Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 21 October 2025

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 21 October 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 Land Acquisition

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:

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10

File: EM00046/8

Meeting held 23 September 2025

Minutes numbered 156 to 184

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee -
Minutes of Meeting 27 August 2025 33

File: CY00022/17

To consider the Minutes from the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee (KTC) Meeting held on 27 August 2025.

Recommendation:

A. That Council receive and note the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee Minutes from 27 August 2025.

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

C. That Council adopt TfNSW’s new Authorisation and Delegation to Council and implement the transition from the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) model to the new Local Transport Forum (LTF) framework.

GB.2 Smart Transport Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 10 September 2025 52

File: S02696

To consider the minutes of the Smart Transport Advisory Committee (STAC) meeting held on 10 September 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council notes the recommendations of the Smart Transport Advisory Committee meeting held on 10 September 2025, being that the Committee notes the information provided in the agenda, and that expressions of interest/request for proposals from car share providers be progressed for fixed space car share operation in the LGA.

GB.3 Chanukah Menorah Display 60

File: CY00817/3

To advise Council of a request from Chabad North Shore to install and display a Menorah outside the Council Chambers from Friday 12 December 2025 to Tuesday 23 December 2025, to acknowledge the Jewish holiday of Chanukah.

Recommendation:

That Council support the proposal from Chabad North Shore to install and display a Menorah outside Council Chambers from Friday 12 December until Tuesday 23 December 2025, to acknowledge the Jewish holiday of Chanukah.

GB.4 Exhibition of revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy to incorporate a Special Rate Variation 64

File: S14747-1-1

To present Council with the outcomes of the community feedback on four exhibited rate increase options and seek to adopt for exhibition a revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Strategy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt for exhibition a revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Strategy as attached to this report, which incorporates a rate increase of 30.4% (including a Special Rate Variation of 26% and rate peg of 4.4%) to apply in 2026/27, with rates to subsequently increase by the annual rates peg in future years.

GB.5 General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 509

File: FY00259/17

To present to Council the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and audit reports from the Audit Office of NSW, and to provide a summary of Council’s financial performance and financial position at 30 June 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council receive the audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and the auditor’s report from the Audit Office of NSW.

GB.6 New Code of Meeting Practice 525

File: CY00564/8

To brief Council on the new Model Code of Meeting Practice and approve public exhibition of an updated Code of Meeting Practice for Ku-ring-gai Council.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. determine that a Councillor failing to remedy an act of disorder can only be expelled by resolution of council (or committee of council), and that this be reflected in the draft Code of Meeting Practice.

B. approve the draft Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment A1) to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. If no submissions are received within 42 days, that Council adopt the policy.

GB.7 2025 LGNSW Annual Conference: Proposed motion 588

File: S14000/2

To seek Council’s approval for a proposed motion for the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Annual Conference.

Recommendation:

That Council approve the proposed motion (at Attachment A1) for submission to LGNSW.

GB.8 Disclosures of Interest Returns Register 24/25 594

File: EM00046/9

To table Council’s Clause 4.23 Disclosure of Interest Returns Register in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Conduct (the Code).

Recommendation:

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

GB.9 Investment Report as at 30 September 2025 598

File: FY00623/8

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.10 Project Status Report - October 2025 606

File: FY00621/8

To provide Council with the Project Status Report for July – September 2025.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for July – September 2025.

GB.11 Policy Updates - Commercial Leasing Policy, Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy and Easement Management Policy 612

File: CY00473/12

For Council to consider and endorse the updates of the Commercial Leasing Policy 2019, Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy 2019 and the Easement Management Policy 2019.

Recommendation:

That Council resolves to adopt the Commercial Leasing Policy 2025, Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy 2025 and the Easement Management Policy 2025 as outlined in this report.

GB.12 Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme & amended Affordable Housing Policy - Post-exhibition report 656

File: S12314

To report back to Council following the close of the exhibition period of the draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme together with consequential amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy.

Recommendation:

That the draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme 2025 be adopted and the date of commencement align with the date of gazettal of the Ku-ring-gai TOD alternative. That the amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy 2025 be adopted and given immediate effect.

GB.13 Local Character - Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Amendment
Post-exhibition consideration of submissions 731

File: S14276

For Council to consider submissions made to the exhibition of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character considerations.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the amended draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, incorporating Part 14 Local Character Areas, Urban Precincts & Sites.

GB.14 Consideration of Submissions
Planning Proposal 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra 782

File: S13985

For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to increase height and floor space ratio standards, heritage list three sets of sandstone entry pillars, include additional uses on land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra.

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the post-exhibition height amendment and adopts the amended Planning Proposal to increase height and floor space ratio, heritage list three sets of sandstone entry pillars and permit two additional uses on 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra.

GB.15 Planning Proposal for 15 Echo Street Roseville 1032

File: S14893

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal for 15 Echo Street, Roseville.

Recommendation:

That the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway Determination.

GB.16 Amendment to Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Part 13: Tree and Vegetation Protection 1274

File: S15095

For Council to consider a minor amendment to Introduction to Part 13 of the Ku-ring-gai DCP to clarify the interpretation and intent of the part.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the draft amendment to DCP Part 13 for public exhibition under the EP&A Regulation 2021.

GB.17 Faster Assessments Incentive Program - Nomination of Amenities Building and Clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Round 1 Grant Project 1280

File: S09042/1

To nominate a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Council’s Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

Recommendation:

Council nominates a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as the Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

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

Questions With Notice

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 Land Acquisition

File: S14427/2

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(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 Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

David Marshall

General Manager

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 23 September 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)

Acting Manager Corporate Communications (Sally Williams)

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Christopher M Jones)

Governance Support Officer (Eliza Gilbank-Heim)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00 PM

The Mayor offered the Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer

156	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.

Councillor Taylor declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in GB.8 as he is a member of the management committee of KYDS which is a potential grant recipient. Councillor Taylor will leave Chambers for 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:

Memorandums:

A Memorandum for QWN.5 from 19 August 2025 OMC Planning Proposal – Dual Occupancy Floor Space (FSR) Standard from the Director Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 9 September 2025.

A Memorandum for GB.19 – PEERS 3 Electricity Contract Delegation – explanation from the Manager Environment & Sustainability was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 16 September 2025.

A Memorandum for MM.1 – Appointments to External Committees – OSH CMP Consultative Panel terms of reference from the Director Strategy & Environment was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 23 September 2025. MM.1 has since been updated to reflect the recommendation in this memorandum.

A Memorandum for GB.12 – Draft General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 from the Director Corporate was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors on 23 September 2025.

157

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS AND ATTACHMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

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:

C.1 RFT2-2025 Contract for Bus Shelter Advertising, Maintenance & Cleaning within Ku-ring-gai LGA

GB.8 Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Grants Program

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

Attachment A1: Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Grant Applications

GB.13 Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy – Post exhibition report

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

Attachment A1: Submissions – Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

GB.15 RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground

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

Attachment A2: RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade – St Ives Showground – List of Submitters

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

Attachment A3: RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade – St Ives Showground - Tender

GB.17 Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study - Report Update

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

Attachment A4: FRMC Presentation – BMT – 20 August

GB.20 RFT7-2025 – Cricket Net Upgrade Hassall Park St Ives

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

Attachment A1: RFT7-2025 Cricket Net Upgrade Hassall Park St Ives – List of tenders received

Attachment A2: RFT7-2025 Cricket Net Upgrade Hassall Park St Ives – Tender Evaluation Report

C.1 RFT2-2025 Contract for Bus Shelter Advertising, Maintenance & Cleaning within Ku-ring-gai LGA

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

Attachment A1: Tender Evaluation Committee Report RTF2-2025 Contract for Bus Shelter Advertising, Maintenance and Cleaning

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

158

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: EM00046/7

Meeting held 19 August 2025

Minutes numbered 131 to 153

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ward)

That Minutes numbered 131 to 153 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

159

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting

File: EM00047/5

Meeting held 11 September 2025

Minutes numbered 154 to 155

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Balachandran/Ward)

That Minutes numbered 154 to 155 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

160

Appointments to external committees

File: EM00046/8

Vide: MM.1

[Updated on 23 September 2025 to reflect further advice from Director Strategy & Environment]

Council plays an important role in representing our community on a range of external committees, boards, and working groups. These bodies provide valuable opportunities for collaboration, advocacy, and information-sharing between Council and other levels of government, community organisations and regional bodies.

The number of Council delegates currently appointed to these committees varies, with some having only a single delegate and no alternate. This may lead to situations where Council is unable to be represented at external meetings due to unforeseen absences or scheduling conflicts. At present, the following external committees have only a single Council delegate with no alternate:

North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–North Sydney) (Delegate: Councillor Ngai)
North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–Brooklyn) (Delegate: Councillor Wheatley)
Eryldene Trust Committee (Delegate: Councillor Wheatley)
NSW Public Libraries Association (Delegate: Councillor Kay)

In the interest of ensuring consistent and effective representation, I propose that Council appoint an alternate delegate to all external committees.

Council has also been asked to appoint a representative for the Consultative Panel on the Outer Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan (OSH CMP). The OSH CMP will provide a long-term program for the coordinated management of the coastal zone in outer Sydney Harbour (Port Jackson and Middle Harbour extending northwards to the tidal limit of Middle Harbour Creek). OSH CMP is being developed by the Sydney Coastal Councils Group (SCCG) alongside other participating councils including Ku-ring-gai Council and state agencies.

The Consultative Panel is comprised of one councillor (or their delegate) from each of the eight participating councils, and one member each from Sydney Institute of Marine Science and the Greater Sydney Regional Advisory Committee of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). The panel is an advisory group to the SCCG project team and project control group (comprising eight councils and three state agencies).

The purpose of the panel is to assist the SCCG project team and the PCG by helping guide how community engagement is undertaken, providing feedback on draft CMP deliverables and helping ensure the community’s views are considered in the project.

The Consultative Panel will operate for the duration of CMP Stages 2-4 which is currently scheduled to be completed by December 2027. The term may be extended if the project continues past this time.

The draft Terms of Reference for the Consultative Panel are attached with this memorandum.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Wheatley)

That Council:

A. Appoint an alternate to each of the following external committees:

1. North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–North Sydney)

2. North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–Brooklyn)

3. Eryldene Trust Committee

4. NSW Public Libraries Association

Inform the external committees and organisations of Council’s nominated alternate delegate

Appoint a delegate and an alternate to the Consultative Panel on the Outer Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan.

North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–North Sydney)

Councillor Taylor nominated himself with Councillor Wheatley seconding this nomination for the position of alternate delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Taylor was appointed as the alternate delegate for the North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–North Sydney).

North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–Brooklyn)

Councillor Ward was nominated by Councillors Smith/Balachandran for the position of alternate delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Ward was appointed as the alternate delegate for the North Shore Police Area Command Community Safety Precinct Committee (Lindfield–Brooklyn).

Eryldene Trust Committee

Councillor Balachandran was nominated by Councillors Wheatley/Ward for the position of alternate delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Balachandran was appointed as the alternate delegate for the Eryldene Trust Committee.

NSW Public Libraries Association

Councillor Devlin was nominated by Councillors Taylor/Ward for the position of alternate delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Devlin was appointed as the alternate delegate for the NSW Public Libraries Association.

Consultative Panel on the Outer Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan

Councillor Ngai was nominated by Councillors Balachandran/Taylor for the position of delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Ngai was appointed as the delegate for the Consultative Panel on the Outer Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan.

Councillor Taylor was nominated by Councillors Ward/Balachandran for the position of alternate delegate. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Taylor was appointed as the alternate delegate for the Consultative Panel on the Outer Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

161

Vale Jo Harris OAM

File: CY00455/13

Vide: MM.2

It is my sad duty to advise Councillors and our community of the passing of a much loved volunteer, Jo Harris OAM.

Jo died peacefully on Saturday 30 August, aged 91 years.

Born in Killara, Jo Harris was educated at Ravenswood and after leaving school, studied a variety of courses in design and costume at East Sydney Technical College.

In her younger years Jo also experienced country life, working as a governess and jillaroo in Moree.

Nevertheless, Jo lived in Ku-ring-gai most of her life, raising her children with husband John. She was an active member of the local community and in 1999 joined the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society. Jo’s lifelong passion for local history meant she was able to make a significant contribution to the Society in many ways.

Between 2001 and 2018 she held the position of Vice President and was Acting President in 2002-2003. Between 2001 and 2016 Jo was the Society’s Family History Group Leader and was a local history tour convenor for many years.

Jo’s interest in sharing local history with the public led her to create the highly successful Exploring Ku-ring-gai Tour. She also passed on her knowledge of local history by becoming the leader of the Society’s genealogy training courses.

Through her proficiency with shortwave radio, Jo became a Historian of the Wireless Institute of Australia (NSW). Jo led the anniversary on 22 September each year at the Fisk Monument in Wahroonga, which commemorates the first international direct wireless message in 1918 from the UK to Australia.

In 2005 Jo was awarded the title of Ku-ring-gai Historical Society Historian of the Year and in 2009 honoured with a Royal Australian Historical Society Achievement Award.

She was further recognised for her service to local history by gaining life membership of the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society in 2018 and in 2021, was awarded the title of Ku-ring-gai’s Woman of the Year.

Jo’s other community roles included founding the Turramurra Stamp Club, the Ku-ring-gai Arts and Crafts Group and a local spinning group. She was also an Akela for the Killara Cubs.

In 2017 Jo was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List for her outstanding service to the Ku-ring-gai community.

On behalf of Council and our community, I extend our deepest condolences to Jo’s family and friends. She will be sadly missed.

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Kay)

That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Jo Harris.

That the Mayor write to Jo Harris’ family and encloses a copy of the Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

Nil.

GENERAL BUSINESS

162

Election of Deputy Mayor for the 2025 - 2026 Term

File: S14669

Vide: GB.1

To elect the Deputy Mayor for the September 2025 to September 2026 term.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Balachandran)

That Council:

A. Determine whether the method of voting for the position of Deputy Mayor is to proceed by open voting.

B. Elect the Deputy Mayor for the September 2025 to September 2026 Mayoral term.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The General Manager assumed the Chair as Returning Officer.

The General Manager called for nominations and announced there was one (1) nomination for the position of Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Smith was nominated by Councillors Ward/Devlin. As there was only 1 nomination, Councillor Smith duly accepted the nomination and was elected to the position of Deputy Mayor for the September 2025 – September 2026 mayoral term.

163

Arts and Culture Committee -
Minutes of Meeting 18 August 2025

File: S14328

Vide: GB.2

To provide Council with the minutes from the Arts and Culture Committee meeting held on 18 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council:

A. Endorses the minutes of the Arts and Culture Committee meeting held on 18 August 2025.

B. Endorses the proposal that two (2) Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee meetings be held each year, and that the committee’s Terms of Reference be amended to reflect this change.

C. Endorses the proposal that up to two (2) forums, or similar events, be held each year, and that the committee’s Terms of Reference be amended to reflect this change.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

164

Multicultural Advisory Committee -
Minutes of Meeting 14 August 2025

File: S04141

Vide: GB.3

To provide Council with the minutes from the Multicultural Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council:

A. Endorses the minutes of the Multicultural Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 August 2025.

B. Join the Welcoming Cities network at the Committed level under the free membership tier.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

165

Status of Women's Advisory Committee - Minutes of Meeting Tuesday 5 August 2025

File: S13683

Vide: GB.4

To provide Council with the minutes from the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee meeting held on 5 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council endorses the minutes of the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee meeting held on 5 August 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

166

Youth Advisory Committee -
Minutes of Meeting Wednesday 6 August 2025

File: S04477

Vide: GB.5

To provide Council with the minutes from the Youth Advisory Committee meeting held on 6 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council endorses the minutes of the Youth Advisory Committee meeting held on 6 August 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

167

Environment Committee Minutes - August 2025

File: S14696

Vide: GB.6

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee meeting held on 11 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee meeting held on 11 August 2025, including the recommendations that:

Council staff investigate opportunities to use tree survey data to flag properties containing trees greater than 8m height, and that staff investigate opportunities to support community reporting of breaches of tree replacement requirements on private lands.

Council write to Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Environment Minister and Prime Minister urging the adoption of science based and credible national emissions targets and policy, as outlined in this report, that are firmly aligned with the 1.5OC objectives of the Paris Agreement.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

168

Flood Risk Management Committee Meeting Minutes

File: S10746

Vide: GB.7

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 20 August 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meetings held on 20 August 2025 (Attachment A1)

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

169

Compliance Policy

File: S07151

Vide: GB.9

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That the Ku-ring-gai Compliance Policy, Version 5, 2025 be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

170

Local Approvals Policy

File: S07151

Vide: GB.10

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council readopt the Ku-ring-gai Local Approvals Policy so as to facilitate the continuous assessment and determination of all applications made under Section 68 of the NSW Local Government Act, 1993 and other miscellaneous applications.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

171

Investment Report as at 31 August 2025

File: FY00623/8

Vide: GB.11

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That:

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

172

Draft General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025

File: FY00259/17

Vide: GB.12

To present to Council the Draft Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 for certification and referral to Council’s external auditor, the Audit Office of NSW and report on the budgetary position as at 30 June 2025.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council receive and certify the Draft Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025.

That the Draft Financial Statements be referred to Council’s external auditor, the Audit Office of NSW to provide an opinion on the Financial Statements ended 30 June 2025 and to report to Council.

That the Draft Financial Statements ended 30 June 2025 be certified by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer in accordance with Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

That 21 October 2025 be fixed as the date for the meeting to adopt the audited Financial Statements and the audit reports for the year ended 30 June 2025 as required by Section 419 of the Local Government Act 1993.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

173

Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy - Post exhibition report

File: CY00474/12

Vide: GB.13

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council adopt the updated Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy to come into effect on 1 October 2025.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

174

Delegation of Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager

File: CY00259/17

Vide: GB.14

For Council to review delegations of authority to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the General Manager.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council:

A. adopt the attached Roles and Delegations of Council and the General Manager (see Attachment A), including the delegations to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager.

B. Approve updated expense limits for Mayoral donations, artworks and civic receptions.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

175

RFT57-2024 Main Carpark Upgrade St Ives Showground

File: RFT57-2024/R

Vide: GB.15

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

A. That Council decline to accept any tenders and cancel the proposal for the contract.

B. That the carpark requirements be revisited when completing the masterplan for the site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

176

Draft Site Specific Plans of Management - Echo Point Park and Swain Gardens

File: S06604/3

Vide: GB.16

To seek Council endorsement of the draft Site Specific Plans of Management (draft PoMs), for Echo Point Park and Swain Gardens for submission to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure – Crown Lands for approval to proceed to public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council endorse the Site Specific Draft Plans of Management, as attached to this report, for public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and Crown Land Management Act 2016.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

177

Public EV Charging - NSW Kerbside Charging Grants Round 2

File: S14682

Vide: GB.18

To notify Council of proceeding to community consultation on public EV charging for Round 2 of the NSW Kerbside EV Charging grants.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

A. That this report is received and noted.

B. That Council staff continue to progress the NSW Kerbside EV Charging Grant proposals.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

178

Delegation for Acceptance of the PEERS 3 Electricity Contract Extension

File: S11710/2

Vide: GB.19

To seek General Manager delegation for acceptance of the preferred offer for the PEERS 3 electricity extension, facilitated by SSROC.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That Council delegates to the General Manager, authority for the acceptance of the preferred offer for the PEERS 3 electricity extension facilitated by SSROC, noting that SSROC will soon request extension offers.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

179

RFT7-2025 – Cricket Net Upgrade Hassall Park St Ives

File: RFT7-2025/R

Vide: GB.20

To consider the tenders received for RFT7-2025 Cricket Net Upgrade Hassall Park St Ives and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

That:

A. Council accepts the tender submission from Tenderer A to carry out the Cricket Net Upgrade at Hassall Park St Ives.

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

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

D. All tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulation 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

180

RFT2-2025 Contract for Bus Shelter Advertising, Maintenance & Cleaning within Ku-ring-gai LGA

File: CY00853/2

Vide: C.1

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

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

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

Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 5 September 2025

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Taylor)

A. That Council resolve to award the Bus Shelter Advertising, Maintenance and Cleaning Contract as set out in this report; and

B. That the General Manager or delegate be authorised to negotiate and execute any contract or other documentation required to give effect to this resolution.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

After having declared an interest in GB.8, Councillor Taylor left Chambers for the following debate.

181

Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Grants Program

File: FY00432/16

Vide: GB.8

For Council to consider applications and approve total funding of $91,780 to five (5) organisations for the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Grants program.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Wheatley/Ngai)

That Council approves the following amounts for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Grants Program:

· Learning Links – $19,780

· Rotary Club of West Pennant Hills and Cherrybrook - $20,000

· KYDS Youth Development Service Incorporated - $20,000

· Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter - $20,000

· Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Community College - $12,000

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Taylor returned to Chambers.

182

Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study - Report Update

File: S10746

Vide: GB.17

To re-present the Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study for Council endorsement.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Balachandran)

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.

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

Against the Resolution: Councillors Devlin and Ward

CARRIED

Motions of which due Notice has been given

183

Notice of motion: Resumption of master planning for St Ives Showground including best-practice stormwater management

File: CY00422/13

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillors Taylor and Smith dated 5 September 2025

Council has received several tenders to formalise the main carpark near the entrance of St Ives Showground. The project would protect existing trees by defining buffer and exclusion areas and help to control stormwater flow with a new bio-retention basin.

However, the project has highlighted some inadequacies of the current stormwater management for surrounding assets, and the opportunity to resume broader master-planning for the entire site.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Smith)

That Council resumes master-planning for St Ives Showground this financial year, including comprehensive and integrated plans for drainage to Water Sensitive Urban Design standard.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

184

Proposal to perform a traffic study for the Lindfield town centre, leveraging previous foundational work and in line with the other TOD stations

File: S14427/2

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Taylor and Ngai dated 5 September 2025

In early June 2025 Ku-ring-gai Council submitted its alternative Transport Oriented Development (TOD) plan to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, and is now awaiting its gazettal. The plan was developed through a compressed and comprehensive process of design and community engagement and reflects overall community concerns and preferences. The plan enables the creation of approximately 24,500 new dwellings across the four TOD stations in lower Ku-ring-gai, including 9,400 in Lindfield. TOD planning across the state will also enable thousands of new dwellings 'up-stream' of Lindfield. The State Government has signalled their support for an alternative TOD plan prior to gazettal later in the year.

One of the key community concerns raised through the planning process was the likely impact on traffic and pedestrian safety. Council has commenced new transport impact assessments (TIAs) in Gordon, Killara and Roseville, but is relying on a 2019 TIA for Lindfield performed during assessment of the previous scope of the Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal. That study led to planning and in-principle approvals from Transport for NSW for vital 'baseline' infrastructure upgrades on the Pacific Highway between Balfour Street and Grosvenor Road.

A number of other significant changes have impacted traffic in Lindfield since the 2019 study, including the opening of the Chatswood-Sydenham Sydney Metro line, post-COVID business travel practices and delivery of the Lindfield Village Green.

We are recommending a full transport impact assessment for Lindfield, leveraging previous work and particularly the baseline optimisation of the Pacific Highway between Balfour Street and Grosvenor Road.

Lindfield will experience extraordinary growth

New dwellings in Council's alternative TOD plan are concentrated in Lindfield (around 9,400) and Gordon (around 9,000). The new dwellings planned for Lindfield extend across both sides of the train line and Pacific Highway, with some of the highest densities on the western side of the Highway, requiring pedestrian crossing to the station.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Source: Ku-ring-gai Council TOD update 5 June 2025 https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/hptrim/information-management-publications-public-website-ku-ring-gai-council-website-planning-and-development/tod-sepp_lep_maps_250612-lindfield.pdf

Previous traffic studies have created a solid foundation.

