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP) at Part 14 (Attachment A1) to include site-specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for Pymble Golf Club (4, 12 and 14 Cowan Road, St Ives) and Part 18R Greenweb Mapping (Attachment A2).

B. That the draft site-specific DCP amendments be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan and the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

C. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period for Council to consider any submissions made.

Alexandra Plumb

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Draft Ku-ring-gai DCP - Section B - Part 14O Pymble Golf Club	2025/207635
	A2⇩	Draft Amended Greenweb Map Sheet 13	2025/212359
	A3 ⇩	Excerpt Draft Amended Greenweb Map Sheet 13	2025/212360

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.13 / 1

Item GB.13	CY00848/2

Environmental Levy Grant Program -
Round 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

background:	The Environmental Levy grants are designed to assist the Ku-ring-gai community to deliver small, community based environmental projects. An independent assessment panel assesses the grant applications against the grant criteria. In 2023 the Environmental Levy grant program was split into a Conservation grant and a new Net Zero grant category, with an additional $50,000 added. As a result, the Environmental Levy grant now has a total of $100,000 allocated, under two categories.

comments:	Nineteen (19) applications totalling $115,807.66 were received under round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program. Three (3) applications did not meet the eligibility criteria and did not progress to assessment panel. Of the sixteen (16) applications assessed, the Environmental Levy grants assessment panel recommends fully funding twelve (12), part funding two (2), and providing additional funds to unlock the potential of two (2) projects. Total recommended funding is $99,191.00.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorse the recommendations of the Environmental Levy Grants Assessment Panel to fund sixteen (16) projects, totalling $99,191.00 under round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Background

The Environmental Levy grants are open to groups, schools, and individuals within Ku-ring-gai and assist the Ku-ring-gai community to deliver small, community based environmental projects that enhance our local environment, engage our community, or solve an environmental problem. The grants were identified in the development of the Environmental Levy, with strong support from residents and Councillors, as an opportunity to invest in projects with direct community benefit.

A five (5) member panel, made up of three (3) local community members and two (2) Council staff members assess the grant applications. There is a separate panel for the Conservation and Net Zero categories, therefore two (2) panels overall. The panel members assess the grant applications against a set of eligibility and performance criteria, ensuring projects deliver at least one of the following:

· Increased community understanding of the value of the natural environment and local issues and impacts;

· increase community action that benefits the natural environment;

· improve the condition of bushland or the conservation of native flora and fauna;

· increase community understanding of Net Zero and reduce emissions in their own lifestyle; and

· increase community action taken to reduce emissions in energy, waste and transport.

The panel makes recommendations to Council for the funding of projects, which is the subject of this report.

Table 1 outlines the number of projects and funding allocations through the Environmental Levy grants program to date.

Round	Number of successful applications	Funding allocation
Round 1	3	$12,500
Round 2	12	$52,269
Round 3	9	$36,982
Round 4	9	$40,000
Round 5	10	$39,576
Round 6	11	$39,726
Round 7	10	$33,102
Round 8	11	$40,636
Round 9	12	$40,069
Round 10	7	$40,343
Round 11	11	$46,174
Round 12	10	$45,276
Round 13	13	$40,068
Round 14	15	$43,357
Round 15	15	$50,278
Round 16	15	$49,902
Round 17	14	$41,779
Round 18	16	$47,654
Round 19	14	$46,700
Round 20	14	$47,637
Round 21	26	$59,999
Round 22	14	$54,954
Round 23	16	$50,102
Round 24	18	$50,607
Round 25	28	$100,105
Round 26	21	$99,586
Round 27	16	$99,191
TOTAL	369	$1,297,942

Table 1: Summary of funding through Environmental Levy grants program

Comments

Round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program was promoted through Council’s sustainability e-news, volunteer for nature e-news and across social media. Additionally, electronic promotion was conducted through Council’s website and Council’s environmental email distribution lists.