The business paper for the March meeting on Council's alternative TOD plan referred to a previous 2019 study in Lindfield:

"During the development of the Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) Planning Proposal, a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared which incorporated study area extents not dissimilar to the Lindfield TOD precinct. The TIA also included a 10-year growth scenario that factored in background growth”.

The LVH TIA was completed in 2019, prior to the completion of the Lindfield Village Green, the Sydney Metro extension from Chatswood to the City, COVID-19, and the State Government's Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program.

The study was based on considerably lower building heights for the Hub and included a limited and fairly broad-brush growth scenario of 2% p.a. vehicle movements through four intersections on the Pacific Highway. The planning led to key works approved in-principle by TfNSW that are in active planning phase:

· New traffic signals at intersection Pacific Highway and Strickland Avenue.

· New traffic signals at intersection Pacific Highway and Beaconsfield Parade and minor relocation of mid-block signals outside station.

· Modifications to existing traffic signals intersection Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road.

· New traffic signals at intersection Lindfield Avenue/Tryon Road.

These works represent vital baseline optimisation within extraordinary geographic constraints, and have been included in Council's alternative TOD plan:

Source: Ku-ring-gai Council TOD update 5 June 2025

https://kuringgai.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2025/03/OMC_31032025_AGN_AT_EXTRA.PDF

Our community is concerned about traffic and pedestrian safety.

Early in 2025 Council commissioned a community survey on the TOD alternative preferred scenario as part of a comprehensive community engagement program. The results of the community survey highlighted community concerns regarding building heights, transitions, heritage conservation, the tree canopy and environmental considerations.

One of the key themes of the written submissions to Council through the planning process was:

"Traffic and Parking: Submissions noted the existing traffic congestion on roads and particular the Pacific Highway and raised concern that development arising from the alternative scenarios would result in further negative impacts to the road network, noting that people would drive and not just rely on public transport."

'Other issues' were raised by 517 respondents in written submissions:

…"with traffic congestion and safety being the predominant concern by a significant margin. These concerns were consistent across all suburbs and station proximities."

[These concerns] included comments along the following themes:

· "Increased traffic flows/congestion and impacts to pedestrian safety.

· "Additional demand for on-street parking from new dwellings, and impacts to vehicular access/circulation on local streets and on-street parking availability for existing residents; and

· "Limited access to/from Pacific Highway."

Source: Taverner Community Survey Report, Extraordinary Meeting of Council 5 June 2025 business paper https://kuringgai.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2025/06/OMC_05062025_AGN_AT_EXTRA.PDF

The extraordinary population increase associated with planned TOD development will undoubtedly increase traffic and pedestrian movements in lower Ku-ring-gai, well beyond the modelled assumptions in the LVH TIA study.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Taylor/Ngai)

That Council:

A. Commence a comprehensive Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) for the Lindfield town centre building on previous study outcomes, immediately upon gazettal of an alternative TOD plan, including but not limited to the impact of changed context and the alternative TOD plan on vehicle traffic, pedestrian/cycle movements, and parking for residents, commuters and retail customers.

B. Complete and submit the TIAs to Council for consideration within 12 months of TOD gazettal.

C. Consider the key recommendations from these studies when Ku-ring-gai seeks to update its development contributions plan.

D. Complete implementation of the vital foundational improvements across all four TOD centres.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Nil.

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

At the OMC held on 19 August 2025 Councillor Balachandran raised the following Question which was taken on notice by the Director Strategy and Environment:

Page 665 agenda Under the DCP, why did we choose a higher number of small trees rather than a smaller number of large trees?

Answered by the Director Strategy & Environment

The Director Strategy & Environment advised that he would take that question on notice.

Further response

Large trees need at least 10m x 10m of soil, which most lot widths, configurations and without major design compromises. Smaller trees, however, can fit

across a wider range of sites and still contribute meaningfully to the landscape. The DCP therefore proposes a higher number of small (3.5x3.5m) and medium (6x6m) sized trees, ensuring consistent canopy and greening outcomes across Ku-ring-gai, while still giving flexibility in how different lots achieve this.

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Nil.

The Meeting closed at 7:31pm.

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 23 September 2025 (Pages 1 - 32) 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
A4: Provide, upgrade and maintain Ku-ring-gai’s local road and footpath network, traffic facilities and other road infrastructure.	A4.2: The local road network and associated traffic facilities are improved and maintained.	A4.2.1: Obtain endorsement and approval from the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee and Council for the new or upgraded traffic and pedestrian facilities at identified sites and secure funding. A4.2.2: Support monthly meetings of the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee or as required.

Community Strategic Plan Strategy	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Action
A5: Work with the NSW government and partners to improve local integrated transport connections, public transport and the regional road network.	A5.1: A network of safe and convenient links to local centres, major land uses and recreation opportunities, including active transport, is progressively implemented and promoted to meet the access and travel needs of the community.	A5.1.1: Implement the improvement plan for bikeways, pedestrian facilities and footpath networks having regard for the access, health and recreational needs of the community.
E2: Support the community to transition to net zero emissions.	E2.1: Our community is effectively informed and engaged in activities that are reducing Ku-ring-gai’s emissions towards Net Zero.	E2.1.1: Support the community in reaching net zero emissions by 2040 or earlier.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
C2. Support communities that understand, value and accept each other and embrace our evolving cultural identities	C2.1 Culturally appropriate services and programs are developed and delivered to meet the needs of diverse communities	C2.1.1 Deliver culturally appropriate services and programs that cater to diverse communities

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.4 / 10

Item GB.4	S14747-1-1

Exhibition of revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy to incorporate a Special Rate Variation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present Council with the outcomes of the community feedback on four exhibited rate increase options and seek to adopt for exhibition a revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Strategy.

background:	At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 June 2025, Council endorsed commencing community engagement on four rate rise options, including three options which involved a Special Rate Variation. Comprehensive awareness-raising and engagement activities were undertaken during July-September 2025 in line with this resolution.

comments:	Community feedback showed there was majority support for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) to improve local infrastructure. After considering this feedback, alongside the infrastructure benefits of a SRV, the capacity of ratepayers to afford an increase, and the 2026/27 rate peg announcement, it is recommended that Council proceeds with a 30.4% rate increase in 2026/27. To progress this option, and to be in a position to lodge a SRV application before February 2026, Council needs to exhibit revised versions of several Integrated Planning and Reporting documents.

recommendation:	That Council adopt for exhibition a revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Strategy as attached to this report, which incorporates a rate increase of 30.4% (including a Special Rate Variation of 26% and rate peg of 4.4%) to apply in 2026/27, with rates to subsequently increase by the annual rates peg in future years.

Purpose of Report

Background

In late 2022, Council commissioned an independent financial sustainability review, which made a number of recommendations including that Council pursue a Special Rates Variation (SRV) to address the growing infrastructure backlog. This report was considered by Council in February 2023, and the review findings informed a strategic review of Council’s infrastructure assets, mainly stormwater and building assets and Council’s successive Long Term Financial Plans (LTFPs) that all canvassed SRV options.

Council also gauged preliminary community feedback on willingness to pay higher rates for infrastructure improvements as part of its 2024 community research survey. Results showed that the community generally supported paying higher rates to improve services and facilities.

At its meeting on 15 April 2025, Council considered a report on a new draft Community Strategic Plan, Resourcing Strategy and Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DP&OP). Council resolved that the draft plans and strategy be placed on public exhibition. Following public exhibition, on 17 June Council resolved as per below:

That Council:

A. 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

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

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

D. 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.

E. 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.

Comments

On the 17 June 2025, Council resolved to commence comprehensive community engagement on the rate rise options described in the Long-Term Financial Plan 2025 – 2035.

Comprehensive engagement took place between 21 July and 1 September 2025, focusing on the four rate increase options outlined in that resolution.

These options were presented in line with the table below:

*Option name*	*Deteriorating Increase*	*Renew Infrastructure*	*Renew and Enhance Infrastructure*	*Renew, Enhance and Expand Infrastructure*
Option number	1	2	3	4
*PROPOSED RATE REVENUE INCREASE (%)*
Assumed rate peg (%)	3%	3%	3%	3%
Special Rate Variation (%)	0	19%	26%	30%
Total rate increase	3%	22%	29%	33%
*ADDITIONAL ANNUAL FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL ($m)*
Stormwater and drainage	$0	$5.9m	$5.9m	$5.9m
Buildings (e.g. halls, amenities and pavilions)	$0	$6.7m	$6.7m	$6.7m
Recreational facilities (e.g. sports fields, parks, open space)	$0	$1.5m	$2.1m	$2.1m
Existing footpaths	$0	$0.94m	$0.94m	$0.94m
New footpaths	$0	$0	$3.8m	$3.8m
Other infrastructure upgrades (e.g. traffic and transport works)	$0	$0	$1.7m	$2.4m
St Ives Indoor Sports Centre construction loan	$0	$1.46m	$1.46m	$1.46m
Marian Street Theatre construction loan and operating subsidy	$0	$0	$0	$2.98m
*PROPOSED 2026/27 AVERAGE RATE ANNUAL INCREASE*
Residential rates	$52 (or $1pw)	$378 (or $7.27 a week)	$499 (or $9.60 a week)	$568 (or $10.92 a week)
Business rates	$173 ($3.33 a week)	$1,272 ($24.46 a week)	$1,676 ($32.33 a week)	$1,907 ($36.68 a week)

Option 1 (3%) was a ‘business as usual’ option based on Council’s current financial operating model. Rates would only increase in line with the NSW Government rate peg which is available to all NSW councils. This option would result in ongoing average annual deficits of $2.3 million from 2026/27. This would prevent Council being able to invest additional funds into asset maintenance and renewal, and lead to a significant increase in Council’s infrastructure backlog (the cost to bring assets to a new condition) from $227 million in 2023/24 to $325 million in 2034/35. As a result, the quality of infrastructure would continue to decline, and Council would be required to spend increasing amounts on temporary repairs.

The next three options all involved an SRV (plus the rate peg). An SRV would be a one-time increase that would apply in 2026/27 and become a permanent part of Council’s rate revenue base. From 2027/28, rates would increase in line with the rate peg.

Option 2 (a 22% increase) would provide an additional $16.5 million in annual revenue. This would allow Council to invest extra funds to improve existing stormwater and drainage, community buildings, recreational facilities and footpaths. This would include $1.46 million a year to fund loan repayments for the construction of the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre. After the loan is repaid in 2031/32, this funding would be reallocated to other infrastructure renewal, mainly recreational facilities and assets. Under this option, Council’s infrastructure backlog would reduce to $175 million in 2034/35.

Option 3 (a 29% increase) would provide an additional $22.6 million in annual revenue. This would allow Council to deliver all the infrastructure outcomes under Option 2, and provide extra funding for renewal of recreational facilities, new footpaths and other infrastructure upgrades (e.g. traffic and transport works). Under this option, Council’s infrastructure backlog would reduce to $174 million in 2034/35.

Option 4 (a 33% increase) would provide an additional $26.3 million a year in annual revenue. This would allow Council to deliver all the infrastructure outcomes under Option 3 and provide additional funding for other infrastructure upgrades. This would also deliver $2.98 million a year to service a $30.36 million loan to rebuild the Marian Street Theatre and subsidise the theatre’s operation. Once this loan was fully repaid in 2045/46, this funding (excluding the operating subsidy) would be redirected to other infrastructure renewal and upgrade works.

Fact sheets about each of the options, as well as Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DP&OP) and Resourcing Strategy (including the LTFP and Asset Management Strategy) were available at www.krg.nsw.gov.au/srv. The Resourcing Strategy provided further information about the financial challenges facing Council, further information about each rate increase option and financial and infrastructure projections.

Raising community awareness of the options

Council undertook a wide range of awareness-raising activities to inform the community about these options. These included mailing a letter and brochure to all ratepayers, bulk emails to ratepayers and community members, promotion via local media advertising, displays in Council venues, social media and outdoor banners.

Independent research found that 60% of the Ku-ring-gai community was aware of the engagement activities. This result is significantly higher than the average result for other NSW councils who have recently sought feedback on rate increases.

A community engagement outcomes report is available at Attachment A1.

Representative survey

Council commissioned an independent, randomly-selected survey to measure community sentiment about each of the options. The representative survey involved 400 residents. Because its structure was based on random selection and its results were weighted to match the LGA’s adult age and sex demographics, the results are statistically representative^{^[1]} of the views of the Ku-ring-gai community. The survey found that:

· When asked to state their level of support for SRV options, 66% were at least somewhat supportive of Option 2, followed by 61% for Option 1, 45% for Option 3 and 28% for Option 4.

· 56% of the community support one of the three SRV options (Options 2-4) as their first preference, compared to 44% who support the rate peg only option (Option 1) as their first preference.

Recruited workshops

Council also held two community recruited workshops in August with 68 randomly selected residents. Participants were presented with information on Council’s financial challenges, infrastructure needs and rate increase options before discussing these in small groups.

Each table considered the pros and cons of the options, ranked their preferences, and provided feedback on awareness levels and the structure and timing of the SRV options.

The workshops created an informed, collaborative environment to test community sentiment. Of the ten tables, seven identified a Special Rate Variation option as their preferred choice, with three favouring Option 2, three favouring Option 3 and one favouring Option 4.

Further information about the outcomes of the recruited workshops is provided in the community engagement outcomes report (Attachment A1), and the full report on the representative survey results is available at Attachment A2.

Opt-in (self-selected) survey and forums

As part of the consultation process, community members were invited to complete a version of the survey. Council received 4,515 responses. The results are not statistically representative of the overall community (only 5% of respondents were aged under 35, compared to 21% for the representative survey and the demographic profile of the area).

While the results are not statistically representative of the overall community, they illustrate the views that engaged members of the community have on the rate increase options. Results from the opt-in survey were that:

· When respondents were asked to state their level of support for each option, 67% said they were at least somewhat supportive of Option 1, ahead of 44% for Option 2, 29% for Option 3 and 18% for Option 4.

· 60% of respondents ranked the rate peg only option (Option 1) as their highest preference, and 40% of respondents ranked one of the three SRV options as their highest preference.

The full report on the opt-in survey results is available at Attachment A3. Page 7 of the report compares the snapshot results from the opt-in survey with those from the representative survey.

Public forums and drop-in sessions

During July and August Council also hosted an in-person engagement forum in the Gordon Council Chambers, an online forum and two drop-in sessions at the Gordon Library and St Ives Shopping Centre. Council staff presented the rate rise options in detail, and the community was given the opportunity to ask questions, provide feedback, and share comments. Further information about these engagement events is provided in the community engagement outcomes report (Attachment A1).

Written submissions

In addition, Council received more than 570 written submissions. It should be noted that some of the emailed submissions may have been duplicated by individuals and sent from different accounts.

Thematic feedback on the submissions

Across both the representative and opt-in surveys, a couple of core themes emerged regarding the options:

· Respondents who supported a rate increase generally did so because they believed it was necessary for maintaining and renewing infrastructure.

· Those who opposed the increase felt that Council should make better use of its existing funds or were concerned about the affordability and cost of living impacts of higher rates.

Council has undertaken an analysis of the most mentioned themes in submissions and the recruited workshops:

· Responses suggesting that Council reduce services and costs to fund infrastructure instead of increasing rates

· Concern about affordability and cost of living impacts of a rate increase

· Support for the Marian Street Theatre was divided, with feedback both for and against funding for the project

· A perception that Council needs a greater focus on efficiency and cost containment

· Council should have considered a rate increase option between 3 and 22%

· Council should provide more detail about how revenue has been spent, and how future funds will be allocated.

Responses to the thematic feedback have been prepared and provided at Attachment A4.

Proposed amendments to integrated planning and reporting documents.

In response to the above issues, and other responses received through the consultation process, Council has proposed the following clarifications and amendments to the Long Term Financial Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan and the Asset Management Strategy where appropriate.

Revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan

The DP&OP is the primary reference point for all activities undertaken by council during its term of office. The DP&OP has been updated as follows:

· Included reference to the preferred SRV option which is a 30.4% rate increase for 2026/27 and the benefits of this option (section Proposed Special Rate Variation).

· Revised the Financial Summary, and Summary of Capital Works Program and Operational Projects in this document to reflect the preferred rate rise option (Option 3) for 2026/27 to 2028/29.

The revised DP&OP is provided at Attachment A5.

Revised Long Term Financial Plan

The Long-Term Financial Plan is a ten‑year rolling plan that informs decision‑making and demonstrates how the objectives of the DP&OP will be resourced and funded.

The LTFP has been revised to include two scenarios, Base Case scenario and Option 3 – Renew and Enhance Infrastructure, identified as the preferred option outlined below. Other updates are also provided for information. The revised LTFP is provided at Attachment A6.

Revised rate peg for 2026/27

On 30 September 2025, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) announced that Ku-ring-gai Council’s approved rate peg for 2026/27 will be 4.4%.

The rate peg is the annual increase in general income intended to cover Council's projected increases in operational costs due to inflation, population growth and other factors.

The exhibited rate increase options, as communicated to the community, included an assumed rate peg of 3% for 2026/27.

It is recommended that the overall rate increase for 2026/27 be calculated using the actual IPART rate peg (4.4%) combined with the exhibited SRV amount for the preferred option. This is consistent with how the rate peg component was communicated during public consultation.

Recommended rate rise option

Following a comprehensive review of the financial options and community feedback, it is recommended that Council progress with Option 3 – Renew and Enhance Infrastructure.

The total one-off rate increase to apply in 2026/27 would be 30.4%. This amount would be comprised of a rate peg component of 4.4% and an SRV component of 26.0%.

If implemented, this increase would apply in 2026/27. Average annual residential rates are projected to increase by about $523 ($10.06 a week), and average business rates would increase by about $1,757 ($33.79) a week.

The SRV increase would remain in Council’s rate revenue base on a permanent basis. From 2027/28 onwards, rate revenue would only increase in line with the annual rate peg.

Option 3 is recommended because it represents the best balance between achieving necessary asset management outcomes, addressing community priorities and impact on ratepayers:

· It would allow Council to meet community expectations set out in the Community Strategic Plan and make Ku-ring-gai a better place to live and work by providing infrastructure that is more accessible, connected, modern, safe and enjoyable.

· It would deliver a noticeable and significant improvement in the quality of Council's infrastructure, specifically in the areas of stormwater and drainage, community buildings, recreational facilities, footpaths, and traffic and transport-related infrastructure.

· It specifically targets infrastructure areas that the community has identified as high importance, lower levels of satisfaction – specifically condition of existing footpaths, new footpaths and traffic management.

· It would provide the necessary funding for the construction of the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre.

· This option received substantial support during the exhibition process, with 45% of the community at least somewhat supportive of this option.

· It aligns with the principle of inter-generational equity by ensuring the current generation does not burden future generations with the increased costs of deteriorating infrastructure and temporary repairs.

· The impact on ratepayers has been tested under a capacity-to-pay analysis (see further information later in this report) and would be implemented alongside careful consideration of hardship applications, consistent with Council’s rates policy addressing hardship.

Other key financial outcomes reflected in the LTFP under the preferred Option 3 are:

· The infrastructure backlog is projected to decrease by 40%, from $194 million in 2025/26 to $116.5 million in 2034/35, resulting in a noticeable improvement in the condition of local assets.

· Council is expected to achieve average annual operating surpluses of $19.5 million, which can be reinvested into infrastructure.

· Asset renewals are forecasted to align with depreciation, supporting sustainable long-term asset management.

· In contrast, under the Base Case (rate-peg only option), the backlog would grow to $274 million by 2034/35, average annual deficits of $1.59 million would be recorded, and the condition of infrastructure would continue to decline.

Other changes to the revised LTFP include:

· Updated financial and infrastructure information, based on the confirmed 2026/27 rate peg and updated infrastructure backlog and condition information from the latest 2024/25 audited financial statements.

· Provided clarifications to the allocation of funding between different infrastructure categories and future projects, i.e. from “Other Infrastructure” to “Traffic and Facilities”

· Updated average rate increase tables by residential and business ratepayer classes for the coming four years, under the preferred rate increase

· Allowed additional expenditure from rates growth to support expansion of services and infrastructure for a growing population from housing reforms

· Included comments on capacity to pay information.

Asset Management Strategy

The Asset Management Strategy (AMS) sets the direction for how Council will plan, deliver, maintain, renew assets to achieve the objectives outlined in the LTFP. A new AMS is provided at Attachment A7 and confirms the reduction in the infrastructure backlog for footpaths, stormwater and drainage, recreational facilities, buildings and road structures.

The AMS includes substantial changes to better demonstrate how it addresses community priorities and compares the infrastructure impacts of the base case and the preferred SRV option (a 30.4% rate increase).

It is now a more strategic, high-level document, and further technical details about asset conditions, service levels, valuations, risk management and asset programs will now be included in the supporting Asset Management Plans (AMPs). The AMPs for the following asset classes are currently under review and will be presented to Council at the December meeting:

· Road and transport assets

· Footpaths

· Stormwater drainage

· Parks and recreational assets

· Buildings assets

Indicative project list

To provide the community with a better understanding of the benefits that the increased revenue would deliver, Council will release an indicative list of infrastructure projects that could be funded through preferred rate increase over the next ten years (see Attachment A8). This will be published to Council’s engagement portal as a supporting document alongside the revised DP&OP and Resourcing Strategy on exhibition.

Note that the project list itself will not be exhibited, and any submissions received that specifically refer to individual projects will be advised that the actual program of capital works for 2026/27 (and subsequent years) will be revised as part Council’s annual planning and budgeting process, and public consultation on a schedule of projects will be undertaken in April-May 2026 during the exhibition of the next Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Capacity to pay analysis

Under the NSW Government’s SRV guidelines, councils must demonstrate any proposed rate increases are affordable having regard to capacity to pay. Council has commissioned an independent analysis of the capacity of residential ratepayers to afford each of rate increase options exhibited from July-September 2025.

Overall, the report demonstrates that there is capacity to pay the preferred rate increase.

Indicators in favour of a capacity to pay include the fact the Ku-ring-gai LGA has:

· among Australia’s highest levels of advantage and lowest levels of disadvantage, when using the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) score.

· a lower proportion of vulnerable households, pensioners and people requiring additional assistance compared to Greater Sydney

· a lower proportion of income spent on rates (according to 2021 Census data) and a higher proportion of full home ownership compared to Greater Sydney

· an increase in household savings from 2018/19 to 2023/24, compared to a reduction in savings across Australia during the same period

· three ratepayers subject to Council’s hardship policy as at end of 2024/25.

Indicators that show pressure on capacity to pay include:

· a higher proportion of households paying mortgages, and overall levels of mortgage stress, compared to Greater Sydney

· a lower proportion of working age individuals compared to Greater Sydney

· the percentage of outstanding rates has increased over the past 3 years and sits above the benchmark level of 5% in 2024/25.

The report also notes that if any of the SRV options were implemented in 2026/27, then the average residential rate would move from the 8th highest in Sydney metropolitan and metropolitan fringe councils to 3rd or 4th. It is noted that average residential rates in Ku-ring-gai reflect larger property lot sizes and revenue for Council overall is reduced by low business rate revenue.

For business ratepayers, average business rates in Ku-ring-gai have historically been well below the average for comparable councils. A 30.4% rate increase would lift the average rates in Ku-ring-gai slightly above the average rate for all councils. This, combined with healthy local industry indicators and low outstanding business rates demonstrates capacity to pay the preferred rate increase.

The capacity to pay report is provided at Attachment A9.

Cost containment and efficiency

Under the NSW Government’s guidelines, council applications for an SRV must explain and quantify the productivity improvements and cost containment strategies they have realised in past years and plans to realise over the proposed special variation period.

Council historically operates as a lean and efficient organisation, consistently outperforming most metropolitan councils in key financial metrics:

· In 2023/24, Council's operating expenditure per capita was $1,215, 16% lower that the Sydney average of $1,441. This suggests Council is delivering services in a more cost-effective manner than the average across Sydney.

· For urban metropolitan councils, lower expenditure per kilometre of road suggests efficiency in maintaining infrastructure and providing related services. Ku-ring-gai's operating expenditure per km of road was $320,000 in 2023/24, which is 32% below the metropolitan average of $476,000 per km.

· In 2023/24, each Ku-ring-gai Council staff member serviced 309 residents, the second highest ratio among Sydney councils and significantly above the Sydney average of 235 residents. A higher ratio typically points to greater staff efficiency, with fewer staff responsible for serving a larger population.

· Council’s average annual cost increase since 2017/18 is the 4th lowest in Sydney, which indicates that Council is successfully containing its costs while continuing to maintain service levels to the community.

Council’s approach to financial management and efficiency is structured around five key elements:

· Financial management and governance: Council operates under a stringent legislative and regulatory framework which ensures responsible and sustainable spending.

· Optimisation of revenue: Seeking opportunities to increase revenue from diverse sources to minimise the financial burden on ratepayers.

· Service improvement review program: Targeted reviews to reallocate resources, streamline business processes, and benchmark operations against best practices and other councils to identify areas for improvement and efficiency.

· Ongoing business improvements: Other initiatives to streamline processes, reduce unnecessary administration and waste, and innovations to maintain levels of services within available budgets, and free up funding and staff time.

· Tracking and reporting performance: Public reporting on key financial, efficiency and productivity measures, progress of service improvement reviews and delivery of other business improvements.

Service improvement review program

Council is dedicated to providing high-quality, efficient and responsive services that continually meet the evolving needs of the community, and the Service Improvement Review Program is a crucial component of its broader cost containment and efficiency efforts. The following service improvement reviews are currently underway or have been completed in 2024/25:

· Communications and engagement: A key finding from the review was that staffing levels of the Corporate Communications team are lower compared to other benchmarked councils and the unit is operating with a leaner communication and engagement function relative to its peers.

· Maintenance of sportsfields: The review highlighted that material and contract costs have increased significantly over the past three years (primarily due to rising contractor expenses and electricity), but that employee costs have remained stable. Comparisons with Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) members revealed that Ku-ring-gai provides a significantly higher number of turf fields per resident, and that operational costs per hectare and per field are amongst the lowest in the region.

· Development application (DA) assessment service: The review found that resourcing levels were comparable to other councils but may not be sufficient to meet increasing workload and the requirement to reduce assessment times in the coming years.

Recommendations arising from each of these reviews are being implemented, and progress and the outcomes will be published in Council’s Annual Reports.

Targeted reviews of Councils compliance and regulatory functions and community development programs are currently being completed, and reviews of environment and sustainability programs and libraries are commencing in late 2025.

Council continues to focus on improving efficiency, with further detail on savings, productivity, and revenue measures outlined in the Long-Term Financial Plan, along with the comparative data information described above.

Hardship and concessions

Council is committed to ensuring that the proposed rate increase does not create undue financial hardship for vulnerable residents. Council’s Rates, Charges and Sundry Debts – Assistance, Concessions and Recovery Policy (available on Council's website) provides a framework for offering flexible payment arrangements and assistance to ratepayers experiencing financial difficulty.

The policy recognises that ratepayers may at times have difficulty paying their rates and charges and outlines the steps and processes Council will consider in these circumstances. As at the end of 2024/25, three ratepayers were taking advantage of the provisions under this policy.

If Council progresses with a SRV, Council will continue to carefully implement this policy. In addition, Council will make the policy more accessible on the website.

Council also provides financial relief to eligible pensioners by reducing rates, charges and interest on properties occupied as their principal residence. This includes a statutory annual concession of up to $250 provided under the Local Government Act. Council also provides a voluntary concession of 8.5% of total rates and charges. This translates to an additional average concession of $146 in 2025/26.

Next steps

It is recommended that Council endorse a 30.4% rate increase (comprised of a rate peg component of 4.4% and an SRV component of 26.0%) as its preferred 2026/27 rate increase option, and exhibits a revised DP&OP, LTFP and AMS that reflect this option.

If Council resolves an alternative SRV option, it is recommended that the General Manager be delegated authority to update the attached plans to reflect the preferred rate increase option prior to exhibition.

If Council resolves to proceed with any SRV option, Council will notify IPART of its intent to lodge an application in early 2026, subject to public exhibition and resolution of Council.

Following public exhibition process, a report will be prepared for the December 2025 Ordinary Meeting of Council. This would report on submissions received during the public exhibition period, seek for Council to adopt the revised DP&OP and Resourcing Strategy, and resolve to submit a SRV application to IPART (due 2 February 2026).

IPART is expected to independently exhibit and seek feedback on any SRV applications it has received in February-March 2026, before making a decision on these applications around May 2026. If approved, the SRV would be reflected in rates notices issued in July 2026.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and service excellence

Community Strategic Plan Strategy

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Action

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

L2: Support the long-term financial sustainability of Council through sound financial and asset management.

A1.1: Plans are in place to effectively fund public infrastructure and assets to meet the needs of a growing and changing population.

L2.1: Council takes action towards financial sustainability

L2.3.2: Review the Asset Management Strategy, policy and plans and align with Council’s infrastructure priorities.

L2.1.1: Council commences comprehensive community engagement on rate rise options described in the Long Term Financial Plan.

L2.1.3: Review the Long Term Financial Plan and identify options such as a special rate variation to maintain financial sustainability.

Governance Matters

The process for seeking an SRV and the amendment of Council's plans are governed by specific provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) Framework.

Under sections 404 and 405 of the Act, Council must have a Delivery Program detailing the principal activities to be undertaken to perform its functions (including implementing the strategies set out in the Community Strategic Plan) within the limits of the resources available under the Resourcing Strategy. Council must have an annual Operational Plan details the activities and actions to be undertaken during that year to achieve the commitment in the Delivery Program. A draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days and Council must consider all submissions received before adopting the final plan. Significant amendments to a Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be re-exhibited.

Under section 403 of the Act, Council must have a long-term Resourcing Strategy for the

provision of the resources required to perform its functions. In accordance with IP&R requirements, the key underlying assumptions on which the LTFP is based, and the projected income and expenditure, balance sheet and cash flow statement contained in the Long-Term Financial Plan must be reviewed. The LTFP must be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days and submissions received by the council must be considered before the final plan is adopted.

Sections 508A and 508(2) of the Act outline relevant legal provisions for SRV applications. IPART assesses and determines SRV applications by councils under powers delegated to it by the Minister. The Office of Local Government (OLG) Guidelines for the Preparation of an Application for a Special Variation to General Income set the criteria against which applications will be assessed, and councils must take these guidelines into consideration before applying for an SRV. Under the Guidelines, IPART must assess each SRV application against the following criteria:

· The need for, and purpose of, a different revenue path for the council’s General Fund (as requested through the SRV) is clearly articulated and identified in the council’s IP&R documents, in particular its Delivery Program, LTFP and Asset Management Strategy or plans (where appropriate).

· Evidence that the community is aware of the need for and extent of a rate rise.

· The impact on affected ratepayers must be reasonable, having regard to both the current rate levels, existing ratepayer base and the proposed purpose of the variation.

· The relevant IP&R documents must be exhibited (where required), approved and adopted by Council before it applies to IPART for an SRV.

· The IP&R documents or Council’s application must explain and quantify the productivity improvements and cost containment strategies Council has realised in past years and plans to realise over the proposed SRV period.

· Any other matter that IPART considers relevant.

IPART’s 2026/27 Guidance Booklet for Councils on Special Variations: How to Apply provides further details for Councils on how to apply for an SRV in accordance with the OLG Guidelines.

Risk Implication statement

The key risks that arise from recommendations in this report and related internal controls are currently recorded, described and managed within Council’s risk register.

If Council does not progress an SRV, then ongoing deficits will mean Council will not be able to invest additional funds into asset maintenance and renewal, leading to a significant increase in Council’s infrastructure backlog and an increasing cost from temporary repairs. Council will be unable to maintain and renew existing infrastructure to meet community needs, and will be unable to meet statutory finance and asset management benchmarks.

Financial Considerations

The preferred rate increase option (Option 3) will deliver an additional $22.6 million for investment into infrastructure renewal and new infrastructure. The preferred scenario will enable Council to generate average operating surpluses of $19.5 million (excluding capital grants and contributions) to re-invest into new infrastructure and existing infrastructure renewal and upgrades. For further information, see the revised LTFP at Attachment A6 and revised AMS at Attachment A7.

Social Considerations

Additional investment in new and upgraded infrastructure under an SRV would deliver a range of social benefits for the Ku-ring-gai community, including the following:

· Improved recreational facilities and the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre would enhance opportunities for indoor and outdoor sport and physical activity

· Improved community buildings would be safer, more accessible for people with mobility limitations and provide greater opportunities for community members to connect and take part social activities.

· Improved footpaths would promote walkability for safe and easy access to local shops, services and public transport and reduce trip hazards and risk of injury.

· Pedestrian and traffic safety improvements (e.g. crossings, turn bays) would improve walkability, reduce accidents and improve access to bus stops.

· Increased investment in infrastructure would support the local economy through job creation and the use of local suppliers for construction and renewal projects.

However, Council acknowledges the financial and social impact of an increase in rates and contribution to general cost-of-living pressures. The capacity to pay analysis (see Attachment A9) indicates that the LGA has the financial resilience to absorb the increase, and Council's hardship policy and pensioner concessions provide a financial safety net for vulnerable residents.

Environmental Considerations

Additional investment in new and upgraded infrastructure under an SRV will support environmental outcomes, including the following:

· Stormwater and drainage upgrades reduce local flooding and property damage while also mitigating erosion and pollution runoff into local creeks and waterways.

· Investment in water recycling and irrigation improvements at recreational facilities.

· More energy-efficient community buildings will reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

· New and improved footpaths and pedestrian safety improvements will encourage walking and active transport.

Community Consultation

See Attachments A1 - A3 for detailed overview of communication and engagement activities undertaken and the results of community engagement on the rate increase options from July-September 2025.

Looking forward, it is proposed that the revised Delivery Program, Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Policy be exhibited for 28 days as soon as practicable following the October meeting. Community awareness of the exhibition process will be supported by:

· A dedicated Your Say page on Council’s website, including the revised DP&OP, LTFP and AMS, an indicative project list, fact sheets, frequently asked questions and other supporting information

· Responding directly to all participants who registers / participated in engagement activities

· Promotions through local media, Council website and e-newsletters

Members of the community will be invited to provide submissions during the public exhibition process.

Internal Consultation

The development and refinement of the SRV options and revised Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents was undertaken through extensive consultation across the organisation. The senior leadership team provided oversight and approved the preferred SRV option. Expert advice and relevant approvals were provided by Finance, Governance and Strategic Planning, Assets and Technical Services and Corporate Communications teams.

Financial challenges, options and funding priorities have been workshopped with Councillors, and Councillors have been briefed on community engagement planning and outcomes throughout the process.

Summary

Council has undertaken extensive engagement on four rate increase options. Community feedback is generally in support of a Special Rate Variation (SRV) to improve local infrastructure. Council has also examined the capacity of ratepayers to afford a rate increase.

It is recommended that Council resolves to progress a 30.4% rate increase as its preferred scenario for 2026/27 and exhibits a revised set of Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents that reflect this scenario.

This rate increase option will deliver an additional $22.6 million in rate revenue (above the rate peg) from 2026/27 onwards, and fund significant improvements to community buildings, stormwater and drainage, recreational facilities, footpaths and traffic and transport facilities, and repayments on the construction loan for the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre. This investment will result in a 40% decrease in Council’s infrastructure backlog by 2034/35.

Recommendation:

Angela Apostol

Director Corporate

Peter Lichaa

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1⇩	Rate increase options: Community Engagement Outcomes Report	2025/248623
	A2⇩	Results of Representative Survey of Rate Increase Options (Micromex)	2025/305138
	A3 ⇩	Results of Opt-in Survey of Rate Increase Options (Micromex)	2025/305136
	A4 ⇩	Responses to key feedback themes	2025/289872
	A5 ⇩	Delivery Program 2025 - 2029 and Operational Plan 2025 - 2026 - Revised Oct 2025 - changes highlighted	2025/330725
	A6 ⇩	Long Term Financial Plan 2025-2035 (Amended October 2025)	2025/271683
	A7 ⇩	Asset Management Strategy 2025-2035 - Revised Oct 2025	2025/328375
	A8 ⇩	Indicative list of projects to be funded by preferred rate increase (including rate peg) over ten years	2025/329634
	A9 ⇩	Analysis of Capacity to Pay Report (Morrison Low Advisory)	2025/316761

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.5 / 20

Item GB.5	FY00259/17

General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present to Council the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and audit reports from the Audit Office of NSW, and to provide a summary of Council’s financial performance and financial position at 30 June 2025.

background:	On 23 September 2025, Council resolved to receive and certify the Draft Financial Statements for the 2024/25 and to refer them to the external auditor. Council also resolved to fix 21 October 2025 as the date for the public meeting to present the statements and audit reports in accordance with Section 419(1) and 419(2) of the Local Government Act.

comments:	The Financial Statements show an operating surplus of $22m including capital grants and contributions. If capital grants and contributions are excluded, the operating surplus is $3.95m, and when considered with other financial indicators, it demonstrates that Council is in a sound financial position. The Operating surplus is a non-cash indicator, it represents the increase in Council’s equity and excludes capital expenditure. This surplus is used for capital works and reserves for future expenditure.

recommendation:	That Council receive the audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and the auditor’s report from the Audit Office of NSW.

Purpose of Report

Background

In accordance with Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must prepare a statement on the General Purpose Financial Reports as to its opinion on the reports prior to referring them to audit.

On 23 September 2025, Council resolved to receive and certify the Draft Financial Statements for 2024/25 and to refer them to the external auditor. The following certifications were made by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer:

That Council’s General Purpose Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:

* The Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and Regulations made thereunder

* The Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements

* The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

And that to the best of Council’s knowledge and belief that the statements:

* present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year;

* accord with Council’s accounting and other records.

That Council’s Special Purpose Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:

* The NSW Government Policy Statement “Application of National Competition policy to Local Government”.

* The Division of Local Government Guidelines “Pricing and Costing for Council Businesses – A Guide to Competitive Neutrality”.

* The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

And that to the best of Council’s knowledge and belief that the statements:

* present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position of Council’s declared Business Activities for the year,

* accord with Council’s accounting and other records.

These Financial Statements have been endorsed by the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) on 4 September 2025.

Comments

Council’s external auditor, the Audit Office of NSW audited the General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2025 and expressed an opinion on the financial statements based on their audit. The Auditor’s letter forms part of the Annual Financial Statements and includes the following opinion:

Auditor’s opinion

In my opinion,

· the Council’s accounting records have been kept in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 13, Part 3, Division 2 (the Division)

· the financial statements:

- have been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the requirements of this Division

- are consistent with the Council’s accounting records

- present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Council as at 30 June 2025, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards

· all information relevant to the conduct of the audit has been obtained

· no material deficiencies in the accounting records or financial statements have come to light during the audit.

Subsequent to the meeting on 23 September 2025 and the receipt of the Auditor’s letter, the Annual Financial Statements were placed on public exhibition. Written submissions from the public were invited, but at the time of writing this report none were received. Submissions received up to 4.30pm on 21 October 2025 will be circulated to Councillors on the night of the meeting. Section 420 of the Act requires that all submissions in respect of the audited Financial Statements must be in writing and must be lodged with the Council within 7 days after this meeting. Copies of all submissions received must be referred to Council’s external auditor.

This is the final stage of the process of adopting the Financial Statements for 2024/25.

The audited financial statements, together with the audited reports for the year ended 30 June 2025 are hereby presented to Council. The Financial Statements are presented under separate cover.

Financial Performance and Position of Council as at 30 June 2025

The comments below provide highlights of Council’s financial performance during 2024/25 and position as at 30 June 2025, which were also included in the October OMC Report (General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025

A summary of the financial results from the Financial Statements is presented below:

RESULTS FOR THE YEAR

Operating Result

Council’s net operating result for the 2024/25 financial year is disclosed in the Income Statement. Council’s operating result is satisfactory.

For the financial year ended 30 June 2025 Council had an operating surplus of $22.00m, including capital grants and development contributions dedicated for specific purposes (ie capital projects). When the capital revenue is excluded, the operating surplus remains at $3.95m compared to $1.51m in the previous year (2023/24). This is mainly due to a higher net gain from disposal of assets ($3.68m), partly offset by lower financial assistance grants (future year allocation). In addition, increases in materials and contract costs were partially offset by higher interest income.

The operating result (shown separately as including and excluding capital grants and contributions) for the last two financial years is provided in the chart below.

The Income Statement below sets out the results for the year by revenue and expenditure items and the variance from previous year.

REVENUE ITEMS

During the 2024/25 financial year Council received $182.60m in income compared to $175.96m, an increase of 3.8%. The income from continuing operations was derived from the following sources:

Rates & Annual Charges

Rates and annual charges contributed $103.48m compared to $98.31m in 2023/24. Rates income, including special levies, increased by a total of 5.3% from the last financial year which is generally in line with the increase in the rate peg.

User Charges & Fees

User Charges and Fees totalled $24.10m compared to $22.96m in 2023/24, an increase of 5.0%. This category of income mainly includes regulatory/statutory fees, sports fields and community facilities hire. The increase from the previous financial year was mainly due to higher activity in building regulation, work zone income, certificates (buildings and land), access crossings, the art centre, halls, holiday programs, sports fields and tennis courts. This is partially offset by lower revenue from golf courses, restoration charges, the Thomas Carlyle Children Centre and rezoning fees.

Other Revenue

Other revenue includes income from parking fines, statutory fines and other type of income not included in fees and charges. Revenue in this category increased by 1% from previous year to $6.39m from $6.33m in 2023/24, The increase was mainly driven by a one-off settlement relating to the repayment of TfNSW funding for the LVH project, along with higher infrastructure bond administration fees and aged care and wildflower garden program fees. These gains were partly offset by lower revenue from parking fines, other fines from development compliance, tree preservation, area rangers, legal recoveries for development assessment, dog registrations, and non-domestic recycling.

Operating Grants and Contributions

During 2024/25 a total of $8.46m was received compared to $9.98m (2023/24) in operating grants and contributions. This is a decrease of 15.3% on the previous financial year largely due to a reduction in the cash received from the financial assistance grant (FAG) advance payment, lower environmental protection grants and recreation and culture grants.

Capital Grants and Contributions

During 2024/25 a total of $18.04m was received compared to $20.18m (2023/24) in capital grants and contributions. This is a decrease of 10.6% on the previous financial year FY23/24 mainly due to lower development contributions and reduced funding for recreation, culture, and road repair program and road safety, partly offset by a non-cash contribution from the RFS during the year in the form of a dedicated building valued at $2.7m.

Interest and Investment Revenue

A total of $10.53m compared to $9.32m in 2023/24 was received from interest revenue. The increase is mainly due to higher interest rates on term deposits and other investments in 2024/25. Total Cash and Investments at the end of the financial year totalled $196m with an average return of 4.83% p.a. for the financial year outperforming the average of 4.36% the year before.

Other Income

Other Income includes fair value increment on investment property (non-cash) and rental income. Total income in this category decreased by $0.96m, mainly due to timing of rental income recognition from community and commercial property portfolio (i.e. childcare facilities). This is offset by a favourable result on sports ground lease payments and higher community hall leasing ($245k).

EXPENDITURE ITEMS

Total Operating Expenses for the financial year ended 30 June 2025 were $160.60m, compared to $154.27m in 2023/24, this is an increase of 4.1% on the previous financial year.

Employee Benefits and On-costs

Employee Costs include salaries and wages, ELE entitlements superannuation, workers compensation, FBT and other minor expenses. Employee costs were $51.96m compared to $49.12m in 2023/24, which is an increase of 5.8% on the previous financial year. The increase is in line with the labour award, performance increases and higher superannuation and workers compensation insurance.

Materials & Contracts

Materials & Contracts is the largest category of expenditure representing 47% of the total expenditure. A total of $75.05m compared to $71.75m in 2023/24 was spent on Materials and Contracts, an increase of 4.6% on the previous financial year. The rise was driven by CPI-related increases in contractor fees, raw materials, and consumables. Additional cost increases were recorded for computer software charges, electricity, legal expenses relating to planning and development, postage, subscriptions, and publications. A one-off election costs were also recorded. These increases were partly offset by reductions in training costs, other legal expenses, and family day care services (the latter partially offset by lower related income)

Borrowing Costs

Borrowing costs totalled $1.17m compared to $1.32m in 2023/24. The saving is mainly due to reduced principal as a result of ongoing repayments.

Depreciation and Amortisation

Depreciation expense totalled $27.06m compared to $25.95m in 2023/24. A 4.3% increase

as result of a larger asset portfolio value from additional assets and portfolio indexation.

Other Expenses

These expenses are those which are not part of the day-to-day operations of Council and typically include write downs of financial assets, donations, contributions and levies payable to other levels of government. Other Expenses amounted to $5.35m. A 5.7% increase compared to previous financial year, primarily due to a decrement of $0.3m in the fair value of the investment property.

Cash and Investments

Cash and investments amounted to $195.93m at the end of the financial year as compared with $212.62m in 2023/24, a cash outflow of $16.69m. This is mainly due to repayment of grant funding to Transport NSW and property acquisitions.

Externally restricted Cash

Externally restricted cash and investments are restricted in their use by externally imposed

requirements and consisted of unexpended development contributions (Section 7.11), domestic waste management charges, unexpended grants, and other special levies. At the end of the year the total amount of restricted funds was $117.52m, a decrease of $30m from the previous year of $147.43m mainly due to large projects expenditure funded by development contributions (St Ives Indoor Sports Centre), repayment of Transport NSW funding and property acquisitions.

Internally Restricted Cash

Internally restricted cash and investments include those funds the uses of which are

restricted by resolution of Council to reflect future plans and identified program of works and are Council’s reserves. These reserves totalled $64.84m, a net increase of $4.8m from the year before. This rise is mainly due to additional carry overs for unfinished projects at the end of financial year and proceeds from asset sales.

Unrestricted Cash and Investments are funds available for day-to-day operations of Council. This is relatively healthy at $13.58m for 2024/25. This is steady from the previous year after adjusting for the timing of milestone payment for the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre in July 2025.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INDICATORS

The performance ratios have been prescribed by the Code of Accounting Practice in previous years, however, have been eliminated from the reporting period to 30 June 2025. These ratios are therefore not reported in the current draft Financial Statements; however, the ratios are a useful measure of Council’s performance and are presented in this report for information.

The infrastructure assets ratios listed in “Report on Infrastructure Assets” are Building & Infrastructure Renewal Ratio, Infrastructure Backlog Ratio, Asset Maintenance Ratio and Cost to bring assets to agreed service level. All financial ratios except for all Infrastructure assets ratios and Outstanding rates ratio have achieved or outperformed identified benchmarks.

The results of the financial indicators, including asset ratios, providing previous year comparison is detailed in the table below.