The budget for round twenty-seven (27) of the grants program is $100,000, funded through the Environmental Levy. Applications were assessed against the criteria by the assessment panel. Applicants were required to demonstrate how their project:

· Provides a measurable benefit to the Ku-ring-gai environment or community;

· partners with local groups/people to achieve its goals;

· can effectively meet its objectives;

· evidence of diversity, inclusion and equity in the planning and delivery of the project; and

· evidence of the need for the project and proposed outcomes

Please see Attachments A1 and A2 for a summary of the assessment panel review. Based on this review, a summary of the recommended projects for funding is provided in Table 2.

Applicant	Project	Recommended funding ex GST
Energyze North Shore Incorporated	Community Education: Book Tour & En-ROADS Workshop	3,000
Net Zero Champions	Kids Clothes, Toys and Books Swap Events	2,000
Ku-ring-gai Boomerang Bags	Ku-ring-gai Boomerang Bags	3,524
Electrifying Bradfield Incorporated.	'Cool Seat' Composting Installation	5,600
Killara High School	Killara High School Circular Plastic Recycling Initiative	30,000
Gordon East Public School P&C	‘Cool Seat’ Food Waste Reduction and Composting	1,830
John McTaggart Pryde	Removal of weeds on Ku-ring-gai Council land on the northern border of Little Blue Gum Creek's bushcare site	5,000
East Lindfield Community Preschool	Busy bees	1,500
Princes Park Bushcare	Princes Park invasive vine removal	5,000
Beverley Gwatkin and Greg Taylor	Removal of Spanish Moss – Trial	10,000
Macquarie University	Christmas Beetle Monitoring Network	5,000
FOKE	Ku-ring-gai GeoRegion interpretive signage	5,137
WildThings NSW	Hollows in Mapped Biodiversity Corridors	5,500
Vernon St Bushcare	Enhancing native biodiversity and habitat resilience in Bradley Reserve.	5,000
Abbotsleigh School	Streamwatch Environmental Monitoring at the Glade Reserve	1,100
Ku-ring-gai Bushcare Association (KBA)	Acer negundo targeted control	10,000

Table 2: Summary of successful applications – Round 27 of Environmental Levy grants program

integrated planning and reporting

Natural Environment

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A community empowered with knowledge, learning and information that benefits the environment

Increased community action that benefits the environment

Deliver environmental resources and programs for residents

Governance Matters

The Environmental Levy grants program, delivered through the Environmental Levy, provides funding to support environmental projects. Community development programs are highlighted in Ku-ring-gai’s Community Strategic Plan as a key area for Council.

Risk Implication statement

The Environmental Levy grants program covers a range of projects with a variety of associated risks. Council ensures reduced risk to the community and the environment by working closely with grant recipients to ensure that grant implementation works are handled by professionals and that contractors are sourced with appropriate training, safety standards, relevant insurance and licensing.

Financial Considerations

The Environmental Levy has allocated the budget for round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Social Considerations

The Environmental Levy grants program provides an opportunity to invest at the local level in projects with direct community benefit. Many of the grant program’s projects see community members working closely together on a project with an environmental focus. Thus, the program has positive social benefits as well as environmental benefits.

The Environmental Levy grants have been running for many years and the value of the program is demonstrated through the many successful projects which have been undertaken to date.

Environmental Considerations

Round twenty-seven (27) funding has been allocated to enable activities such as bush regeneration, habitat creation, sustainability projects at local schools, and community engagement around reaching Net Zero. A number of outstanding applications were received which will help promote a greater appreciation and understanding of the natural environment and Net Zero within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA).

The evaluation criteria for the Environmental Levy grants program ensure that all projects benefit the natural environment and/or reaching Net Zero within Ku-ring-gai.

Community Consultation

The Environmental Levy Grants are assessed via a panel. The panel for round twenty-seven (27) included 3 community members and 2 Council staff members. The panel met to review the proposals and rank them against the evaluation criteria. There were 2 separate panels for the Conservation grants and the Net Zero grants.