Operating Performance Ratio

This ratio measures Council’s achievement of containing operating expenditure within operating revenue. It is important to distinguish that this ratio is focussing on operating performance and hence capital grants and contributions, fair value adjustments and net gain or loss on sale of assets are excluded. The benchmark is greater than (0%).

The Performance Ratio at 0.36% (compared to 1.65% in 2023/24) is above the benchmark (>0%) which means that Council can contain operating expenditure (excluding capital grants and contributions) within its operating revenue. The decrease from the previous year is mainly due to a combination of reduced operating grants, increased materials and contract costs, and higher depreciation.

Own Source Operating Revenue

This ratio measures fiscal flexibility. It is the degree of reliance on external funding sources such as operating grants and contributions. Council’s financial flexibility improves the higher the level of its own source revenue. The Own Source Operating Revenue of 85.19% (compared to 82.86% in 2023/24). The benchmark is greater than 60%.

Council's Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio has remained stable and above the benchmark of (>60%) in the last four years. Council has sufficient level of fiscal flexibility, in the event of being faced with unforeseen events.

Unrestricted Current Ratio

The Unrestricted Current Ratio is designed to represent Council’s ability to meet short term obligations as they fall due. The benchmark is greater than 1.5 times.

Council’s Unrestricted Current Ratio is above the benchmark of >1.5x and has been outperforming

benchmark for the last five years. The ratio of 2.94x decreased compared to 4.00x in 2023/24, mainly due a decrease in current assets combined with an increase in short-term obligations (higher payables mainly due to milestone payment for St Ives Indoor Sport Centre). At this ratio Council’s liquidity is good and it can readily pay its debts as they fall due.

Debt Service Cover Ratio

This ratio measures the availability of operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments. The benchmark is greater than 2x.

The Debt Service Cover Ratio of 6.42x (compared to 6.49x in 2023/24) has decreased from the previous year mainly due to decreased operating results driven by lower operating grants revenue and higher operating costs.

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest & Extra Outstanding Percentage

The purpose of this ratio is to assess the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts.

Council’s ratio of 5.65% (compared to 5.18% in 2023/24) is more than the benchmark of “less than 5%”. An increase in outstanding rates from the previous year is mainly due to a timing factor from additional new property unit developments remaining unsettled at year end combined with a number of ratepayers entering payment plans during the period. Council is monitoring this ratio to identify the underlying causes and take action to prevent it from increasing.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio

This liquidity ratio indicates the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow. Council’s Cash Expense Cover Ratio of 11.50mths (compared to 12.56mths in 2023/24) is satisfactory and above benchmark of “greater than 3 months”. The small decrease from previous year's is primarily due to an increase in payments required for higher operating costs and a reduction in cash and cash equivalents following the repayment of unspent project grant to TfNSW. Despite the decrease, the result is considered satisfactory and remains well above the industry benchmark of 3 months, indicating that Council continues to maintain a strong liquidity position.

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS RATIOS

Building and Infrastructure Renewal Expenditure

This indicator assesses Council’s rate at which buildings and infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating. The ratio of 58.39% (compared to 86.91% in 2023/24) is below previous year, mainly due to timing of renewal works not completed during the financial year and carried forward to the following year. Despite the incomplete renewal projects, the renewal ratio remains below benchmark. Council is focusing on appropriate asset standards for renewal and maintenance of its assets and will continue to prioritise renewal capital works projects and is currently exploring a special rate variation to fund infrastructure.

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

Council achieved a backlog ratio of 7.89% (compared to 9.12% in 2023/24), slightly improved from the previous year, mainly due to reassessment of the road assets, where the condition ratings were reviewed and better than projected. In addition, contractor rates were also updated from Council’s latest tenders, which were lower than previous rates. When applied, this resulted in a lower overall valuation, despite rising construction costs in the broader market.

The infrastructure backlog remains above benchmark and Council is proactively addressing this in its asset funding strategy and long-term financial plan and is currently exploring a special rate variation to fund infrastructure backlog.

Asset Maintenance Ratio

The ratio calculates how much Council is spending on maintenance of its assets as opposed to how much is required. The benchmark is greater than 100%. A ratio of below 100% indicates that the Council is slightly short of investing enough funds within the year to ensure assets reach their useful lives. The ratio at 89.93% decreased slightly compared to 91.94% in 2023/24 due to an increase in infrastructure maintenance costs and a larger asset portfolio from indexation. The shortage in Council’s asset maintenance funding is reflected in the AMS and LTFP with recommended future funding options.

Cost to agreed level of service

The cost to bring to level of service is an estimate of the cost to renew the current assets in unsatisfactory condition. The proportion of outstanding renewal works compared to the total value of Council’s infrastructure assets was 10.65% (compared to 12.81% in 2023/24). The ratio is lower than the previous year mainly due to the reassessment of road and transport assets.

OTHER accounting TREATMENTS and Adjustments

Infrastructure Assets Revaluation

Council performs a comprehensive revaluation on its infrastructure assets on a 5-year cycle. This is due to the large size and complexity of the current asset’s portfolio. Each year, however, Council assesses the carrying amount of assets to ensure that it does not differ materially from the fair value. During 2024/25 financial year, Council performed a comprehensive revaluation on Roads including Kerb and Gutter, Bridges, Footpaths, Car parks and other traffic facilities. Council staff also assessed the carrying amount of all other asset classes to ensure that it does not differ materially from the fair value. As a result, there was a $48 million fair value increase in carrying value of all infrastructure asset classes, including community, Crown, and operational land.

· Operational land – $2.6m

· Community land – $11.8m

· Crown Land - $2.8m

· Land under roads – $0.2m

· Buildings - $7.6m; swimming pool - $0.5m

· Car Parks - $3.1m

· Drainage – $4.0m

· Roads – $0.2m

· Bulk earthworks - $1.2m

· Bridges -$3.3m

· Footpaths - $15.5m

· Open space/ recreational assets - $1.4m

The decrease in fair value of road assets overall is resulting from a combination of reduced asphalt unit rates, grant funding reducing back log condition and good engineering practice by applying most appropriate treatment methods.

Further details are provided in note D2-1 Fair Value measurement.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

In accordance with Section 419(1) and 419(2) of the Act:

A council must present its audited financial reports together with the auditor’s reports at a meeting of Council held on the date fixed for the meeting.

In addition, Section 417(5) of the Act states that:

As soon as practicable after receiving the auditor’s reports, the council must send a copy of the auditor’s report on the council’s financial reports, together with a copy of the council’s audited financial reports, to the Director General – Office of Local Government and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Risk Management

The Financial Statements are audited by the external auditors who, amongst other things, form an opinion on the Financial Statements whether.

· the Council’s accounting records have been kept in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 13 part 3 Division 2; and

· the Financial Statements:

o have been presented in accordance with the requirements of this Division;

o are consistent with the Council’s accounting records;

o present fairly the Council’s financial position, the results of its operations and its cash flows; and

o are in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia.

· all information relevant to the conduct of the audit has been obtained; and

· there are no material deficiencies in the accounting records or financial statements that the auditors have become aware of during the course of the audit.

Financial Considerations

Council’s net operating result for the financial year ended 30 June 2025 is a surplus of $22m including Grants and Contributions for capital purposes. After adjusting for Capital Grants and Contributions, the net operating surplus was $3.95m. This surplus is available for reinvestment in capital works.

All financial ratios except for all infrastructure assets ratios and outstanding rates ratio have achieved or outperformed identified benchmarks.

Council’s liquidity position is good with an unrestricted current ratio of 2.94x which is above the benchmark of >1.5x. An adequate liquidity position allows Council to meet its short-term liabilities when they fall due and provide a prudential buffer against adverse events.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

The Financial Statements were on public exhibition from 29 September 2025 seeking comments from the community on the Statements and the Auditor’s Reports. Section 420 of the Act requires that all submissions in respect of the audited Financial Reports must be in writing and must be lodged with the Council within 7 days after this meeting. Copies of all submissions received must be referred to Council’s Auditor.

Internal Consultation

All departments have been consulted on the end of year financial results for 2024/25.

The Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 have been endorsed by the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee on 4 September 2025.

Summary

The Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and audit reports from Council’s external auditor, the Audit Office of NSW, are presented to Council. Written submissions from the public have been invited and may be made up to 28 October 2025. Copies of all submissions must be referred to Council’s auditor. This is the final stage of the process of adopting Council’s Annual Financial Statements for 2024/25.

Recommendation:

A. Receive the audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 and the auditor’s report from the Audit Office of NSW.

Ann Wang

Financial Accountant

Mette Kofoed

Acting Manager Finance

Angela Apostol

Director Corporate

Attachments:

Ku-Ring-Gai Council - Annual Financial Statements - For the year ending 30/06/2025

Excluded

2025/317658

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.6 / 21

Item GB.6	CY00564/8

New Code of Meeting Practice

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To brief Council on the new Model Code of Meeting Practice and approve public exhibition of an updated Code of Meeting Practice for Ku-ring-gai Council.

background:	The 2025 Model Code of Meeting Practice has been issued by the Office of Local Government (OLG) and prescribed under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. Councils must adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Code by 31 December 2025.

comments:	The intention of the changes to the Model Code is to ensure meetings are conducted in a dignified and orderly way and to promote community confidence in councils and their decisions. Most of the changes are minor and will have little impact on current meeting procedures, rules of debate or the administrative processes that support council meetings and public forums at Ku-ring-gai. The changes with the most direct and significant impact are the prohibition of pre-meeting briefing sessions, restrictions on attendance by audio-visual link and absences from Council meetings and powers of the Mayor to deal with disorder.

recommendation:	That Council: A. determine that a Councillor failing to remedy an act of disorder can only be expelled by resolution of council (or committee of council), and that this be reflected in the draft Code of Meeting Practice. B. approve the draft Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment A1) to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. If no submissions are received within 42 days, that Council adopt the policy.

Purpose of Report

To brief Council on the new Model Code of Meeting Practice and approve public exhibition of an updated Code of Meeting Practice for Ku-ring-gai Council.

Background

As part of its reforms to the Councillor Conduct Framework, the NSW Government invited feedback on proposed amendments to the Model Code of Meeting Practice in early 2024. At the 18 February 2024 meeting (ref: GB.10), Council resolved to submit a response to the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) on the proposed amendments. Council’s submission was broadly supportive of the amendments aimed at improving transparency, integrity and good governance. However, it noted that some of the amendments were impractical, undermined the statutory role of the General Manager or would hinder the smooth running of Council meetings.

The 2025 Model Code of Meeting Practice has been issued by the OLG and was prescribed under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 on 3 September 2025.

The Model Code contains mandatory provisions, and non-mandatory provisions covering areas of meeting practice that are common to most councils but where there may be a need for some variation in practice based on local circumstances. The non-mandatory provisions also operate to set a benchmark based on what OLG sees as best practice.

Councils must adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Code by 31 December 2025.

Comments

The following is a summary of key changes to the Model Code and the impact on the conduct and administration of meetings.

Extraordinary meetings

The Mayor may now call an extraordinary meeting without the need to obtain the signature of two councillors. This change is intended to strengthen the Mayor’s authority and leadership role. The current provision under section 366 of the Local Government Act 1993 where two or more councillors can request an extraordinary meeting remains in place. The change simply adds an additional pathway for the Mayor to call a meeting.

Questions with notice and allegations of breaches of the Code

Mandatory provisions that prevent a councillor from asking a question with notice that comprises a complaint or allegation of wrongdoing against the General Manager or member of staff have been omitted from the new Model Code. The definition of an “act of disorder” has also been amended to remove allegations of a breach of the council’s Code of Conduct. However, the definition now includes “unfavourably personally reflects upon any other council official” as an act of disorder.

The Mayor will need to amend their opening address to remove references to allegations of a breach of the Code of Conduct being disorderly. In the same manner, it is recommended that the restriction on members of the public making similar allegations against Councillors and staff during public forums be lifted, and corresponding changes made to the provisions and terms and conditions relating to public forums. Reference may instead be made to a restriction on making unfavourable personal reflections.

Statement of ethical obligations

The requirement that business papers contain a statement reminding Councillors of their oath or affirmation of office and obligations to disclosure and manage conflicts of interest has been removed from the Model Code. However, there is nothing preventing this statement from being retained in the business papers and so it is recommended that it be preserved.

Dealing with urgent business at meetings

The process for dealing with urgent business at ordinary and extraordinary meetings has been simplified in the Model Code. Business may be considered at a meeting at which all councillors are present, even though due notice has not been given of the business, if the council resolves to deal with the business on the grounds that it is urgent and requires a decision by the council before the next scheduled ordinary meeting. The resolution must state the reasons for the urgency. If all councillors are not present at the meeting, the chairperson must also rule that the business is urgent and requires a decision by the council before the next scheduled ordinary meeting.

The changes are minor but provide greater clarity about the process for dealing with urgent business. Only the mover of the motion and the Mayor may speak to the motion to consider urgent business before it is put.

Prohibition on pre-meeting briefing sessions

The Model Code prohibits councillor briefing sessions on business listed on the agenda for meetings of the council or committees of the council. Therefore, Ku-ring-gai’s current practice of holding pre-meeting briefings will be discontinued once the new Code of Meeting Practice comes into effect.

The prohibition on briefing sessions does not prevent a councillor from requesting information from the general manager about a matter to be considered at a meeting, provided the information is also available to the public. The information must be provided in a way that does not involve any discussion of the information.

Briefings that would otherwise be provided on confidential items prior to a meeting will be conducted during a Council meeting, following a resolution of Council to close the meeting.

The new code does not prohibit briefings or workshops on matters that are not listed on the council agenda (e.g. training, strategic planning or in-depth discussion on complex topics).

The Councillor Access to Information, Interaction with Staff and Records Management Policy will be updated to reflect these changes and reinforce the appropriate process for briefing councillors and handling information requests.

Public forums

The Model Code leaves it to councils to the rules under which public forums are to be conducted and when they are to be held. However, the Model Code requires public forums to be livestreamed.

It is recommended that the Ku-ring-gai Code of Meeting Practice retain current provisions relating to public forums, including the ability for Councillors and staff to attend by audio-visual link, at their discretion (see following section relating to remote attendance at Council meetings). Council’s current procedure is for the webcast to be published the day after the public forum. Under the new requirements these will need to be livestreamed, and these provisions have been updated in the draft Code accordingly.

Attendance at meetings by audio-visual link

The provisions governing attendance by councillors at meetings by audio-visual link have been made mandatory and the option to attend meetings by audio-visual link has been restricted to where councillors are prevented from attending a meeting in person because of ill-health or other medical reasons or because of unforeseen caring responsibilities. The provision relating to remote attendance of the General Manager or Council staff has also been removed from the Model Code.

Under the changes, Councillors needing to attend via Zoom will need to formally notify the General Manager, including the specific reason why they cannot attend in person. The Mayor or General Manager will advise the meeting that a request to attend remotely has been received, and the reason why the Councillor cannot attend (without disclosing the nature of the illness in accordance with the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002). Council will then be asked to resolve to grant this request, similar to the current process for accepting apologies. Council has previously permitted Councillors to attend remotely during travel or work-related commitments, but they would now need to be taken as absent.

Absences from council meetings

Changes have been made to the provisions in the Model Code governing absences from meetings. Where councillors are unable to attend one or more meetings of the council, the new provisions encourage them to:

· submit an apology for the meetings they are unable to attend,

· state the reasons for their absence from the meetings, and

· request that the council grant them a leave of absence from the relevant meetings.

Where a councillor makes an apology, Council must determine by resolution whether to grant the councillor a leave of absence for the meeting. Council is required to act reasonably when deciding whether to grant a leave of absence to a councillor. To ensure accountability, if Council resolves not to grant a leave of absence for the meeting, it must state the reasons for its decision in its resolution.

The changes are consistent with current procedures at Ku-ring-gai. The only difference is that the Model Code requires Council to state the reasons for any decision to refuse a leave of absence in its resolution.

Livestreaming meetings

As of 1 January 2026, all councils are required to livestream their meetings using an

audio-visual recording. Recordings of meetings must be published on the council’s website for the balance of the council’s term or for 12 months, whichever is the later date. Council already livestreams its meetings and retains them on the website for longer than the prescribed duration, so there is no impact for Ku-ring-gai.

New rules of etiquette at meetings

Councils may determine standards of dress for councillors when attending meetings. Where physically able to, councillors and staff are encouraged to stand when the Mayor enters the chamber and when addressing the meeting. The Model Meeting Code also prescribes modes of address.

Mayoral minutes

The restrictions on mayoral minutes under the previous code have been removed. A mayoral minute may be put to a meeting without notice on any matter or topic that the Mayor determines should be considered at the meeting.

Supporting the neutrality of the General Manager

The Model Code has removed several non-mandatory provisions that previously empowered or required the General Manager to provide a report on legal, strategic, financial or policy implications of a notice of motion proposed by a councillor, and the availability of funds to implement a motion which is not accounted for in the current council operational plan.

Rules of debate

The rules of debate have been simplified and the rules governing the foreshadowing of motions and amendments have been removed from the Model Code. It remains open to councillors to foreshadow that they intend to move an amendment during the debate, but there are no longer formal rules governing this. This is not likely to have a significant impact on the conduct of meetings as Councillors are still able to foreshadow a motion or amendment, but how this is dealt with will be up to the chairperson’s discretion.

An amendment has been made to the Model Code to clarify that there is nothing to prevent a further motion from being moved at a meeting on the same item of business where the original motion is lost, provided the motion is not substantially the same as the one that was lost.

Council will no longer have the option of reducing the duration of speeches to less than 5 minutes. However, Council continues to have other options to expedite business at meetings such as moving that a motion be put where the necessary conditions have been satisfied and to resolve to deal with items by exception.

Voting on planning decisions

Consistent with the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) recommendations, the Model Code requires that a council must not make a final planning decision at a meeting without receiving a staff report containing an assessment and recommendation in relation to the matter. This simply formalises current convention at Council.

A “planning decision” is defined as “a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including any decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan, a planning agreement or a development contribution

plan under that Act, but not including the making of an order under Division 9.3 of Part 9 of the EP&A Act”

Where Council makes a planning decision that is inconsistent with the recommendation made in a staff report, it must now provide reasons for its decision and why it did not adopt the staff recommendation.

Representations by the public on the closure of meetings

In the interests of simplifying the code, the rules governing representations by the public on the closure of meetings have been removed. The changes do not prevent Council from hearing representations from members of the public.

Making information considered at closed meetings public

Consistent with ICAC’s recommendation, the Model Code includes a new requirement that the General Manager must publish business papers for items of business considered during closed meetings as soon as practicable after the information ceases to be confidential. Before publishing this information, the General Manager must consult with the council and any other affected persons and provide reasons for why the information has ceased to be confidential.

To support this new requirement, authors of confidential reports will need to tag confidential papers with a review date and/or conditions for release. Council staff will establish a regular schedule to review tagged documents, triggered by the review date and/or the conditions for release (e.g. finalisation of a contract). Prior to release, staff will consult with the relevant manager, director and/or General Manager, councillors and any third parties to determine that the primary reason for the confidentiality of the report has lapsed. Any portions of the report that remain confidential (e.g. personal information) would need to be redacted. This would effectively require that all confidential papers be run through a public interest test, determination and release similar to a formal request under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2008 (GIPA Act).

While it is not clearly specified, it is assumed that the new provision creates a new duty on the General Manager that will only apply to business papers from meetings after the new code is adopted by Council and would not apply retrospectively to matters that were made confidential before the new code comes into force.

Dealing with disorder

Councils will be required to determine whether to authorise the person presiding at a meeting to exercise a power of expulsion on the adoption of the new code and at the commencement of each council term.

The definition of acts of disorder by councillors have been updated to include use of offensive language, disorderly words or discriminatory behaviours. Allegations of a breach of the Code of Conduct have been removed from the definition.

Where a councillor fails to remedy an act of disorder at the meeting at which it occurs, they can be required to do so at each subsequent meeting until they remedy the act of disorder. On each occasion the councillor fails to comply with a direction by the chairperson to remedy an act of disorder, they can be expelled from the meeting and each subsequent meeting until they comply.

Members of the public can be expelled from meetings for engaging in disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct includes speaking at meetings without being invited, bringing flags, signs or protest symbols, disrupting meetings or making unauthorised recordings of meetings.

The Model Code notes that failure by a councillor or members of the public to leave a meeting when expelled is an offence under section 660 of the Act. Section 660 provides that a person who wilfully obstructs a council, councillor, employee of a council or a duly authorised person in the exercise of any function under the Act, or Regulation is guilty of an offence. An offence under section 660 carries a maximum fine of $2,100.

The new code provides Council with a choice between two clauses for expelling a person. One option authorises the chairperson to expel any person, including a councillor, from a meeting. The other option is consistent with the status quo where a councillor may only be expelled by a resolution of council.

Draft Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Meeting Practice

A draft Code of Meeting Practice (including tracked changes) has been prepared for Council’s consideration (see Attachment A1). It retains the latter version of the clause for expelling a Councillor (i.e. that it requires a resolution of Council).

integrated planning and reporting

Outcome 5: Leadership and service excellence

Community Strategic Plan Strategy

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Action

L1: Provide strong and ethical civic leadership to ensure good governance and build and maintain trust and confidence within the community.

L1.2: Council's governance framework supports probity, transparency, compliance with legislative requirements and a culture of ethical conduct and informed decision-making.

L1.2.5: Review and update Council's policy and procedures for the conduct of Council meetings, public forums and committees in line with Office of Local Government requirements.

Governance Matters

The Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW is prescribed under section 360 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. The Model Meeting Code applies to all meetings of councils and committees of councils of which all the members are councillors (committees of council).

All councils must adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code. A council’s adopted code of meeting practice may also incorporate the non-mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code and other supplementary provisions. However, a code of meeting practice adopted by a council must not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of this Model Meeting Code.

Council must adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the 2025 Model Meeting Code no later than 31 December 2025. Transitional provisions in the Regulation provide that if a council does not adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the 2025 Model Meeting Code by 31 December 2025, from 1 January 2026, any provision of the council’s code of meeting practice that is inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the 2025 Model Meeting Code will be automatically overridden by the relevant mandatory provision of the 2025 Model Meeting Code.

Risk Implication statement

Financial Considerations

There are no direct financial costs associated with the review and update of the Code of Meeting Practice. However, the new provisions relating to making reports public once they are no longer confidential will impose an additional administrative burden on Council. Some of the changes may tend to make meetings longer, which may have an impact on costs for security services and overtime for administrative and support staff.

Social Considerations

No significant impact.

Environmental Considerations

No significant impact.

Community Consultation

Under section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, Councils must exhibit a draft of the code of meeting practice for at least 28 days and provide members of the community at least 42 days in which to comment.

Internal Consultation

The executive leadership team and Corporate Lawyer have been consulted on the changes and the draft Code of Meeting Practice.

Summary

The 2025 Model Code of Meeting Practice has been prescribed under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. Councils must adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Code by 31 December 2025. The intention of the changes to the Model Code is to ensure meetings are conducted in a dignified and orderly way and to promote community confidence in councils and their decisions. It is recommended that Council approve the draft Code of Meeting Practice to be placed on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That Council:

B. approve the draft Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment A1) to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. If no submissions are received within 42 days, that Council adopt the policy.

Christopher M Jones

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

Attachments:

A1⇩

Draft Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Meeting Practice

2025/283121

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.12 / 33

Item GB.12	S12314

Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme & amended Affordable Housing Policy - Post-exhibition report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report back to Council following the close of the exhibition period of the draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme together with consequential amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy.

background:	At the EMC of 5 June 2025, Council adopted a TOD Alternative which incorporates the provision of an Affordable Housing LEP clause and contribution rates map. The potential to deliver affordable housing through monetary as well as in-kind contributions relies on the adoption of an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme. The AHCS needs to be adopted and ready to commence concurrent with any gazettal.

comments:	The draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme and amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy were placed on public exhibition from Monday, 25 August to Monday, 22 September 2025 inclusive, following the pre-exhibition report to the August OMC.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That the draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme 2025 be adopted and the date of commencement align with the date of gazettal of the Ku-ring-gai TOD alternative. That the amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy 2025 be adopted and given immediate effect.

Purpose of Report

Background

At the OMC of 15 April 2025 Council adopted the Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Policy which sets out Ku-ring-gai’s policies for the delivery of affordable housing.

The NSW Government’s Transport Orientated Development (TOD) planning policy was introduced in May 2024. The TOD policy requires the provision of 2% affordable housing, in kind and in perpetuity, for development within the TOD boundaries.

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 5 June 2025 Council resolved to adopt the Council TOD Alternative, which will rezone areas around the four railway station precincts of Gordon, Killara, Roseville and Lindfield to deliver new housing.

The Transport Oriented Development Guide to Strategic Planning (DPHI, 2024) outlines that as part of strategic planning for an alternative to the TOD SEPP it is expected that, in the first instance, the established two percent affordable housing rate will apply, and if Councils chose to take a different rate or approach then an affordable housing contribution scheme will need to be prepared.

As part of the adopted Council TOD Alternative, Council has proposed to replace the current 2% provision for Affordable Housing delivery under the Housing SEPP and impose an Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme through an Affordable Housing LEP clause and associated maps outlining variable affordable housing contribution rates of 2%, 3%, 5% and 10% in perpetuity across the TOD areas. The variable rates are derived from the feasibility analysis by Atlas Economics which identifies that the proposed uplift from rezoning and the capacity for development to contribute affordable housing differs across sites within the TOD precincts.

The AHCS sets out that affordable housing contributions will be calculated on the gross floor area (GFA) of the residential component of a development – i.e. it will exclude the GFA of non-residential uses. Residential development has the meaning in the Act and includes a comprehensive range of residential development types.

Comments

The draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (AHCS) and amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy were reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 19 August 2025 and endorsed for exhibition as follows:

Resolved:

A. That Council endorse the Draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Scheme (Attachment A1) for public exhibition.

B. The amendments to the policy positions relating to contribution preference, ownership and use of funds in the Affordable Housing Policy be noted, and that Council endorse the amended Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Policy (Attachment A2) for public exhibition.

C. That the Draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Scheme and the amended Affordable Housing Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. Following the exhibition, a report on the submissions received be reported to Council for consideration.

Public Exhibition

The draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme and consequential amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy (to ensure the two documents align) were placed on public exhibition from Monday, 25 August to Monday, 22 September 2025 inclusive. At the close of the exhibition period 10 submissions had been received from 9 different parties with broad spectrum of views from local residents, Community Housing Providers (CHPs) and the development industry all represented.

This section provides commentary on the various matters raised within the submissions.

Submissions from CHPs & entities involved in Affordable Housing delivery & management (3, 6A & 6B, 7)
Issue	Response
Requests consideration beyond Tier 1 CHPs (they are a Tier 3 CHP).	Tier 1, and, to an extent, Tier 2, CHPs have a track record of building as well as managing affordable housing and have experience leveraging their existing portfolio to reinvest and increase delivery. Ku-ring-ai has no established history of delivering and managing affordable housing and requires an experienced partner in this regard. As more affordable housing comes on-stream, council may reconsider the number and scale of CHPs that could be involved.
Supports Tier 1 CHP involvement.	Noted.
Supports variable percentage rates being in addition to the 2% TOD rates, otherwise too low.	Council’s AHCS is associated with an LEP amendment that will have the effect of withdrawing the areas from affectation by Chapter Five of the Housing SEPP. As such, these AHCS rates will replace the TOD rates. Council’s AHCS rates must be supported by feasibility testing that supports contributing development to be delivered and this analysis forms part of the exhibited AHCS.
Notes that robust framework is required to establish partnership with CHP and establish governance framework.	This is an essential step in the progression of the AHCS and is included in the recommendation of this report.
Regular review of AHCS and expansion to other areas.	Noted. Actual experience will inform future reviews. The AHCS has been drafted as a base document with the known areas to which additional areas may be added following feasibility testing and uplift as part of the planning proposal process.
Suggests expanding to non-residential floorspace like the City of Sydney.	The Ku-ring-gai AHCS is initially being implemented as an alternate to the affordable housing contributions required for TOD areas under Chapter 5 of the Housing SEPP. Like the Housing SEPP, the AHCS will only apply to residential floorspace.
Suggests working with the NSW State Government to identify surplus government land to support delivery.	Noted. To be further explored as part of the management and governance structures for delivery of affordable housing.
Indexation of contributions rates from a bespoke base.	Council undertook feasibility based on the current situation in Ku-ring-gai which is rapidly changing land values in the LGA especially in the areas where the AHCS is to apply. Using the current baseline figures for the Rent & Sales report in Ku-ring-gai (noting that the sales reports are issued a full 6 months in arrears) would underestimate the site acquisition costs involved.

Submissions from local residents (2, 4, 9)
Issue	Response
Disagreement with exclusion of council land from the requirement to directly deliver affordable housing.	Council’s Long Term Financial Plan 2025-2035 requires 100% of proceeds from asset sales to be used to help fund capital works identified in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan. This is a long-standing policy commitment. Such proceeds will become increasingly important to deliver the infrastructure required to meet the needs of the increased population that will result from the State Government’s TOD and LMR policies. The inclusion of any affordable housing contributions on Council or State-owned sites would be inconsistent with this current policy position of Council.
Questions the acquisition costs and viability assumptions. Requests detail on the 3% given the locked in 2% for the adjoining TOD site.	The variable rates are derived from the feasibility analysis by Atlas Economics which identifies that the capacity for development to contribute affordable housing differs across sites within the TOD precincts. As noted in the Viability Assessment in Schedule 2 of the AHCS, a generic feasibility assessment was undertaken which makes a number of assumptions to enable observations to be made at an aggregate level across the TOD Areas. The purpose of testing was to assess if, after Affordable Housing contributions, investment hurdle rates fall within an acceptable range rather than to test feasibility on a site-by-site basis. It also acknowledges the following limitations of the viability assessment: · It is not practically viable to examine the feasibility of every site. Sample sites are selected and notional development typologies are assumed for generic feasibility testing. · The feasibility testing is based on high-level revenue and cost assumptions and does not consider site-specific nuances typically considered in detailed feasibility analysis. · The appraisal of ‘as is’ or existing property values is carried out without the benefit of site inspections or property-specific financial information. Therefore, the estimate of existing property values is high-level and indicative only.

Submissions from Development Industry Peak Bodies and individual developers (1, 5, 8)
Issue	Response
No timeline for spending contributions.	Noted. This will be refined with consultation with a nominated CHP and following monitoring of the actual rate of take-up together with the mix of in-kind and monetary contributions, which is currently unclear.
Notes target of 10% on future planning proposals both private and council-led. Requests industry consultation for council-led proposals.	Noted.
Phase-in requested to allow the development industry to adjust.	The four TOD stations were announced in April 2024 and included 2% affordable housing in-kind in perpetuity. Five alternate scenarios were exhibited by Council in November- December 2024. A final composite alternative was adopted for exhibition in March 2025 and exhibited in April 2025 inclusive of the enabling clause and draft AHCS maps. The majority of the TOD-alternative sites are 2% and 3% with some 5% and just a couple of 10% sites in Gordon with very high yield. The AHCS must take effect concurrent with the gazettal of the enabling clause in the TOD-replacement submitted to the NSW State Government in June. Existing applications made under the NSW Government TODs prior to the deadline in June 2025 have been saved and will be assessed under the Housing SEPP to which the 2% provision applies.
Floor space and height incentives for proponent-led planning proposals. Council should adopt evidence-based approach ensuring robust feasibility testing.	Planning proposals outside the current uplifted areas will necessarily be considering additional height and floorspace concurrent with their rezoning together with feasibility testing for the delivery of affordable housing. It is expected that these features will be considered as a package.
Commends evidence base and offers to work with council to avoid unintended impacts.	Noted.
Impact on development feasibility	The AHCS is to be applied only to sites with significant uplift. Extensive viability testing was undertaken as part of the TOD alternative scenarios generally and the AHCS specifically. A 2% in-kind only affordable housing contribution applied to the entirety of the affected sites from the announcement of the four Ku-ring-gai TOD areas and, prior to its pause, 27 State Significant Developments proposing approximately 4,260 nett additional dwellings were applied for. The percentage changes for high-yield sites, over and above the baseline TOD, have been assessed. Additional sites applying for rezoning and uplift under a planning proposal will be required to undertake feasibility testing as part of that process.
The AHCS is in addition to the 2% TOD scheme.	This is a misunderstanding. The AHCS is part of Ku-ring-gai’s TOD alternative which will supersede the provisions in the Housing SEPP. The TOD maps under the SEPP for Ku-ring-gai have already been amended to show only the proposals that were lodged under the original TOD provisions and deemed to be saved.
Not timely to add new taxes to the housing development process.	The AHCS will, if the enabling LEP is gazetted, replace the gazetted 2% in-kind affordable housing in the TOD areas. The proposed rates vary from 0%, 2%, 3%, 5% and a very small number of high-yield sites on 10%, based directly on feasibility based on the new uplift as proposed within the new statutory framework. Most sites either remain at 2% or marginally increase to 3% or 5% based on increased floor space.
Double-dipping affordable housing in perpetuity and the infill affordable housing bonus. Exemptions and alignment with the Housing SEPP.	The NSW Government TOD scheme already imposed a 2% affordable housing delivery in kind in-perpetuity while providing the (non-binding) option for the developer to also deliver additional time-limited affordable housing in return for increased height and floor space for market housing. This Chapter 5 provision is explicitly in addition to any affordable housing provided under any other provision of the Housing SEPP. In seeking to replace the provisions in Chapter 5 with the council-led AHCS, the requirement for in-perpetuity affordable housing in addition to time-limited affordable housing aligns with the provisions in the Housing SEPP. These delivery mechanisms are mutually exclusive and the additional time-limited provision in return for permanent floorspace increases is an option available to the developer if feasible. It is not mandatory. Nor is the affordable housing so delivered required to be permanent.
Opposition to in-perpetuity affordable housing.	Noted, however a permanent stock of secure-tenure affordable housing is essential to support essential workers and other low-income local residents. Time-limited affordable housing that reverts to market rates is not sustainable.
Reconsider the 10% levy	The maximum rate of 10% applies only to a couple of very high-yield sites in Gordon only. Sites seeking future rezoning, will need to provide feasibility analysis as part of any planning proposal.
Shift workers who use cars to get to work also need affordable housing	The AHCS facilitates contributions in monetary form as well as in-kind. The design and location of affordable dwellings delivered through the former mechanism can be more flexible depending on the target population.
That Council considers the allocation of affordable housing throughout its jurisdiction and not just around transport hubs	An AHCS must be related to rezoning that provides uplift to support feasibility and capture some value from that uplift. The AHCS applies to the TOD areas and the Affordable Housing Policy foreshadows the AHCS being extended on a site-by-site basis where spot rezonings are sought by Planning Proposal.
The affordable housing contributions must also account for s7.11 contributions and other costs. The feasibility assessment and case studies did not do this. That further incentives be offered for affordable housing provision.	On page 36 of the draft AHCS, the assumptions for the feasibility testing state that the current s7.11 contributions, HAPs contributions and water infrastructure charges, together with DA and CC fees and Long Service levies were included as part of this assessment in addition to demolition and construction costs and the cost of finance.
That council accept the dedication of land and dwellings as well as monetary contributions.	The AHCS allows for all these options. While a preference for monetary contributions is stated, the alternative options, or any combination thereof, are not precluded.
Queries capacity to deliver by comparing Ku-ring-gai’s recent past rates of dwelling development approval with the rate of approval required to meet the demand foreshadowed in the affordable housing strategy and contributions scheme.	This comment overlooks the impact of the four upzoned TOD areas which provide for at least 25,000 additional dwellings - including the near 5000 new dwellings currently proposed in submitted SSDs and eDAs, with further potential supply already coming through the State Government’s Housing Delivery Authority.
Allow developers to choose their Community Housing Provider and work directly with them.	The AHCS relates to affordable housing to be dedicated in perpetuity. It does not affect the (much larger) scope for time-limited affordable housing that may be delivered in return for increased floorspace. In the latter case, the developer is free to form a relationship with their own CHP and work with them to deliver this additional short-term housing. For dwellings to be dedicated in perpetuity, council needs to retain direct oversight for probity reasons to ensure that delivery, management, leverage and eventual asset recycling takes place in a manner that continues to invest and reinvest in the delivery of a growing portfolio of permanent affordable housing.

Feedback from NSW DPHI

As part of DPHI’s review of Council’s Alternate TOD scheme, a review of the Draft AHCS was also conducted. As a result of this review, the following feedback was provided by DPHI:

Issue	Response
· Scheme rates (equivalent sqm) contributions supported.	Support noted.
· Suggest application of scheme is limited to RFBs, shop top housing and multi dwelling housing to align with tested outcomes.	Following representations from Council staff, DPHI have given this suggestion further consideration. DPHI have subsequently advised Council that it agrees the affordable housing contributions scheme will apply to all types of building or places specified as ‘residential accommodation’, as defined under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, except the types explicitly excluded under the statutory clause.
· Suggest removal of maps from AHCS and references to TOD. The maps duplicate LEP provisions and the removal would future proof the scheme to allow additions of further sites without amendments to the AHCS.	The request that the mapping be included as part of the statutory LEP maps to avoid duplication is supported. As such, the maps will be deleted from the AHCS. This will also set the AHCS a base document with the known areas to which contributions will initially apply. Additional areas outside of the TODs may be added in the future via either Council or proponent led planning proposals involving uplift and feasibility testing.
· Commentary in the introduction re section 7.32 of EP&A Act should be reviewed to be consistent with recent amendments.	It is noted that Section 7.32 of EP&A Act was amended 22 May 2025 and the commentary Part 1 of the draft AHCS relates to the previous version of that section. It is agreed that the commentary in the introduction of the AHCS should be amended to be consistent with the current wording of Section 7.32.

Post-Exhibition Amendments to AHCS

Illustrated examples of the calculation process for affordable housing contributions

The tables in Chapter 2 of the AHCS show the methods of calculating the applicable affordable housing contributions but the illustrated examples do not include the monetary totals given in Table 2-2 utilising instead the gross values in Table 2-1, giving rise to a potential for confusion. One method is to calculate the relevant percentage of the residential GFA to be dedicated by the gross value of that floorspace as stated in Table 2-1, and the other is to utilise the total GFA by the given percentage contribution rate of the gross value rate as given in Table 2-2. The worked examples are not as clear as they could be giving rise to the potential for confusion. It is recommended that the example be reworked to explicitly reference the rates given in Table 2-2 to alleviate the potential for confusion.

Minor text changes

Minor text changes that do not alter the intent of the documents or increase the contributions are permitted for readability and clarity.

Summary of amendments (as referenced in the recommendation)

· Amend the commentary in the Part 1 of the AHCS to be consistent with the current wording of Section 7.32 of the EP&A Act.

· Include in the AHCS a worked example of each methodology for the calculation of affordable housing contributions.

· Remove from the AHCS the maps and refer instead to the maps in the Local Environmental Plan to eliminate duplication and facilitate future reviews.

· Minor corrections to the text for clarity that do not alter the intent of the documents or the quantum of the contributions.

· Insert dates of effect when known.

There are no proposed amendments to the exhibited version of the draft Affordable Housing Policy.

integrated planning and reporting

Outcome 2 – Sustainable Urban Growth and Change

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

U1: Facilitate a diverse mix of housing options to accommodate the needs of a growing and changing population, including increased density in appropriate locations.

U1.1: Planning for housing is responsive and addresses the supply, choice, adaptability and affordability needs of the community and the changing population.

U1.1.2: Implement the Affordable Housing Policy and Affordable Housing Contributions Plan consistent with the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

Outcome 3 - Infrastructure and assets support community needs

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

A1.1: Plans are in place to effectively fund public infrastructure and assets to meet the needs of a growing and changing population.

A1.1.3: Oversee the drafting and implementation of a s7.32 Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme

Governance Matters

A project steering group will need to be established as a priority to ensure the ongoing governance and management of affordable housing contributions received by Council – both in-kind and in monetary form. The project steering group is expected to comprise representatives from Governance, Planning and Property, Finance and Community. The first priority will be to engage with Homes NSW (which is a NSW Government agency which is responsible for social and affordable housing and part of the Department of Communities and Justice) to assist with the tendering process and appointment of a nominated Community Housing Provider (CHP), the execution of a Project Delivery Agreement for the transfer of contributions and the establishment of ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements.

Homes NSW assists Local Councils going through that process by providing technical advice and assistance with:

· Tender management, selection and engagement of a Community Housing Provider (CHP);

· contract arrangements through Delivery Agreements to ensure Council contributions that are transferred to the nominated CHP are used in accordance with the approved purpose and any change requires Council approval;

· monitoring and reporting on performance and compliance of Community Housing Provider; and

· registration of Council interest on property titles to ensure affordable housing is provided in perpetuity.

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. The key required action in mitigating risk is to ensure the establishment of the governance structure for the management of the calculation, receipting, investing and allocation of affordable housing contributions to facilitate the delivery of affordable housing in a timely and efficient manner. There is a potential reputational risk to council if this system is not established promptly.

Financial Considerations

For any affordable housing contribution scheme to be implemented, there is a requirement for it to not unduly impact on development viability. The draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme (AHCS) is supported by viability assessments which provides evidence that the proposed affordable housing rates are viable. The scheme only applies to areas that are being rezoned for significant development uplift and increased development potential. This ensures that the contribution for affordable housing is drawn from the increase in land value generated by the rezoning.

The establishment of an affordable housing contribution scheme will mean that Council is able to accept both in-kind contributions and monetary contributions. This compares with the NSW Government TODs under Chapter Five of the Housing SEPP, which facilitate only in-kind delivery, restricted on title in perpetuity.

The draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme states that Council will transfer ownership of any in-kind contributions (dwellings and/or land) to the nominated Community Housing Provider (CHP). These assets will sit on the balance sheet of the CHP and can be leveraged to re-invest and grow the portfolio of affordable housing dwellings. Monetary contributions are to be pooled and managed by Council. When sufficient funding is available Council will consult with the nominated CHP for transfer of funds so that they may be combined with the CHP’s own resources or other government funding.

The calculation, inflation and receipting of monetary affordable housing contributions should be managed electronically to ensure efficiency and to minimise human error. Staff are in the process of ascertaining if Council’s current system, Property and Rating (Tech One) has this functionality. There may be a future cost involved, if the capacity exists but is not currently part of council’s package, which can be clarified after further investigation. Alternatively, a bespoke system, that adds-on to the Property & Rating system, like the current system for s7.11 and s7.12 contributions management, could be commissioned.

Social Considerations

Affordable housing will help ensure that Ku-ring-gai’s community remains diverse, allowing people from various income levels and backgrounds to live near their jobs, social networks and neighbourhood connections.

Affordable housing supports the local economy by assisting local businesses and essential services to attract and retain employees. By enabling employees to live closer to their place of employment, affordable housing would help to retain Ku-ring-gai’s vital workers, strengthen the local economy and reduce the risk of labour shortages in essential industries. In the case of care workers, such as aged care workers and childcare workers, high staff turnover directly impacts the quality and continuity of care.

Environmental Considerations

There are no direct environmental implications inherent in the adoption of an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme or amendment of the adopted Affordable Housing Policy. Each affected development site will be subject to the standard procedures for development assessment.

Community Consultation

The draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme and amendments to the adopted Affordable Housing Policy were placed on public exhibition from Monday, 25 August to Monday, 22 September 2025 inclusive. At the close of the exhibition period submissions had been received from 9 different parties with views from local residents, CHPs and the development industry all represented. Commentary on the content of the submissions has been included within the body of the report.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultations and briefings with relevant Council departments, such as Property, Finance and Community was undertaken during the preparation of the draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme. The matter was also considered by GMD on 31 July 2025. Councillor briefings have been held during the process of preparation of the introductory Issues Paper, the Affordable Housing Policy and the Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme. The latest briefing was held on 5 August 2025 ahead of the August OMC which authorised the commencement of the public exhibition process.

Summary

Affordable Housing Contribution Schemes are Council-led documents which set out how, where and what rate of contributions for the provision of affordable housing can be made, whether by the dedication of physical dwellings, or monetary contributions, or an agreed combination. They give developers certainty about how affordable housing contributions will be determined, and the contribution rate that will be applied in a condition of consent. They provide the option of a monetary contribution as an alternative to physical dedication of completed dwellings. The scheme is linked to a clause and maps within the Council LEP to ensure that feasibility is directly related to additional development potential through uplift.

Atlas Economics and GLN Planning have prepared the draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (Attachment A1) to support Council’s Adopted TOD Alternative Affordable Housing LEP clause and affordable housing contribution rate maps.

The scheme applies to the TOD Areas (as per Council’s Preferred TOD Alternative) of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville. The scheme applies to land that enables development for residential accommodation. There is flexibility within the document to add other areas that are subject to uplift subject to feasibility assessments conducted concurrently with the relevant planning proposal process.

In order to ensure consistency between the Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Policy and the Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme, amendments were made to the adopted policy to align with the principle of appointing a partner CHP for the delivery and management phase. The final version can be found at Attachment A2.

The foregoing report has foreshadowed some further amendments for clarity and to minimise duplication (retaining the maps in the LEP rather than repeating them in the AHCS). It is recommended that the draft Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme be adopted with these changes.

The commencement date must be tied to the (unknown) eventual gazettal date of the enabling LEP and the Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme is a supporting document under that enabling clause. As such, it is recommended that the adoption date be stated in the AHCS and the commencement date be stated to be the date that the Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD alternative comes into effect.

The amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy chiefly relate to the principle and the circumstances in which council will engage a Community Housing Provider (CHP) through a partnership agreement to deliver, own (with restrictions on title in council’s favour) and manage the resultant affordable housing portfolio. These changes can be given effect on adoption by council which will facilitate the progression towards the engagement of a CHP partner and the preparation of the supporting governance procedures. There are no proposed amendments to the exhibited draft Affordable Housing Policy.

Recommendation:

A. That the exhibited draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme 2025 be adopted subject to the following amendments:

i. Amend the commentary in the Part 1 of the AHCS to be consistent with the current wording of Section 7.32 of the EP&A Act.

ii. Include in the AHCS a worked example of the methodology for the calculation of affordable housing contributions referencing both Table 2-1 and Table 2-2.

iii. Remove from the AHCS the maps and refer instead to the maps in the Local Environmental Plan to eliminate duplication and facilitate future reviews.

iv. Minor corrections to the text for clarity that do not alter the intent of the documents or the quantum of the contributions.

v. Insert dates of effect when known.

B. The date of commencement be set to the date of gazettal of the Ku-ring-gai TOD alternative.

C. That the exhibited amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy 2025 be adopted and be given immediate effect.

D. That the General Manager be delegated to make the amendments iterated in this report and any minor corrections and clarifications that do not alter the intent of the documents or the quantum of affordable housing contributions as exhibited.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Coordinator

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Draft Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme - Exhibition Version		2025/241173
	A2⇩	Ku-ring-gai Affordable Housing Policy - Version 2 - Post Exhibition		2025/319220

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.13 / 36

Item GB.13	S14276

Local Character - Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Amendment
Post-exhibition consideration of submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider submissions made to the exhibition of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character considerations.