Internal Consultation

In reviewing the grant applications, Environment and Sustainability liaised with Operations and other relevant staff in relation to projects that fell within their areas of professional expertise.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR LARGE GRANTS

Environmental Levy Grants are generally up to $10,000 dollars, however, applications can be made for larger amounts. Where larger amounts are applied for, applicants are required to demonstrate exceptional benefit under the specific criteria.

In round 27 there was 1 application for $30,000 and the assessment panel has recommended funding. The project is unique in nature and multifaceted. For this reason, an exemption to the procurement process, where expenditure of this size requires two different quotes, is recommended.

Killara High School circular plastic recycling initiative

Killara High School is proposing a $30,000 project to establish a circular, school-based plastic recycling program integrated across Years 7–12 Technology and Design & Technology curricula. Using specialised machinery from Precious Plastic Melbourne, students will collect, sort, and repurpose plastic waste from school and community sources into usable materials and products. The program promotes hands-on sustainability education, reduces landfill contributions, and builds student awareness of Net Zero and circular economy principles. With curriculum-aligned units, staff training, and community engagement, the project is designed for long-term impact, inclusivity, and scalability to other schools across Ku-ring-gai.

Special consideration may also be given to the acquittal date being extended, as it is a large project that may require more time to be completed. The acquittal extension will be reviewed after the Sustainability Education Officer completes a site visit to Killara High School during the inception of the project.

Summary

This report seeks Council’s support to fund round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Nineteen (19) applications were received under round twenty-seven (27) of the program. The Environmental Levy grants assessment panel recommends funding sixteen (16) projects, totalling, $99,191 as outlined in this report.

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the recommendations of the Environmental Levy Grants Assessment Panel to fund sixteen (16) projects, totalling $99,191.00 under round twenty-seven (27) of the Environmental Levy grants program.

Karen Lamont

Sustainability Engagement Officer

Lindy Williams

Environmental Volunteering Programs Coordinator

Jacob Sife

Manager Environment and Sustainability

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Net Zero Grants		2025/204603
	A2⇩	Environmental Levy Grants		2025/204664

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.14 / 1

Item GB.14	S12747

Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study - Post Exhibition Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For present the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study for Council endorsement.

background:	The Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study represents the first stage of the flood risk management process for the Middle Harbour Northern Catchments area. The document outlines the data collection and modelling that has been undertaken to help determine the extent and nature of overland flow and mainstream flooding in the area. Council resolved to place the Draft Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study on exhibition on the 15 August 2023.

comments:	The Draft Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study went on Public Exhibition in October - November 2023. Following the exhibition period 32 submissions were received, highlighting a high level of concern, particularly in relation to the impacts of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) property tagging. A number of alternatives to PMF tagging methods were considered, ultimately these were not recommended for implementation. Updates to the Flood Model and Review of the mapping outputs have addressed the issues within many of the submissions.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorse the Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study Final Report.

Purpose of Report

For present the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study for Council endorsement.

Background

The Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study (Attachments A1 and A2) represents the first stage (Data Collection and Flood Study) of the flood risk management process (Figure 1) for the Middle Harbour Northern Catchments area.

Figure 1: NSW Flood Risk Management Process

(Figure 2 from the NSW Flood risk management manual)

The document outlines the data collection and modelling that has been undertaken to help determine the extent and nature of overland flow and mainstream flooding in the area.

This study has been undertaken with financial and technical assistance from the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

Consultants BMT were commissioned to undertake the Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study in June 2020 and have undertaken community consultation and detailed analysis to investigate the nature and extent of flooding in the area.

The study area covers an approximately 16.3 km² catchment which drains to the Middle Harbour Estuary and includes the suburbs (or parts) of East Killara, Killara, Gordon, Pymble and St Ives.

The report outlines the data collection, modelling and results of the flood study, including a comprehensive set of design flood maps to visualise the potential flood inundation and associated flood risks across the study area. This includes peak flood level, depth, velocity, hazard and flood function mapping that are essential for planning, emergency response and management activities.