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 requiring controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s prevailing character. On 22 July 2025 Council considered and endorsed the public exhibition of the proposed amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, to include Local Character Area controls within Part 14 Local Character Areas, Urban Precincts and Sites.

comments:	The draft amendment was exhibited for 29 days from Monday, 4 August to Wednesday, 1 September 2025. Seven submissions were received. Generally, the submissions supported the amendment, most requesting additional controls. One submission opposed the amendment. Submissions in support considered the inclusion of a mechanism that could protect the valued local character in the face of rapid state level housing policy changes that lack consideration of local character. The submission against raised concern that the controls would deter development. Assessment of issues raised in the submissions has resulted in one minor post-exhibition amendment.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council adopts the amended draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, incorporating Part 14 Local Character Areas, Urban Precincts & Sites.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider submissions made to the exhibition of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include Local Character considerations.

Background

At its 15 June 2021 meeting, Council resolved to adopt the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study. Following Council’s resolution, Council’s Delivery Program & Operational Plan included actions to deliver controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP). These actions have triggered this amendment of the KDCP.

The aim of this amendment is to put in place a mechanism that would manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s character.

All development applications will now be required to state how they are consistent with the local character of the area that they are located within.

Inclusion of KDCP 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 areas’ 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.

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.

On 22 July 2025 Council considered the proposed amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan to include local character considerations and resolved:

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 A2 be 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.

Comments

Public Exhibition

The draft Part 14 Local Character, Urban Precincts and sites KDCP amendment was exhibited on Council’s website for 29 days between Monday, 4 August and Wednesday, 1 September 2025.

A total of seven submissions were received, two from community groups STEP and FOKE, one from property developer group Urban Taskforce, four from local landowners. Generally, the submissions supported the amendment, most requesting additional controls, except for Urban Taskforce which opposed the introduction of Local Character requirements.

The submissions have been summarised and may be viewed at Attachment A1 with an overview provided below.

Submissions and Comments

Submission 1

· The submission requested additional controls on residential development, particularly a maximum building footprint of 30%, plus controls to retain existing trees, and penalties for removing trees without consent.

Ø Response:

The KDCP currently includes built upon area requirements. The site coverage controls are proportionate to the type of residential development (single houses 50-60%, dual occupancy 40-50%, multi-unit dwellings 40%, residential flat buildings 30%).

Current practice requires Council approval for tree removal. Trees are required to be retained unless dangerous or diseased with penalties applying for clearing trees without consent.

Ø Recommendation:

No Change

Submission 2

· The submission requests the inclusion of Beaumont Road Public School, Killara under the ‘Key Characteristics and Features’ table of the Western Interface Local Character Area.

Ø Response:

Noted and agreed.

Ø Recommendation:

Include Beaumont Road Public School under 14A.3 Western Interface Local Character Area Key Characteristics and Features table.

Submission 3

· The submission states that the unique character and planning issues of West Roseville have been omitted, including steep topography, bushfire risk and dense tree canopy coverage.

Ø Response:

The submission appears to think West Roseville in its entirety is included in the Western Interface Local Character Area. In fact, West Roseville straddles the Western Interface Local Character Area and the Green Fingers Local Character Area. The more isolated, steep, vegetated, bushfire prone areas of West Roseville are mapped within the Green Fingers Local Character Area. The Green Fingers LCA is considered to appropriately identify increased bushfire risk and mature vegetation as key characteristics and features within the exhibited KDCP.

Ø Recommendation:

No Change

Submission 4

· The submission disputes the SAN Hospital site being included in the Green Fingers Local Character Area and requests its removal. Alternately, it suggests the Character Statement should acknowledge the Wahroonga Estate's large scale, urban character, and the contribution it makes to health, employment, education and the economy in Ku-ring-gai and Sydney's north.

Ø Response:

The Wahroonga Estate comprises the SAN hospital, seniors housing and residential dwellings. It is surrounded by bushland, riparian zones, biodiversity, critically endangered habitat and is identified as containing bushfire prone land. The Wahroonga Estate is one of three large institutional sites located within exceptional bushland setting, typical of the Green Fingers Character, and warrants consideration of the local character in any future development on both residential and non-residential sites.

The Local Character Area statements refer to the built form and landscape character with an overview description of scale and type of built form. They do not describe in detail the function of the buildings nor promote one development over another.

It is noted that the descriptions within the Green Fingers Local Character Statement has only listed the SAN hospital and omitted other similar large institutional sites and schools. These are proposed to be included.

To clarify, non-residential buildings are also within the Green Fingers setting, include a phrase that cites institutional buildings.

Ø Recommendation:

Included the following amendments under 14A.2 Green Fingers Character Area:

- Large Institutional Sites: Sydney Adventist Hospital; CSIRO Lindfield; Lindfield Learning Village

- These areas are dominated by trees and vegetation and create and bushland setting for dwellings and other institutional buildings.

Submission 5 – Urban Task Force

· The submission states that the proposed KDCP amendment lacks detail about how the changes will apply, creating uncertainty for stakeholders and making it difficult for any change or development to occur.

It goes on to suggest the amendments are being rushed due to “political considerations” and that the amendments are based on a 2020 report, ignoring TOD and LMR housing policies. It requests a hold on the KDCP amendment until the LMR and TOD can be considered and included.

The submission seeks clarification:

- unclear how Council is going to define character noting individual streets within a character area can differ;

- how will the interaction between landscape, buildings and culture be assessed; and

- will exotic trees be retained in local character areas.

Ø Response:

Given the size of the Character Areas and their internal variations, it is not possible to apply detailed prescriptive controls. Development Applications will be required to demonstrate how the proposal will integrate into the Character Area, the street and the setting. Assessing officers will consider Local Character and the site and assess if the proposal integrates into the prevailing local characteristics.

It is unclear what uncertainty the submission refers to. The KDCP amendments create certainty by protecting local character to create stable, quality environments for the community.

It is unclear what “political considerations” the submission alludes to. The inclusion of character areas in the KDCP follows on from the Ku-ring-gai Local Character Background Study adopted by Council in June 2021 and Council’s Delivery and Operational Plan requirements. Further, the current lack of attention to local character in development delivery is of growing community concern.

The KDCP amendment will require development to integrate into the relevant Local Character Area throughout the local government area. Once the NSW Government formalises the TOD & LMR standards, the character areas will be updated. TOD and LMR only apply to specific locations and Local Centres. Similarly, Council’s adopted minimum lot size for dual occupancy is awaiting finalisation with DPHI, at which point the character areas will be also updated. Since the Character Areas apply to vast areas beyond these locations, it is pertinent that this amendment be put in place to structure a consistency of development delivery according to location within Ku-ring-gai.

The KDCP provides multiple controls for assessing deep soil, tree preservation, landscaping, heritage guidelines, setbacks relating to particular development types. These standards will continue to be objectively assessed. The merit Local Character assessment will consider unique and valued elements of the street and locality; for example, in areas of Blue Gum High Forest trees in private land, development will need consider and appropriately reflect these values by addressing tree communities on the site.

Ø Recommendation:

No Change

Submission 6 – STEP Inc

· The submission supports the inclusion of the LCA into the KDCP as it will maintain valuable features of the LGA including trees and biodiversity. The submission requests further provisions to preserve tree canopy and native vegetation.

Ø Response:

Controls relating to biodiversity and tree provision/protection are included within the KDCP Part A and Part C and relate to specific development types. Every proposal within the Character Area will be required to be consistent with those specified controls. The monitoring of tree canopy loss or gain is part of Council’s Urban Forest Monitoring Program, which is an identified action in the implementation of the adopted Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy.

Council’s current controls around tree provision have been formulated to ensure adequate area for both landscaping and for built form, including driveways and external hard surfaces. Tree and canopy retention and enhancement standards imposed by State government are inferior to those of Council; however, those controls over-ride Council’s standards and Council is not able to alter them.

Ø Recommendation:

No Change

Submission 7 - FOKE (Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc.)

· The submission supports the inclusion of the Local Character Areas into the KDCP to manage the impacts of development on the unique landscape and environmental characteristics of the LGA. It goes on to request further strengthening of environmental controls with elements such as green roofs, quantifiable metrics for tree retention or biodiversity enhancement; and bushfire and edge management to better integrate asset protection zones with biodiversity protection

Ø Response:

Controls relating to heritage, biodiversity and tree provision/protection are included within the KDCP Part A and Part C and relate to specific development types. Every proposal within the Character Area will be required to be consistent with those specified controls.

Consideration of green roofs/walls will be given in the upcoming amendments to the KDCP relating to the TOD and LMR areas which are all located within the Ridge and Centres Local Character Area. The KDCP currently has tree planting requirements which will apply to all new development that is assessed under Council’s KLEP.

The KDCP Part 16 – Bushfire Risk already has controls to address these matters. There are some limits on what a local DCP can require as it cannot contradict nor over-ride the State-level statutory requirements under Planning for Bushfire Protection. Establishment of an APZ is to be included in any ecological assessment for new development, and any vegetation or habitat removal impacts must also be assessed as part of any development proposal. It is not possible for a DCP to prohibit APZ encroachment into ‘critically endangered habitats’ on private land; however, impacts need to be assessed as part of any development application, with mitigation measures implemented and any offsets incorporated/implemented where appropriate.

The monitoring of tree canopy loss or gain is part of the Urban Forest Monitoring Program, which is an identified action in the implementation of the adopted Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy. Council is reviewing the appropriate reporting timeframes and metrics to best represent this information.

Ø Recommendation:

No Change

Post-Exhibition Amendments

All issues raised in response to the exhibition have been assessed. The below table lists the resulting amendments to the exhibited Part 14 Local Character, Urban Precincts and Sites DCP. The amended DCP showing the post-exhibition amendments in red may be seen at Attachment A2.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Proposed post-exhibition amendments to the KDCP

integrated planning and reporting

Outcome 2: Sustainable urban growth and change

Strategy - Community Strategic Plan

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Actions

U2: Ensure land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect existing character and effectively manage growth and change.

U2.3: Strategies, plans and processes are prepared, implemented and reviewed to effectively manage the impact of new development.

U2.3.2: 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 apparent lowering priority of 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

The draft Part 14 Local Character, Urban Precincts and sites DCP amendment was exhibited for 29 days between Monday, 4 August and Wednesday, 1 September 2025. A total of seven submissions were received, with an approximately even ratio of support for, and objection against, the proposed DCP amendment. Reasons stated for objection or support were mixed.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has been conducted mainly with the Urban Planning, Urban Design and Development Assessment teams.

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 (KDCP). The aim of this was to put in place a mechanism that would manage the impact of development on Ku-ring-gai’s character.

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.

The exhibition of the Local Character controls resulted in a total of seven submissions. The submissions have resulted in some minor post-exhibition amendments. The amended KDCP showing the post-exhibition amendments in red may be seen at Attachment A2.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopts the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Part 14 Local Character, Urban Precincts and Sites, incorporating post-exhibition amendments as detailed in this report.

B. That Council’s adoption of the amended Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan be notified on Council’s website in accordance with Clause 21(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

C. That the amended Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan comes into effect on the day that it is notified on Council’s website.

D. That people who made a submission be notified of Council’s resolution.

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

Rathna Rana

Executive Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Submission Summary Table - Local Character Areas KDCP Amendment		2025/290867
	A2⇩	Post Exhibition KDCP Amendment - Part 14A Local Character		2025/318724

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.14 / 39

Item GB.14	S13985

Consideration of Submissions
Planning Proposal 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider submissions received in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to increase height and floor space ratio standards, heritage list three sets of sandstone entry pillars, include additional uses on land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra.

background:	The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 26 September 2023. Following submission of revised documentation, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 31 May 2024. On 13 August 2024 Council resolved to forward the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination, contingent on certain amendments to the documentation. The Gateway Determination was issued on 18 March 2025 enabling the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. In accordance with the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 13 May 2025 to 10 June 2025.

comments:	In response to the public exhibition, a total of 31 submissions were received from the community, one being from the proponent. Comment was also received from 4 State Agencies. All community submissions and State Agency responses were forwarded to the proponent for their response. All submissions, including the proponent’s response have been assessed for Council’s consideration. The assessment has resulted in a proposed amendment, reducing height adjacent to R2 Low Density Residential land and Heritage Conservation Area, and offsetting that height to adjacent to the railway line. No change to FSR is proposed. The proposed height redistribution retains the original exhibited development potential on the site.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council endorses the post-exhibition height amendment and adopts the amended Planning Proposal to increase height and floor space ratio, heritage list three sets of sandstone entry pillars and permit two additional uses on 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra.

Purpose of Report

Background

The site

The Planning Proposal applies to a 9,193 sqm land parcel, comprising the following lots, referred to as “the site”:

· Lot 21 DP 533032

· Lot 26 DP 585038

· Lot 2 DP 302942

The site is owned by the Anglican Community Services and currently contains 110 seniors independent living units, generally in a 2-3 storey unit and townhouse style development. It is located at the end of the Rohini Street cul-de-sac, close to transport links, shops, services and local facilities including parks, library and gymnasiums.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

SITE DETAILS – land ownership and use

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

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

KLEP 2015 Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Area Map

The Planning Proposal

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

Mapping amendments:

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

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

3. heritage listing of three sets of sandstone pillars, including correction to the description of one of the currently listed sets.

Written Instrument amendment:

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

These amendments are illustrated in the below table:

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) – MAPPING AMENDMENT
EXISTING	PROPOSED (EXHIBITED)
Height of Buildings Map
L - 11.5m	P – 17.5m
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map
A3 - 0.3:1	R– 1.5:1
Heritage Map

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) – WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AMENDMENT

EXISTING

PROPOSED (EXHIBITED)

Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses

n/a

(1) This clause applies to land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra being Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038.

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

(a) recreational facility (indoor) and

(b) commercial premises

(3) Development consent must not be granted under this clause to development that results in the gross floor area of the combined recreational facility (indoor) and commercial premises exceeding 700 sqm.

Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage

n/a

Part 1 Heritage Items

Suburb	Item name	Address	Property description	Significance	Item no
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars and gate	~~Railway lands~~ Boundary 51-53 Rohini St and Council pathway	~~Part Lot 1, DP 1129573~~ Part Lot 21 DP 533032 and Part Cherry St – King St public pathway	Local	I161
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars and gate	Boundary 51-53 Rohini St and Railway Land	Part Lot 21 DP 533032 and Part Lot 100 DP 1169206 (Railway Land)	Local	I1115
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars	Rohini Street road reserve adjacent to 51-53 Rohini St.	Road reserve Rohini Street, Turramurra adjacent to Lot 21 DP533032	Local	I1116

Process

On13 August 2024 Council considered the Planning Proposal and resolved:

A. That Council re-affirms its support for FSR 1.5:1 as stated on pages 563, 574 and 576 of the Report.

B. That Council endorses the amendments as set out in the Memo from the Director of Strategy and Environment dated 12 August 2024.

C. The Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this Report and Table of Assessment (Attachment A1), followed by the amendments outlined in B above.

D. That the amended Planning Proposal be submitted for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .

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

Gateway Determination

On 23 December 2024, in accordance with Council’s resolution, the amended Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI).

On 18 March 2025, a conditional Gateway Determination was received from DPHI to proceed to public exhibition and complete the process by 11 December 2025.

The Gateway Determination required the following:

· certain amendments to the Planning Proposal to be completed prior to exhibition;

· a minimum exhibition period of 20 working days;

· consultation with nominated State Agencies with a minimum 30 days for their response.

All conditions of the Gateway Determination were met prior to exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

The final Planning Proposal placed on exhibition in accordance with the Gateway Determination may be viewed at Attachment A1.

The Gateway Determination may be viewed at Attachment A2.

The Gateway Determination has authorised Council to be the local plan-making authority enabling a more efficient and timely process to finalise the amendment.

Timeline

Key milestones in the Planning Proposal process are as follows:

21 December 2022	Pre- Planning Proposal meeting.
26 September 2023	Planning Proposal application submitted to Council.
31 May 2024	Formal assessment commenced.
22 July 2024	Referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).
13 August 2024	Reported to Council which resolved to progress the proposal to Gateway contingent on certain amendments.
19 December 2024	Proponent submitted the amended Planning Proposal in accordance with Council’s resolution.
23 December 2024	Council forwarded the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) seeking a Gateway Determination.
18 March 2025	A conditional Gateway Determination was received from DPHI.
23 April 2025	Proponent submitted the amended Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway conditions.
13 May 2025 to 10 June 2025	Public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and request for comment made to State Agencies in accordance with the Gateway.
18 June 2025	Submissions to exhibition and State Agency comment forwarded to proponent.
11 July 2025	Council received proponent comment on submissions.
1 August 2025	Notification to DPHI of proposed post-exhibition amendment resulting from exhibition submissions.
5 August 2025	Notified proponent of proposed post-exhibition height offset amendment.
6 August 2025	Meeting with proponent to discuss post-exhibition amendment rationale.
19 September 2025	Council received written comment from proponent on the post-exhibition height offset amendment.
14 October 2025	Public forum date.
21 October 2025	Ordinary Meeting of Council to consider finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

Comments

Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 13 May 2025 to 10 June 2025 in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan. A copy of the exhibited Planning Proposal and its appendices are included at Attachment A1.

Submissions to the exhibition were received from the community and from State Agencies. The submissions have been assessed to determine the Planning Proposal continues to have merit; however, a change to the height distribution across the site is proposed as a result of the impacts raised in the submissions.

Submissions made to the public exhibition

A total of 31 Submissions were received, 29 in opposition, 1 neutral and 1 in favour.

One submission in favour was from the proponent. One neutral submission supported the proposal incorrectly thinking it was a development aimed at attracting and accommodating families with children. The remaining 29 submissions were generally from residents in the adjacent properties on Rohini Street, King Street and Eastern Road

Key issues raised in the community submissions are listed below with detailed response presented in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

Proponent submission

· The proponent’s submission sought to replace their Appendix D Heritage Impact Statement, that formed part of the initial Planning Proposal, with a new Heritage Curtilage Analysis which updated information regarding the significance of the sets of pillars proposed for heritage listing.

Ø Council Comment

The updated heritage assessment is noted as identifying one satisfied listing criteria rather than the three identified in the original heritage report that was considered by Council and exhibited. The updated Heritage Curtilage Analysis may be viewed at Attachment A4.

Council will utilise both the submitted and updated documents as references when generating Council’s independent inventory assessment for the heritage items.

The proponent will be able to provide further assessment in a Statement of Heritage Impact accompanying any future DA.

Community submissions

Community submissions were received from the surrounding properties as illustrated below:

The community submissions unanimously objected to the proposal, raising a number of common issues. These are listed below with a detailed response provided in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A3.

Submissions received from surrounding properties

Bulk and scale

Building height (23 submissions)

· Proposed height of 6 storeys with the SEPP bonus is too tall.

· There is no strategic justification for significant height increase.

· The proposal sets a precedent for future development of this height.

· Council should reject or amend proposal to lower height.

Setbacks (8 Submissions)

· Proposed development is too close to boundaries and surrounding buildings.

· Tallest points of the development should be moved back from boundary.

Loss of amenity (24 submissions)

· Proposed development will cause overshadowing.

· There will be a loss of privacy with significant overlooking into bedrooms, living areas and private open space within rear gardens.

· The building bulk will diminish views and sunlight access.

Local character (8 submissions)

· The proposed development will overpower the area and does not align with the surrounding character.

· Proposal is inconsistent with R4 Zone, desired future character and Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings in KLEP 2015.

Ø Council Comment

It is acknowledged that development resulting from the Planning Proposal will impact the surrounding residential development, however under the recent housing reforms 6-storey residential flat buildings are already permitted on the site. This Planning Proposal is seeking to deliver seniors housing in residential flat buildings of a similar scale to those now permitted under the low and mid-rise housing reforms.

Any future development application on this site will require the proponent to demonstrate how the final site design, building orientation and location of windows/balconies, tree planting and landscaping will minimise privacy, overshadowing and solar access impacts to these neighbouring properties. At this stage the neighbouring properties will have the opportunity to make submissions on an actual development application design and determine whether the proponent’s final design has accommodated their concerns.

· Apartment Design Guide standards

The NSW Apartment Design Guide requires a minimum 6m setback to neighbouring boundaries. Provided any future development application basement is kept under the building footprint and does not encroach into the setback areas, and the area is not paved nor riddled with pathways, the development application assessment can determine if the setback will enable appropriate deep soil provision and specific delivery of tall canopy trees and screening vegetation to reduce privacy impacts to neighbours.

The NSW Apartment Design Guide also includes objectives relating to the separation of buildings and screening to increase privacy. It also stipulates the stepping back of upper levels. The proponent’s indicative scheme is non-compliant in this regard. Any future development application on the site will have to demonstrate compliance with all Apartment Design Guide standards, and consider reducing the impacts of bulk and scale on neighbouring properties as required in the Seniors Housing Design Guide cited in the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

· Housing reform standards for land zoned R4 High Density Residential

The NSW government’s low and mid-rise housing reforms nominate Local Housing Areas at an 800m walking perimeter from the border of the E1 Local Centre zoning. The NSW government has allocated increased density to these Local Housing Areas which over-ride Council’s existing height and FSR standards. The below diagram indicates the Turramurra Local Housing Area.

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Low and Mid-Rise Housing - Indicative Turramurra Local Housing Area Map

- 800m walking distance from E1 Local Centre zone (Source DPHI)

Local Housing Area land that is within a 400m walking radius from the E1 Local Centre zone, and that has an R4 High Density Residential zone, is now able to develop 6 storey apartment buildings regardless of Council’s KLEP 2015 standards.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Housing 2021

Low and Mid-Rise Housing Building Height and Typologies Map

As illustrated in the above diagram, the following neighbouring properties, whose residents have raised the issue of height, bulk and scale, are all zoned R4 High Density Residential and are located within a 400m walking distance to the Turramurra E1 Local Centre zone:

· 47-49 Rohini Street

· 26 Eastern Road

· 28 Eastern Road

· 2-4 King Street

· 6 King Street

As such, under the NSW government reforms, all these properties are able to develop 6 storey residential flat buildings, making their long-term development outcome similar to this Planning Proposal.

Therefore, whilst the concerns of the residents are acknowledged, it is recognised that the NSW Government has defined a new, urban future context for this location under the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

Since the area is going through a transition, imposed by the NSW Government, it will be the development application process which manages the immediate impacts of the new built form on the neighbouring properties. The development application process will direct the proponent to address impact concerns and demonstrate how those concerns have been addressed. When a future development application is submitted, neighbouring properties will be notified and will have the opportunity to again raise their individual concerns.

· Housing reform standards for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential:

Submissions on issues of bulk and scale were also received from the following neighbouring properties:

· 10 King Street

· 12 King Street

· 5 Laurel Avenue

These properties are located within an R2 Low Density Residential zone, plus within Heritage Conservation Area C5 (Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area) to the north of the Planning Proposal site.

The neighbouring properties most impacted are 10 King Street and 5 Laurel Avenue. Impacts will also affect the amenity of 12 King Street, a heritage item, and other properties on Laurel Street due to their proximity to the Planning Proposal site.

The concerns raised in the submissions are acknowledged. These properties will be highly impacted given the northern orientation of the Planning Proposal building seeking to capture sunlight and views, with balconies, windows and a roof top terrace also located along this boundary likely to result in noise issues in addition to privacy impacts.

It is acknowledged that the disparity of height between the 1 storey neighbouring houses and the Planning Proposal’s 6 storey building (including SEPP bonus) will be exacerbated due to the site being located at a high point, with land sloping down to the neighbouring properties. The topography along this boundary slopes downward, with an approximate 1.5-metre fall across the distance between the proposed development and the existing house at 10 King Street.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Bulk and scale impacts on 10 King Street within the HCA - Diagram shows exhibited Planning Proposal scheme

- BASE height provision of 17.5m (5-storey) and BONUS height of 21.3m (6-storey) shown dotted

Unlike the neighbouring sites on R4 zoned land discussed previously, these impacted sites do not have any potential to increase their permissible height (9.5m) under the NSW housing reform due to their R2 Low Density Residential zoning and being located within a Heritage Conservation Area characterised by 1 and 2 storey built form with hipped roofs. The housing reforms enable a variety of typologies on R2 land within the 800m walking distance from the E1 Local Centre zone (terraces, town houses, dual occupancy, apartment buildings). These will be required to assimilate into the Heritage Conservation Area prevailing character.

As such, the future character of the land to the north of the Planning Proposal site will remain low rise and highly impacted by the bulk and scale in the long-term.

An investigation into the bulk and scale impacts has been conducted by Council to assess the impacts. This Height of Building Offset Study is provided at Attachment A5.

The study assesses the proponent’s development scheme, and the immediate and long-term impacts to surrounding properties. It recommends an amendment to the exhibited building height. The study adopts Council’s application of a 3-storey transitional height in such cases as this. The transition goes some way towards reducing the disparity in bulk and scale and the associated impacts to the R2 dwellings in the Low Density Residential land, and to the setting of the Heritage Conservation Area.

In lowering the height of building adjacent to the R2 land, the study also recommends an increase in height adjacent to the railway lands where neighbour impacts are reduced. This height offset means the Planning Proposal will retain its original development potential. There is no change proposed to the exhibited FSR standard.

The Height of Building Offset Study has calculated the size of the mapped height areas to determine dimensions that would ensure an equal offset, and that would enable transparent mapping of the multi-height areas across this site. The application of proposed multi-heights on a single development site is not unusual, built form can be designed to either have separate footprints across different heights or step down in height if a monolithic built form is proposed.

Ø RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that:

· the building height adjacent to the R2 Low Density Residential boundary be reduced to 11.5m (3-storey) to decrease the immediate and long-term impacts on those low density dwellings and to the Heritage Conservation Area to the north, consistent with Council’s approach across the local government area;

· the building height adjacent to the railway lands be increased to 25m (7-storey) to offset the development potential from the height reduction adjacent to the R2 Low Density Residential land;

· the Planning Proposal exhibited height maps be amended prior to finalisation to reflect the height offset as indicated in the below diagram:

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Proposed Post-exhibition Height Offset from northern boundary to western boundary

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Heights - P=17.5m L=11.5m Heights - P=17.5m L=11.5m OFFSET AREA=25m

EXHIBITED Height Map PROPOSED Post-exhibition Height Map

Traffic and parking (14 submissions)

· Development will increase traffic especially to the Rohini Street and Eastern Road intersection.

· Rohini Street already experiences significant congestion at the Pacific Highway intersection. The proposal will increase traffic congestion.

· Inclusion of the café and wellness centre will increase the volume of traffic and place additional pressure on the narrow cul-de-sac.

· The proposal does not have adequate parking for residents and visitors which will lead to overflow and parking issues on the narrow cul-de-sac which provides parking on both sides.

Ø Council Comment

It is acknowledged that there will be increased traffic generation from development, including its on-site facilities. Transport for NSW noted that the Planning Proposal has underestimated the increased traffic generation. The proponent states traffic generation from the proposal would result in additional 11 vehicle trips per hour; however, Transport for NSW assesses a more accurate number would be 31 vehicle trips per hour, or an additional vehicle trip every 2-6 minutes. These trips are likely to occur outside the network peak as the aged residents are unlikely to be travelling to/from work, and once distributed to the surrounding road network, are unlikely to result in significant additional impacts.

Anglicare’s survey of current residents indicates over 50% of residents do not drive and a further 30% of current residents drive infrequently, the proposed on-site car parking is considered excessive. Council staff have previously suggested a reduction in the parking provision. This would substantially reduce excavation, material costs, environmental impacts, and improve affordability. Provision of on-site car share vehicles could be substantially increased to further reduce parking provision.

The parking provision and traffic impacts will be required to be detailed in any future DA. Similarly, details of construction timing and impact will be assessed in any DA, with conditions being imposed to manage any disturbance.

Infrastructure (5 Submissions)

· New development will cause strain on existing infrastructure.

· Issues with current stormwater and sewerage around Rohini Village.

Ø Council Comment

State Government agencies have not raised concern regarding local infrastructure. Stormwater and sewerage implications will be considered in any future development application. Sydney Water has provided their comment to this proposal and have stated a number of requirements to be actioned during any future development application.

Inaccuracy of Planning Proposal (13 Submissions)

· Proposal lacks clarity in key areas such as landscaping and building design.

· Proposal includes errors such as incorrect street names, measurements of setbacks and information of surrounding properties such as building heights.

· Issues with sunlight and shadow drawings.

Ø Council Comment

The inaccuracies are acknowledged. Any future development on this site will have to submit a detailed development application documentation package which will undergo thorough assessment to verify the detail provided. Residents will be notified of any development application and will have access to the finalised documents for comment.

Public benefit (11 Submissions)

· Question if the “Rohini Walk” will have any public benefit and be accessible 24 hours for public use.

· Ask if the facilities within Rohini Village be for public use.

· Requests the existing shared driveway extension to the dog-leg path to King Street continue to provide access to the rear of 10 King Street.

Ø Council Comment

The proponent has submitted a Letter of Offer to Council stating certain works it considers can be agreed through a Planning Agreement. The on-site facilities, Rohini Walk and the public domain on Rohini Street are items being considered. Council will seek to secure actions that will benefit the wider community.

Construction (10 Submissions)

· Construction will cause noise and pollution issues.

Ø Council Comment

As part of any future DA, conditions will be included to ensure the management of construction impacts.

Biodiversity and wildlife (3 Submissions)

· Increased FSR will result in inadequate space for deep soil and planting.

· Unclear impacts on trees.

Ø Council Comment

Agreed; however, the FSR is an upper limit and it is not necessary for a development to achieve that absolute figure. Site analysis and design considerations during the development application stage will influence the final FSR take-up as the site features, provision of deep soil and landscaping, and amenity impacts to neighbouring properties will have to be taken into account.

Heritage (4 Submissions)

· The 3 pillars should be retained in their original place.

· Proposed development will impact surrounding Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas.

Ø Council Comment

The concerns are noted. Any future development application will be subject to the heritage provisions of the KLEP 2015 and be required to submit a heritage impact statement and justify any movement of the pillars. This report proposes a height reduction to decrease bulk and scale impacts to the northern Heritage Conservation Area.

Other (14 Submissions)

Key issues raised:

· Price of new units will be out of reach for the elderly.

· Issues with new development being luxury units and not caring for the wider elderly community.

· Potential asbestos issues in demolition of existing buildings.

Ø Council Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal is not aimed at affordable living for seniors and seeks to attract an affluent downsizing ageing population. Council has previously requested Anglicare to consider affordability to make the housing accessible to a wider profile of local downsizing elderly people.

Contamination issues, including asbestos removal, will be addressed through any future development application process.

State Agency Submissions

The Gateway Determination stated:

Consultation is required with the following public authorities and government agencies under section 3.34(2)(d) of the Act and/or to comply with the requirements of applicable directions of the Minister under section 9 of the Act:

• Transport for NSW

• Sydney Trains

• Relevant utility providers

Each public authority is to be provided with a copy of the planning proposal and any relevant supporting material via the NSW Planning Portal and given at least 30 working days to comment on the proposal.

Consultation has been completed in accordance with the Gateway Determination. Four submissions were received from State Agencies (Attachment A6).

The State Agency submissions are addressed below:

· Ausgrid

Ausgrid has not raised any objections to the proposal. The submission stipulates various requirements and conditions that need to be met during any future development application including:

- consider the suitability of the proposal including its compatibility with the surrounding land uses and the existing environment;

- mitigate such impacts for established developments including buffer distances, screening structures, building design, orientation, and construction methods;

- development consent conditions to be imposed to ensure the safety and compatibility of both the development and Ausgrid’s assets

- any encumbrance on the use of Ausgrid’s property is to be reported to Ausgrid, with site-specific details, seeking their comment prior to granting consent

The Ausgrid requirements are noted and will be actioned in any future development application.

· Transport for NSW

· Transport for NSW (Sydney Trains)

The access issues, building design, noise attenuation measures, Green Travel Plan and other Sydney Train design matters raised by Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains can be addressed at the development application stage. Referral of development applications to Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains would be required under Division 15 of SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021.

In terms of Sydney Trains comments regarding station capacity and train services, it is expected that additional demand to station/platform capacity and train services would be minor (due to its use as seniors housing), and will likely be outside peak commuter periods where it will have minimal impact to platform capacity or train loadings.

It was suggested by Transport for NSW to promote active transport and provide 1 bicycle space per dwelling. This is consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan requirement for high density residential development. Council would support the provision of bicycle parking for senior residents at a lower rate of provision (e.g. 1 space per 10 units), given that e-bikes and other e-micromobility may be a travel or recreation option for more active seniors.

Planning for improvements to the pedestrian amenity from Cherry Street to Rohini Street is being undertaken by Council through design work to upgrade the existing public path along the rail corridor between Rohini Street and Cherry Street, and investigations are underway to ensure the design minimises the impacts to existing trees.

Sydney Trains raised issues in relation to the access gate adjacent to the site on Rohini Street. Access to the Sydney Trains gate is currently via the TfNSW commuter car park, and this arrangement is not expected to change as a result of the Planning Proposal or redevelopment. As mentioned, Council is developing a design to upgrade the existing public path along the rail corridor between Rohini Street and Cherry Street in collaboration with Sydney Trains, which includes modification/removal of the fence panel on the right side of this gate to widen the path. This upgrade is also not expected to change Sydney Trains corridor access arrangements at this gate.

Transport for NSW comments regarding parking supply is supported. Anglicare’s own survey of current residents indicates over 50% of current residents do not drive. Given a further 30% of current residents drive infrequently (according to Anglicare surveys), car parking could be reduced to better match this characteristic. This would substantially reduce excavation, material costs and environmental impacts, and improve affordability. Provision of on-site car share vehicles could be increased to reduce parking provision, while still providing residents with access to vehicles.

Transport for NSW raised concerns regarding the traffic generation rate used in the assessment and suggests that a higher rate be used to reflect the behaviour of the downsizers mentioned by the proponent. Even considering the suggested traffic generation at the rate of 0.37 trips per dwelling and allowing for existing trips from the site, this would result in additional 31 vehicle trips per hour, or 1 additional vehicle trip every 2 minutes.

Ultimately, the development is intended for seniors housing and trips are likely to occur outside the network peak times. Once distributed to the surrounding road network, additional trips are unlikely to result in significant impacts to operation of the Turramurra bus interchange and the intersection of Pacific Highway and Rohini Street.

As part of broader land use and transport planning in Turramurra, Council is in ongoing discussions with Transport for NSW regarding the relocation of traffic signals on Pacific Highway from Rohini Street to Turramurra Avenue, as well as other State and local road network modifications in Turramurra.

· Sydney Water

Sydney Water has not raised any objections to the proposal. The submission confirms:

- Water and wastewater servicing should be available for future demands;

- amplifications, adjustments, and/or minor extensions may be required for future development works;

- specific servicing requirements will be provided in response to any future detailed development application which will provide Sydney Water with anticipated ultimate and annual growth data.

Sydney Water stipulate the following requirements for the proponent to meet in any future development application:

- proponent is to complete and return a Growth Data Form;

- if applicable, developer must submit an application requesting permission to discharge trade wastewater to Sydney Water’s wastewater system;

- proponent is to refer to the Sydney Water Planning Proposal Information Sheet (for proponent) when progressing their development application.

The Sydney Water requirements are noted and will be actioned in any future development application.

Proponent response to submissions

In accordance with the DPHI Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (August 2023) all community and State Agency submissions made to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal were provided to the proponent to give “the proponent the opportunity to address or redress issues raised in submissions, including amendments to the proposal”.

The proponent provided their response to the submissions on 11 July 2025. The response may be viewed at Attachment A7.

Proponent cover letter

The proponent cover letter states:

Council received a total of 32 submissions from local residents, according to our assessment, 27 are unique. We also received 12 submissions from Government Authorities. There was one community submission in support of the Proposal. The remaining submissions covered perceived concerns with the Proposal

As stated and described earlier in this report, Council in fact received a total of 31 community submissions (one repeated): 29 in opposition, 1 neutral (assuming the proposal was for family housing) and 1 in favour (from the proponent). Only 4 State Agency submissions were received.

The proponent cover letter states:

We also note that the proposed planning controls for the Site, a Height of Building control of 17.5 metres and a Floor Space Ratio of 1.5:1, have already been endorsed by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (LPP) on 22 July 2024 and Ku-ring-gai Council at its meeting on 13 August 2024 where there was unanimous approval to the currently exhibited proposal. We believe that the current plans and controls reflect a well-considered strategic planning framework supported by both Council and the Panel.

The resolutions of both the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel and Council only resolved to progress the Planning Proposal to Gateway Determination and subsequent community consultation. Those resolutions cannot endorse nor make any final decision on the Planning Proposal. The progression of any Planning Proposal has to give due consideration to community and State Agency comment and any amendment that results from issues raised in those submissions.

The proponent’s other comments are generally in accordance with Council’s assessment. The proponent acknowledges that many of the matters raised will be addressed at the detailed development application stage; however, Council’s specialist staff are not in agreement with some of the proponent’s responses as noted below:

· The proponent did not agree with some of the issues raised by Transport for NSW. This Agency notes the strategic location of the Planning Proposal site and the high numbers of parking spaces provided, suggesting a reduction in parking provision and consideration of other transport mechanisms, stating that the parking provision is not justified.

Council is in agreement with Transport for NSW and notes that a similar discussion on the high onsite parking numbers was also raised by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel.

Anglicare’s own survey of current residents indicates over 50% of residents do not drive. Given a further 30% of current residents drive infrequently (according to Anglicare surveys), car parking could be provided to match this characteristic, which would substantially reduce excavation, material costs and environmental impacts, and improve affordability. Provision of on-site car share vehicles could be increased to further reduce parking provision.

· The proponent response to some of the community submissions dismisses amenity impacts, erroneously stating Council has already agreed to the proposed heights.

The Planning Proposal process does not enable Council, nor any other body, to make a final decision on a proposal until all the due diligent steps are completed. The public exhibition is a key part of the consideration of the suitability of a planning proposal. If a decision was made prior to exhibition there would be no reason to invite the community nor the State Agencies to provide comment.

As discussed in this report and in the Height of Building Offset Study at Attachment A5, the immediate and ongoing long-term impacts on the 1 to2 storey single dwellings within the R2 Low Density Residential Heritage Conservation Area to the north, are a material consideration and warrant a redistribution of height across the site. This is proposed to be accomplished by reducing height to the impacted northern boundary and offset that reduced height by enabling an equivalent height increase to the west of the site adjacent to the railway land.

The arguments presented by the proponent that the impacts on these one and two storey dwellings can be managed at development application stage are not supported. It is the responsibility of a planning proposal to address strategic issues such as long-term impact, edge interface issues, transition of bulk and scale, local character and landscape and heritage settings.

The proposed offset redistribution of height will yield the same development potential as the exhibited Planning Proposal. The FSR remains the same as that exhibited. The same number of units will be achievable on the site. This approach will go some way towards dealing with the interface issues and with the disparity in height across the northern boundary.

Council’s proposed post-exhibition amendment in response to submissions

As detailed in this report, it is proposed to amend the exhibited Planning Proposal height map in response to the submissions received and concerns raised. Council’s Height of Building Offset Study at Attachment A5 justifies the proposed height offset. The amendment will reduce height to the north of the site and offset that height to the west of the site adjacent to the railway land where there is minimal impact to adjacent dwellings.

It is proposed to make the following post-exhibition amendment to the KLEP 2015 Mapping:

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) – MAPPING AMENDMENT
EXISTING	PROPOSED (EXHIBITED)	POST-EXHIBITION AMENDMENT
Height of Buildings Map
L - 11.5m	P – 17.5m	Height Distribution *L=11.5m; P=17.5m; OFFSET AREA=* 25m**
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map
A3 - 0.3:1	H – 1.5:1	NO CHANGE TO EXHIBITED MAP
Heritage Map
		NO CHANGE TO EXHIBITED MAP

The KLEP 2015 Written Instrument will remain as exhibited, shown in the below table:

Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) - WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AMENDMENT

EXISTING

PROPOSED (EXHIBITED) – no change to exhibited instrument

Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses

n/a

(1) This clause applies to land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra being Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038.

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

(a) recreational facility (indoor) and

(b) commercial premises

Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage

n/a

Part 1 Heritage Items

Suburb	Item name	Address	Property description	Significance	Item no
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars and gate	~~Railway lands~~ Boundary 51-53 Rohini St and Council pathway	~~Part Lot 1, DP 1129573~~ Part Lot 21 DP 533032 and Part Cherry St – King St public pathway	Local	I161
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars and gate	Boundary 51-53 Rohini St and Railway Land	Part Lot 21 DP 533032 and Part Lot 100 DP 1169206 (Railway Land)	Local	I1115
Turramurra	Rohini House sandstone pillars	Rohini Street road reserve adjacent to 51-53 Rohini St.	Road reserve Rohini Street, Turramurra adjacent to Lot 21 DP533032	Local	I1116

Post-exhibition meeting with proponent

In accordance with the Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (August 2023) Council informed both DPHI and the proponent of the proposed post-exhibition amendment.

On 5 August 2025, the proponent Anglicare was sent Council’s Height of Building Offset Study (Attachment A5) with an offer to meet with Council officers.

Council officers met and discussed the rationale for the amendment with Anglicare and their representatives on 6 August 2025 as follows:

· Inappropriate transition between the proposed 6 storey building (including the SEPP bonus) and the adjacent 1 storey home at 10 King Street, and other 1-2 storey homes in the Heritage Conservation Area to the north, and to the setting of the Heritage Conservation Area.

· R2 Low Density Residential lands to the north located within the Heritage Conservation Area, are not able to demolish buildings deemed contributory, nor increase their permitted heights under the Low and Mid-rise Housing reforms as the local character is one of 1 and 2 storey built form with hipped roofs. The locations would continue to be impacted, in perpetuity, by the 6-storey bulk of the built form on the Planning Proposal site.

· Council’s amendment seeks to achieve a middle ground, where the proponent is able to retain their development potential as exhibited but in a manner that better transitions to the neighbouring low density residential properties.

The proponent did not agree with Council’s approach and made the following comments:

· The proposed design plans have been three years in the making and it is late in the process for Council to propose an amendment.

· Their proposal provided for a desirable outcome within the subject site with the buildings forming an internal relationship that supported the community feeling, a taller building adjacent to the railway lands would not present well within the site.

· The Planning Proposal includes a design showing the height has been stepped down at the northern boundary in response to the adjacent lower density area, and the proposed buildings can be screened with mature vegetation, thus resulting in minimal impact on amenity.

Council officers reiterated:

· Timing

There is a due diligent process required in the consideration of a planning proposal to ensure all decisions are made transparently. This has been followed by Council.

Council has met all its timing milestones despite proponent delays in delivering the Planning Proposal application in an acceptable format, and in delivering post-Council meeting amendments in accordance with Council’s resolutions.

· Conflict with Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act cites Ministerial planning principles which must be observed in any planning proposal. Direction 1.4 states “A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the proposed development”. This means the Rohini Planning Proposal cannot tie the proponent’s design that steps height down at the northern boundary, nor any landscape plan to a legislative amendment of standards under the KLEP 2015.

The package of design drawings attached to the Planning Proposal only serve to illustrate one possible outcome that could result from the amended standards, it is not a guaranteed outcome. A development application package can only be prepared once the amendment is made to the KLEP 2015 so that a compliant design can be formulated.

Should the exhibited height be retained, a future development application would have the right to build to the full 6 storey height (including the SEPP bonus) all along this northern boundary, and could potentially only deliver minimal landscaping to the boundary.

The only mechanism a Planning Proposal has to ensure future development applications deliver a reduced height to this boundary is by placing an appropriate height standard via the KLEP 2015 Height of Building Map at this location, as is proposed by Council’s post-exhibition amendment.

· Equitable outcomes

Whilst the proponent has considered the internal community benefit of their proposal, the amenity of the adjacent properties cannot be ignored nor dismissed.

Council must look at the impacts on residents external to the proposal site, both in the short and long term, and consider how they too can live in an environment similar to the one the proponent seeks to create for its own residents.

· Interface planning mechanism

Council’s proposed post-exhibition amendment applies strategic principles that reflect Council’s position on the provision of transition areas between 1-2 storey low density residential dwellings adjacent to 4-and-above-storey high density development.

The proposed application of a 3-storey transition is consistent with the historical interface approach applied across Council, including to the recent TOD and Local Housing Areas.

Interface or transition areas are a planning mechanism utilised to ameliorate the impacts of high-density development adjacent to R2 Low Density Residential lands and/or Heritage Conservation Areas and Items.

· Retention of site potential

Council’s proposed offset of height from one part of the site to another maintains the exhibited development potential on the site. Anglicare is still able to meet its targets, as demonstrated in Council’s Height of Building Offset Study at Attachment A5.

Proponent written comment on post-exhibition changes

On 19 September 2025, Council received a written comment from the proponent. This has been considered by Council’s planning, urban design, landscape and heritage staff. The proponent’s full written comment may be viewed at Attachment A8.

The proponent’s comments have been thoroughly considered and addressed at Attachment A8 to this Report with an overview of the key points provided below.

In general, the proponent objects to the post-exhibition amendment and seeks one of the following options:

1. Retain the single height standard across the total site including to the northern boundary as exhibited: 17.5m/5 storey (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m/6 storey).

2. Allow the height offset to the western portion of the site adjacent to the railway line as proposed in Council’s post-exhibition height offset amendment, provided a similar height is also allowed to the east of the site adjacent to the neighbouring properties at 6 King Street, with associated increase in the site FSR.

The proponent argues:

· The impacts of a 6-storey building adjacent to a 1-storey dwelling and as a backdrop to the low-density land to the north are negligible.

Council Response

This argument is repeated in multiple ways but remains unsubstantiated. No evidence has been furnished to demonstrate that the impacts of a 6-storey building upslope of 1-2 storey buildings and as a backdrop to the listed Heritage Conservation Area will have “negligible” impact. Further, the setback illustrations provided by way of justification and with reference to Council’s Development Control Plan are inaccurate and do not account for a future allowable minimal 1.5m side setback to a new dwelling on the boundary line.

The bulk and scale issues the proponent says are addressed through their design and landscaping scheme are not guaranteed to be delivered at the development application stage as the Planning Proposal has no mechanism to embed them. The landowner will have every right to build to the full 6 storey height allowance.

The proponent’s design scheme cannot be tied to the Planning Proposal. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act cites Ministerial planning principles which state “A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the proposed development” (Direction 1.4). The only way to ensure the height reduction at the northern boundary is to include a reduced height in the KLEP 2015 for this portion of the site as per Council’s post-exhibition proposal.

· There is no need for this site to have any interface consideration and height reduction as a transition measure to the low-density Heritage Conservation Area as this is not a TOD site.