The draft report was discussed at the Flood Risk Management Committee (FRMC) on 27 July 2023 and the draft study was reported to Council on 15 August 2023 at Item GB.15. It was Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Lennon)

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

B. Residents impacted by Flood Planning Area and PMF tagging maps identified in the study are directly notified about the public exhibition.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Comments

The Public Exhibition was live through all of October 2023 closing on 13 November 2023 and included:

• Information on Council’s “Your Say” web page;

• Webinar on 19/10/2023 (that was available to view through remaining exhibition period)

• Two drop in information sessions:

o Ku-ring-gai Council Chambers 10 – 1pm 24/10/2023

o Gordon Library 5-8pm 26/10/2023

Notification Letters (initially dated 29/09/23) were sent to directly impacted residents, including those properties impacted by the Flood Planning Area and Probable Maximum Flood Tagging Area Maps as per Council’s resolution.

During the exhibition here were 22 recorded enquiries, 19 bookings and numerous additional walk-ins to the community information sessions, with 32 formal submissions made. More details on the submissions are contained in the Community Consultation section of this report.

Staff acknowledge the time between exhibition and finalisation. However, this was required for potential solutions to issues raised during the community consultation to be thoroughly investigated and reviewed, and to ensure that the final updates were well considered and appropriate.

The exhibition highlighted a high level of concern and strong community feedback regarding the impacts of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) mapping and property tagging. A common concern raised was that a PMF event is difficult to conceptualise and would be better understood as an ‘event’ instead of PMF.

In response to the community feedback regarding this issue alternative methods to PMF tagging were investigated, including the option for adopting the 0.2% AEP event as a more ‘tangible’ alternative.

The potential for an alternative to the PMF tagging method was discussed at the Flood Risk Management Committee (FRMC) Meetings held on:

· 13 February 2024: FRMC GB1 Flood Study Updates - the committee resolved:

B. With regard to the Middle Harbour North Catchments Flood study, further information on the implications of a 0.2% AEP as an alternate solution for PMF tagging will be circulated to Committee members for their consideration after this meeting.

· 23 July 2024: FRMC GB1 Additional Information on the proposed changes to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) tagging method and update in Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study

This report discussed the impacts of applying the 0.2%AEP and noted that comparison of the 0.2% AEP and PMF events identified a potential issue in missing critical flow paths during larger extreme events, resulting in the 0.2% AEP being an unsuitable option as a method for identifying properties where planning controls are required between the 1% AEP and PMF events.

At the time the committee recommends Council:

A. Continue to apply a consistent approach (no change) to the creation of PMF tagging maps across the LGA; and

B. The committee report the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study to Council for adoption and implementation.

For the July 2024 FRMC meeting, consultants BMT had also reported that adjustments made in response to the community consultation feedback had resulted in an overall reduction of impacted properties. These adjustments include:

· an updated flood model with slightly reduced building footprints, and

· an adjustment to PMF tagging mapping outputs to more accurately reflect Council’s PMF filtering criteria (300mm depth and 300m² ponding).

However, following review of the final data provided to Council in November 2024, Land Information staff noted that there were new properties impacted, that were not originally part of the public exhibition, and this prompted a request to consultants BMT for clarification and further information.

Following this review and mapping clarification, the final deliverables were confirmed in April 2025. The refinements applied the criteria that any properties that were newly identified in a FPA or PMF tagging area since the 2023 exhibition are not included in the FPA or PMF mapping to be endorsed as part of the current study. Instead, these properties have been noted for review during the Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (the next phase of the flood risk management process). The details for these properties have been provided to Council in a separate memo and are not included in the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study report.

This update was reported to the FRMC at the 10 June 2024 meeting where the updated Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study was resolved to be recommended to council for endorsement.

integrated planning and reporting

Community. People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

An Aware Community able to prepare and respond to the risk to life and property from emergency events.

Emergency Management Plans are developed and implemented, in partnership with emergency service agencies and key stakeholders.

Complete flood risk management studies in consultation with Flood Risk Management Committee and investigate priority management actions.

Governance Matters

This Flood study has been undertaken in accordance with the NSW Flood Risk Management Manual and the Flood Prone Land Policy (2023), which guide local government in understanding and managing flood risk in their communities.

The Flood Risk Management Committee, with community, industry and government representation has overseen this flood study. The committee acts as an advisory committee to Council for the development of all flood studies and flood risk management studies and plans.

Risk Implication statement

The recent floods in various parts of Australia have highlighted the importance of floodplain risk management and have raised public awareness of the need for all councils to provide landowners with the best possible information on the risk of flooding to their property.

Completion of flood studies is a key preventative control for the management of flood risks.

The primary risk associated with the recommendation/s contained in this report is More frequent and extreme temperatures, fire, floods and stores resulting in damage to assets, injury to people and damage to natural environment. This covers the risk themes of People, Financial and Environment.

The key risks that arise from recommendations in this report and related internal controls are currently recorded, well described, and managed within council’s risk register. The risk register was reviewed in December 2024 and have been considered in the preparation of this report - 2024/401891.

The policies and procedures currently in place are effective in managing these risks.

After considering the adequacy of internal controls, the key risks identified are at Threshold Appetite.

No further risk management actions are required.

Financial Considerations

This flood study has been primarily funded through the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) with Council funding being shared between the Operations and Strategy and Environment Departments.

Social Considerations

The results of flood studies and flood risk management studies and plans can impact on property values, insurance premiums, planning controls and options for future development.

Following the NSW government’s Flood Risk Management Process helps to ensure that flood studies are informed by the local community and consider flood risks appropriate for the local context.

Environmental Considerations

The NSW Flood Risk Management Manual (2023) clearly identifies the need for flood risk management to take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development when managing risk associated with human occupation of the floodplain and emphasised maintaining and enhancing the riverine and floodplain environments, including consideration of the needs of threatened species populations and ecological communities as part of flood modification measures.

The Vision for flood risk management in New South Wales is:

Floodplains are strategically managed for the sustainable long-term benefit of the community and the environment, and to improve community resilience to floods.

Community Consultation

The local community has been consulted throughout development of this flood study. When preparing the Draft Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study a community newsletter and questionnaire was sent to all residents and owners potentially impacted by the Probable Maximum Flood (6524 letters sent), in September 2020.

A total of 394 responses were received from the survey with feedback and incorporated into the flood study, primarily through the model verification process.

For the Draft Flood Study exhibition, notification letters (initially dated 29/09/23) were sent to directly impacted residents, including those properties impacted by the Flood Planning Area and Probable Maximum Flood Tagging Area Maps as per Council’s resolution. The exhibition ended on 13 November 2023 and included an online webinar that provided background information on development of the flood study, and two drop-in sessions where interested community members could meet with council staff and consultants to discuss the flood study and potential impact on their properties.

During the exhibition here were 22 recorded enquiries, 19 bookings and numerous additional walk-ins to the community information sessions, with 32 formal submissions made.

Submissions can be grouped into six general topics: Local observed drainage and flood; Local property/topography features; FPA Notation; PMF Notation; Property Value/Insurance; Flood information availability and Consultant Report.

A summary of the topics and the general responses in provided in the Table 1.

Topic/s	Submission Number/s	General response
Local observed drainage and flood	2, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31	FPA and PMF mapping are based on large events, and it is not expected that these events have been witnessed in recent years. Any maintenance requirements for Council drainage infrastructure should be reported to Customer service for inspection.
Local property/topography features	3, 6, 10, 14, 19	Generally, the topography and model provide a fair representation for expected flows. Further investigation can be undertaken at the Flood Risk Management Study and Plan phase of the Flood Risk Management Process.
FPA Notation	1, 8, 9, 12, 17, 21, 26, 27, 31	Many areas of FPA mapping have been adjusted following the model update. Some areas may be able to be trimmed at the property boundary - where the mapping extends less than 2m into a front or rear setback, or 1m at a side setback. Additional properties may be able to request review at the Flood Risk Management Study and Plan phase of the Flood Risk Management Process.
PMF Notation	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32	Many areas of PMF Tagging mapping have been reduced following the model update and review of the map output. Some areas may be able to be trimmed at the property boundary - where the mapping extends less than 2m into a front or rear setback, or 1m at a side setback. Additional properties may be able to request review at the Flood Risk Management Study and Plan phase of the Flood Risk Management Process.
Property Value/Insurance	4, 7, 8, 12, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29	Provision of Flood Certificate reports provide accurate information for consideration of property value and insurance impacts. Whole properties are not identified, the study has identified Flood Planning Areas and PMF Tagging Areas within each site. Information available on council’s website will continue to be improved to help clarify what the mapping indicates and help address concerns around potential issues with interpretation of Council’s flood mapping.
Flood information availability	6, 18, 19, 26	Available information was provided to residents as requested. Provision of Flood Certificate reports provide accurate information for consideration of property value and insurance impacts. Information available on council’s website will continue to be improved to help clarify what the mapping indicates and help address concerns around potential issues with interpretation of Council’s flood mapping.
Consultant Report	6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 24, 29, 31	Minor updates have been made to the report in response to the consultation feedback including clarification of the PMF tagging process and minor edits.

Table 1: Summary of topics raised during community consultation

The full submission list (omitting sensitive information to ensure privacy), with specific responses to each submission is provided in Attachment A3.

Further details on the consultation undertaken to help inform this study is outlined in the final report (Attachments A1 and A2).

Of the 32 submissions received 15 of those sites are no longer identified in the FPA or PMF mapping, 6 have reduced mapping extents, 10 remain similar and 1 was not applicable for this study area. Of the 16 submissions where mapping still applies 8 have been noted for review at the Flood Risk Management Study and Plan phase of the Flood Risk Management Process.

Internal Consultation

Council staff from the Strategy & Environment, Development & Regulation and Operations departments have been nominated to attend the Flood Risk Management Committee meetings and have been involved in review of the flood study materials.

Staff from the Information Management team in the Corporate Department have undertaken important review of the data to ensure accuracy and updates are made in the property information system where relevant.

Summary

Following the Public Exhibition of the Draft Middle Harbour – Northern Catchments Flood Study in late 2023, 32 formal submissions were received. Thought 2024 a number of changes were considered in response to the submissions and following refinement of the model and mapping, the final Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study is ready for council endorsement.

Recommendation:

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

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

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

D. That all owners of properties identified on the Mainstream and Overland Flow Flood Planning Area Map are directly notified about the finalisation.

E. That all owners of properties identified on the Probable Maximum Flood Tagging Map are directly notified about the finalisation.

Sophia Findlay

Natural Areas Team Leader

Jacob Sife

Manager Environment and Sustainability

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study Final Report Volume 1	2025/214261
	A2⇩	Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study Final Report Volume 2	2025/214263
	A3⇩	Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study Submissions and Responses (Personal info removed)	2025/214277

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	MM.1 / 1

Item MM.1	S14427

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	CY00458/13

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	FY00674/2

Attachments:	A1⇩	Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 5 June 2025		2025/191525
	A2 ⇩	Heritage Home Grants 2025-26 summary table		2025/191520

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	S10746

Attachments:	A1⇩	23 July 2024 FRMC Minutes		2025/213076
	A2⇩	10 June 2025 FRMC Minutes		2025/213077

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	FY00623/8
	4 July 2025

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	CY00474/12

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	RFT57-2024/R

Attachments:	A1⇩	RFT57-2024 Main Car Park Upgrade - St Ives Showground - Site Plan	2025/214065
	A2	RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade - St Ives Showground - List of Submitters	Confidential
	A3	RFT57-2024/R Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground - Tender Evaluation Report	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	FY00621/8

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	NM.1 / 1

Item NM.1	S14427

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 July 2025	QN.1 / 1

Item QN.1	S14427