Council Response

The principle of managing height transitions between different land zoning is not unique to areas affected by the TOD process; rather, it has emerged as a key planning principle that the community values and expects to see applied more broadly across the Local Government Area. In practice, 3-storey buildings (with a Height of Building limit of 11.5m) have been used as a transitional building form where new high density development interfaces directly with land remaining zoned R2 Low Density residential, particularly in or adjacent to Heritage Conservation Areas, and where there is no vehicular roadway separating the two properties.

The proponent also requested a meeting to discuss increasing potential on the site “to maintain(ing) the viability of this Seniors Development and to support improvements to both the built-form and the public domain”.

Council officers did not consider a meeting necessary for the following reasons:

· Council’s Height of Building Offset Study (Attachment A5) clearly demonstrates the post-exhibition height offset will retain the existing FSR and continue to deliver the same development potential on the site.

There will be no loss of unit provision as the proponent intimates.

· The proponent’s request to include further height allowances to other parts of the site and potentially increase the site FSR, constitutes a significant departure from the original Planning Proposal considered by Council and exhibited to the community.

Further increase to the site development potential would require a new planning proposal submission to ensure transparency of process and evidence that all other required standards are achievable on the site, including impacts to neighbours.

Following consideration of the proponent’s comments, no change is proposed to Council’s post-exhibition amendment offsetting height to deliver improved outcomes to the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land within the Heritage Conservation Area to the north.

The post-exhibition amendment (evidenced in Council’s Height of Building Offset Study (Attachment A5) is warranted for the following key reasons:

· Council’s post-exhibition amendment will deliver exactly the same development potential on the Planning Proposal site, and there will be no loss of aged housing unit provision when the scheme is submitted for a development application.

· Given Council’s proposed post-exhibition amendment will not affect the Planning Proposal as it remains materially the same, with the same FSR and development potential, the height offset from the north to the west of the site will not trigger a re-submission of the Planning Proposal.

· Placement of the taller offset building height along a portion of the site adjacent to the railway lands will have lesser overlooking impacts on neighbouring residential properties; therefore, there is no requirement for re-exhibition to gauge impact concerns from the post-exhibition amendment.

integrated planning and reporting

Outcome 2: Sustainable urban growth and change

Strategy - Community Strategic Plan

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Actions

U1: Facilitate a diverse mix of housing options to accommodate the needs of a growing and changing population, including increased density in appropriate locations.

U1.1: Planning for housing is responsive and addresses the supply, choice, adaptability and affordability needs of the community and the changing population.

U1.1.1: Monitor and process proponent led and Council’s planning proposals for additional housing.

U1: Facilitate a diverse mix of housing options to accommodate the needs of a growing and changing population, including increased density in appropriate locations.

U1.2: Expanded community engagement in shaping the future of the Ku-ring-gai area provides enhanced opportunities to provide input on strategic planning policy decisions.

U1.2.1: Undertake engagement activities for identified strategic land use plans and policies consistent with Council’s Community Engagement Strategy.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Implication statement

This is a Planning Proposal initiated by a private landowner. Council should determine its position on the matter and whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for finalisation.

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner. Upon Council’s endorsement, a process of communication with the Parliamentary Counsel to draft the amendment, and with the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to make the legislated mapping changes will be undertaken. This process must be completed by 11 December 2025 in accordance with the Gateway Determination.

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal is considered to have positive social benefits including the replacement of dated housing for Seniors that no longer meets accessibility standards and current market demand. The proposal is consistent with the recent NSW Government housing reforms.

A Letter of Offer accompanies the Planning Proposal seeking to enter agreement on the provision of a new through site link and upgrades to the public domain for the benefit of the wider community. Negotiations on this offer are to commence shortly.

Environmental Considerations

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

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 13 May 2025 to 10 June 2025, and in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Notification letters were sent to neighbouring residential and commercial properties including all their strata units. Notification was also sent to State Agencies in accordance with the Gateway Determination. All submissions have been summarised in this report.

The Planning Proposal and its supporting documentation was exhibited on Council’s website and Council officers were available to answer questions via telephone or in person. All persons who made a submission were notified of this report going back to Council.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage, Biodiversity and Urban Design Officers. The referrals of specialist staff are included within this Report and its attachments.

Summary

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 26 September 2023. The Gateway Determination was issued on 18 March 2025 enabling the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 13 May 2025 to 10 June 2025, and referred to State Agencies for their comment.

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

Mapping amendments:

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

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

3. heritage listing of three sets of sandstone pillars, including correction to the description of one of the currently listed sets.

Written Instrument amendment:

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

A total of 31 submissions were received from the community mainly in opposition due to bulk and scale impacts. One submission was from the proponent. Comment was also received from 4 State Agencies. All community submissions and State Agency responses were forwarded to the proponent for their response. All submissions, including the proponent’s response have been assessed for Council’s consideration.

The assessment has resulted in a proposed post-exhibition amendment to the Planning Proposal:

· Reduce the height adjacent to the R2 Low Density Residential land at the northern boundary from 17.5m/5 storey to 11.5m/3 storey.

· Offsetting that reduced height to an equivalent portion of the site adjacent to the railway line western boundary, increasing the height at this location from 17.5m/5 storey to 25m/7 storey.

· No change to the FSR is proposed.

· The proposed height redistribution retains the original exhibited development potential on the site. No reduction in Anglicare’s unit delivery.

The benefit of this offset proposal is some reduction of impact on the dwellings within that R2 Low Density Residential zoned land, and to the homes within the wider Heritage Conservation Area located downslope of the Rohini site. This is especially pertinent as the R2 zoned land has no potential to increase heights under the NSW government’s housing reforms and will remain at maximum 2-storey in the long term. In addition, at this location, the R2 land also has a Heritage Conservation Area listing and will be bound by heritage considerations to retain the local character including elements such as hipped roofs and garden settings. Placement of the taller offset building height along the railway lands will have lesser impacts.

This approach of applying a 3 storey transitionary zone to mitigate impact on adjacent low-density areas is consistent with the wider Ku-ring-gai local government area, where interface planning has historically been applied to reduce overbearing bulk and scale impacts of high density development on low density residential land and dwellings.

Other neighbouring properties, currently developed mainly as 2 storey walk-up units, will also be impacted in the immediate term; however, no amendment to height along these boundaries is proposed due to their R4 High Density Residential zoning and location within 400m of the E1 Local Centre zone. The new Low and Mid-rise SEPP amendments enable 6-storey (22m height) residential flat buildings on these sites which would, in the long term, provide a similar outcome to this Planning Proposal.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopt the Planning Proposal to amend Height, Floor Space Ratio, Heritage Listing and Additional Permitted Uses on land at 51-53 Rohini St, Turramurra with a post-exhibition amendment to the Height of Building Map as described in this report.

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

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

D. Those persons who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.

Rathna Rana

Executive Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Exhibited Planning Proposal 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra	Excluded	2025/327896
	A2⇩	Gateway Determination 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra		2025/087802
	A3⇩	Submission Summary Table - Public Exhibition - 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra		2025/232681
	A4⇩	Proponent Submission - Updated Heritage Curtilage Analysis		2025/246735
	A5⇩	Height of Building Offset Study		2025/238312
	A6⇩	State Agency Submissions		2025/198484
	A7⇩	Proponent Response to Submissions		2025/227688
	A8⇩	Council assessment and Proponent comment on Post Exhibition Height Amendment		2025/319427

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.15 / 47

Item GB.15	S14893

Planning Proposal for 15 Echo Street Roseville

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal for 15 Echo Street, Roseville.

background:	A formal pre-lodgement meeting was held on 26 August 2024 (Attachment A6). The Planning Proposal was submitted on 2 May 2025. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Following the submission of revised documentation on 15 July 2025, assessment commenced when fees were paid on 30 July 2025. The KLPP considered the Planning Proposal on 15 September 2025 (Attachment A7).

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to: • Rezone the site from RE2 Private Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential; • Apply a minimum subdivision lot size of 790sqm; • Apply a floor space ratio of 0.3:1; and • Apply a height limit of 9.5m.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the private Planning Proposal for 15 Echo Street, Roseville.

Background

Site Description

No. 15 Echo Street, Roseville, is legally described as Lot 6 in DP 14906 and has a total area of

758.8 m². The site has an east-west orientation with a depth of 33.53 metres and a frontage of 19.2 metres to Echo Street, which is a cul-de-sac. The north-western corner of the site is a splayed edge of 5.17 metres. The site survey is provided as Attachment A2.

The site slopes down from the east to the west (street end). A tennis court built on a concrete slab covers the majority of the site. Its eastern edge is cut into the site, and a sandstone wall and brick piers support the western end. Along the eastern or rear boundary of the site is a high sandstone rock wall with trees above. The tennis court is bounded along its north, south, and west boundaries by a chain wire fence with gates in both the northern and southern sections of the fence.

The southern boundary of the subject site adjoins No. 11 Echo Street, Roseville; a 1-2 storey brick dwelling exists at this site, and the pool and northern verandah associated with this dwelling extend onto the subject site. The north boundary of the site adjoins an unformed footway which is adjacent to the Roseville Golf Course.

The survey for the site references a Covenant created by Transfer A860041 and an Easement established by Transfer R347157. The Covenant was imposed on 19 September 1922 when the land was sold to William Clarke of Willoughby Quarryman, and it prohibited him from quarrying stone from the property. The Easement established on 5 July 1979 was between Harold Goldstien of No. 11 Echo Street and Roseville Golf Links Limited. The Easement provided the Transferee (the Roseville Golf Club) and its licencees the full right to enter the subject site (Lot 6) to retrieve golf balls mis-hit in the course of an ordinary game. The Easement specified that no fence could be erected on Lot 6 without the provision of an unlocked gate.

The Covenant and the Easement are not of a nature that would impede the assessment of the current planning proposal or inhibit the potential for the site to be used for residential purposes.

Looking north towards the cul-de-sac end of Echo Street

No. 11 Echo Street, Roseville with the site and tennis court fence visible in background

Looking east towards the site, the built-up platform established for the tennis court is visible

Site Context: Existing infrastructure in proximity to No. 15 Echo Street, Roseville

Comments

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) to rezone the site from RE2 Private Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential. The site lies between the Roseville Golf Course, which is also zoned RE2 Private Recreation, and the dwelling house located at No. 11 Echo Street, Roseville, which, like the surrounding residential development, is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

In addition to the rezoning, the Planning Proposal seeks to apply the development standards shown in the table below. These standards apply to the existing R2 Low-Density Residential land surrounding the subject site.

KLEP 2015 – Zoning and Development Standards – 15 Echo Street, Roseville
	Existing	Proposed
Zoning	RE2 Private Recreation	R2 Low-Density Residential
Minimum Lot Size	Nil	790sqm
Height	Nil	9.5m
Floor Space Ratio	Nil	0.3:1

The subject site has an area of 758.8m². The Planning Proposal seeks to apply a minimum subdivision lot size of 790m², which means the site, if re-zoned, will remain a single allotment (refer to the section of this report titled Site-Specific Merit for a discussion on the implications of the NSW Government's Low to Mid-rise and dual occupancy provisions).

It must be noted that, despite any mapped FSR, Clause 4.4(2A) of the KLEP 2015 provides a sliding scale for the calculation of FSR for a building in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone. Under this clause, for sites with areas of 800 m² or less, an FSR of 0.4:1 applies.

Chronology of Assessment

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 27 August 2024 (Attachment A6). The Planning Proposal was submitted on the Planning Portal on 2 May 2025. The Planning Proposal was incomplete. Revised information was submitted on 15 July 2025. Following the payment of fees, the Planning Proposal was formally lodged, and assessment commenced on 30 July 2025.

The KLPP considered the Planning Proposal on 15 September 2025, refer Attachment A7.

Merit Assessment

A Planning Proposal is not a Development Application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment and cannot be tied to a specific development.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the site-specific and strategic merit of the proposed amendments. The NSW Government’s publication Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (August 2023) outlines the criteria to be used for assessing the site-specific and strategic merit of a planning proposal.

The Planning Proposal and Appendices are included in Attachments A1-A6.

Site-Specific Merit Assessment

The NSW Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (August 2023) specifies that to assess site-specific merit, consideration must be given to how the proposal impacts:

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

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

· Services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal.

An assessment of the proposal’s site-specific merit against the relevant criteria is provided below.

Natural Environment

As part of the rezoning proposal, Martens Environmental Science and Engineering was commissioned to undertake a Site Contamination Assessment of the site.

Martens undertook a desktop review of available information and, using historic photos, identified that while the site had been in the ownership of Roseville Golf Course it was densely vegetated up until 1961, indicating that it was never part of the actively managed golf course. Around 1961, the site was developed as a tennis court associated with the residence at No. 11 Echo Street, Roseville.

Martens carried out a site visit, where they observed potential fill primarily in the western (street side) of the site. The fill was used to establish a level surface for the slab forming the base of the tennis court. The fill was identified as the main area of environmental concern on the site. Soil samples were taken via bore holes instead of the preferred test pitting, as the concrete tennis court limited options. Due to testing being restricted Martens recommended, an Unexpected Finds Protocol to ensure that any unexpected contamination encountered during future earthworks is appropriately identified, assessed and managed.

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy, (October 2024), requires that to proceed with a planning proposal a Preliminary Site Investigation Report for the land must conclude the land is suitable for the proposed zone.

The requirements for a Preliminary Site Investigation Report are set out in the following two applicable documents:

· Contaminated Sites Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites (Office of Environment and Heritage 2011); and

· Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines (Draft – NSW Government.)

While Marten’s assessment appeared to satisfy the form of a Preliminary Site Investigation Report, it was noted in the report to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) that they would be asked to confirm this in a re-submit of their report, prior to the matter being submitted to the Department for Gateway. In response to the KLPP report Marten’s submitted an amended Site Contamination Assessment Report. This document was reviewed by Council’s Strategy and Environment staff and found to satisfy the requirements of a Preliminary Site Investigation Report. The amended report, similar to the initial Martens report concludes:

Based on the findings of this Preliminary Site Investigation, and with consideration to the limitations of the investigation (Section 9), risks to human health and ecological receptors posed by potential contamination are considered low.

As such, the MA consider the site to be suitable for residential (with access to soil) land

use and the proposed rezoning to R2 – Low Density Residential.

To manage any potential residual risks, the Unexpected Finds Protocol (UFP) provided in

Appendix O should be implemented during any future earthworks or construction.

The amended report is provided as Attachment A3.

To address Marten’s recommendation for an Unexpected Finds Protocol, the site has been recorded in Council’s information system as contaminated land ensuring that prior to any site works the exact nature of the fill on the site is established and dealt with appropriately.

In addition to the site contamination assessment, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by New Leaf Pty Ltd was submitted with the planning proposal (Attachment A4). The report assessed trees within and adjoining the perimeter of the site. A total of twenty trees were assessed which included 6 on the subject property, 8 in neighbouring properties (six in Roseville Golf Course, and two in Niblick Avenue), and 6 in the council road reserve. The assessment acknowledged that the rezoning application does not propose or require any works that will impact trees. However, New Leaf based its evaluation on indicative development plans prepared by Spiral Architects Lab (Attachment A5). These plans were prepared to demonstrate a dwelling could be erected on the site, in full compliance with Council’s controls. Using the drawings from Spiral Architects, New Leaf concluded the following:

Future development will allow for the retention of the majority of trees on the site and adjacent land, with likely removal of two trees in the Council verge to allow for future driveway access.

New Leaf also noted that the re-zoning has the potential to increase canopy coverage and deep soil provision on the site due to the removal of the tennis court.

Further to the work undertaken by the consultants Martens and New Leaf, a check was undertaken of both State and Local Government mapping to identify if the site and surrounds were subject to any potential hazards, such as flooding or bushfire, or constraints, such as heritage, critical habitat, or biodiversity. No relevant hazards or constraints were identified.

Existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of the land

Under the zoning RE2 Private Recreation, outdoor recreation facilities are permissible but not dwelling houses. As previously discussed, the site is currently being used as an extension of the outdoor living space of No. 11 Echo Street. Under the proposed R2 Low-Density Residential zoning, a dwelling house is a permissible use, and an application could be lodged to erect a dwelling on the site.

In the interest of demonstrating that an R2 Low-Density Residential zoning would be suitable for the site, the applicant provided design drawings to show that a single dwelling could be accommodated on the site in compliance with Council’s relevant controls.


*Indicative ground floor plan: 4-bedroom dwg.*	*Indicative first floor plan: 4-bedroom dwelling*

Indicative design showing ability to conform with relevant Council controls

The above design is indicative only; however, it does demonstrate that the site’s regular rectangular shape, gentle slope, and perimeter site trees (due to tennis court and pool) would aid in facilitating a development that complied with Council controls and limited impacts on No. 11 Echo Street and the environment.

Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy – Dual Occupancy

The site is not identified on the NSW Government’s Low to Mid-rise indicative map, but if rezoned, it will be subject to the NSW Government’s legislation enabling dual occupancy in all R2 Low Density Residential zones. However, the subject site has an area of 758.8m² and Council has sought to restrict dual occupancy outside of the Low to Mid Rise areas to sites with an area of 1015m² or above.

While dual occupancy may not be possible on the site, there is the potential for the applicant to pursue a secondary dwelling. Under KLEP 2015, secondary dwellings are permitted in R2 low-density residential zones as long as they are established in conjunction with a principal dwelling, are on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and do not exceed in area whichever of the following is greater -

a) 60 square metres,

b) 25% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

Infrastructure

The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the land to permit future low-density residential use on the land. A single dwelling house equates to approximately 2.6 additional residents (ABS Census data for NSW average household size within the subject area). There is also potential for a secondary dwelling to be accommodated on site, but even considering this, the proposed increase in population resulting from the proposal will be minor. Adding approximately 5-6 people into the area is a population increase which can be comfortably absorbed by the existing roads, water, sewer, and electricity infrastructure. It is noted that the site is within close proximity to employment zones, shops, public transit, educational establishments, and public open space.

Bus stops within 400m walking distance of the site along Babbage Road to the east are serviced by bus routes 260, 270, 271, 273, 274, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, and 284. These stops provide regular bus service to the Sydney CBD (Wynyard) with a travel time of approximately 26 minutes and to Chatswood CBD with a travel time of approximately 16 minutes.

Conclusion – Site Specific Merit Assessment

The proposal’s site-specific merit has been assessed against the criteria established by the NSW Government. The natural environment of the site and surrounds, the existing and likely future uses of the site, and the capacity of existing infrastructure to service the demands resulting from the proposal are all matters that have been evaluated.

The re-zoning of the site to facilitate low-density residential development is considered an appropriate outcome for the site. The proposal is assessed as having site-specific merit.

Strategic Merit Assessment

A proposal must be aligned with the NSW strategic planning framework and current government policy for it to be assessed as having strategic merit. The proposal’s consistency with the relevant State and Local strategic plans is considered below.

Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan (2018)

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

· Objective 10. Greater housing supply

· Objective 11. Housing is more diverse and affordable

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

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

Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (2020)

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following local planning priorities:

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

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

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

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

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

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) applicable to the site. Many of these SEPPs contain detailed provisions and controls which would only apply at the Development Application stage.

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

· 3.1 Residential Zones, and

· 5.1 Integrating Land Use and Transport.

Conclusion – Strategic Merit Assessment

The Planning Proposal is aligned with the NSW strategic planning framework, including Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and it gives effect to the NSW Government’s current priority of increasing housing provision. The proposal is assessed as having Strategic Merit.

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - 15 September 2025

The Planning Proposal was considered by the KLPP on 15 September 2025 (Attachment A7). At this meeting the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advised that:

A. The Planning Proposal, as documented at Attachment A1-A6, be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the proponent re-submitting an amended Site Contamination Assessment (Attachment A3) that satisfies the requirements for a Preliminary Site Investigation as set out in the following two documents:

o Contaminated Sites Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites (Office of Environment and Heritage 2011); and

o Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines (Draft – NSW Government).

B. That Council seek authority to finalise the planning proposal under delegation.

C. Date of the decision: 15 September 2025.

D. Reason for the advice:

1. The Panel concurs with the recommendation in Council’s Planning Proposal Assessment Report.

2. The planning proposal is consistent with site and local planning instruments and has strategic and site-specific merit.

Voting: Unanimous

The applicant has submitted an amended site contamination assessment report. This document was reviewed by Council’s Strategy and Environment staff and found to satisfy the requirements of a Preliminary Site Investigation Report. The amended report is provided as Attachment A3.

Amendments required to the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal is minor and is well supported by the applicant’s planning proposal and supporting technical documents. Additionally, the Planning Proposal is in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Government’s Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (August 2023) and therefore no amendments have been required.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan (2035) Long Term Outcome

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Action

U1-Facilitate a diverse mix of housing options to accommodate the needs of a growing and changing population, including increased density in appropriate locations.

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

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

Governance Matters

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

The matter was referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on 15 September 2025. The Panel advised they considered the proposal had strategic and site-specific merit.

Risk Implication statement

The primary risk associated with the recommendations contained in this report is related to the environment.

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Councils 2024/2025 Schedule of Fees and Charges. The fee covers the cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal

Social Considerations

The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal would enable the delivery of one additional low-density residential lot. This would provide the potential for an additional dwelling house and possibly a secondary dwelling. Additional housing is required to meet the needs of a growing and changing community.

Environmental Considerations

The main environmental concern for the site is the potential for contaminated fill. For a discussion of this matter refer to the section of this report titled Site Specific Assessment – Natural Environment. The site has been recorded in Council’s information system as contaminated land ensuring that prior to any site works the exact nature of the fill on the site is established and dealt with appropriately.

Altering the zoning of the site from RE2 Private Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential will facilitate the removal of the tennis court and pool on the site, which has the potential to increase deep soil provision and tree canopy.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal has not been subject to community consultation. In the event that the Planning Proposal is issued a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the Planning Proposal would be placed on statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

Relevant Council staff were consulted during the preparation of this report. No objections were raised to the planning proposal.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for 15 Echo Street, Roseville, which seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:

· Rezone from RE2 Private Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential;

· Apply a minimum lot size development standard of 790sqm;

· Apply a height development standard of 9.5m; and,

· Apply a floor space development standard of 0.3:1.

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

Recommendation:

A. The Planning Proposal, as documented at Attachment A1-A6, be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

B. That Council requests the plan making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for this Planning Proposal.

C. That Council authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to correct any minor anomalies of an administrative nature that might arise during the plan making process.

Philippa Hayes

Strategic Planner Heritage

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Attachments:	A1⇩	Planning Proposal 15 Echo Street	2025/280692
	A2⇩	Survey Plan	2025/280696
	A3⇩	Preliminary Site Investigation	2025/332151
	A4⇩	Arboricultural Impact Assessment	2025/280703
	A5⇩	Urban Design Architectural Plans	2025/280706
	A6⇩	Council Pre-lodgement Consultation and Scoping Proposal	2025/280708
	A7⇩	KLPP 15 Septemeber Advice on 15 Echo St Roseville	2025/306212

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.17 / 56

Item GB.17	S09042/1

Faster Assessments Incentive Program - Nomination of Amenities Building and Clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Round 1 Grant Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To nominate a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Council’s Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

background:	The Faster Assessments program aims to help councils meet new housing targets in NSW. Round 1 of the Faster Assessments Incentive Program rewards eligible councils for their performance during the 2024–25 financial year. This round is available to the 53 metropolitan and regional NSW councils with housing targets above 1,000 dwellings. In round one, eligible councils compete for their share of up to $67 million of grant funding to deliver local infrastructure such as roads, open spaces, and community facilities.

comments:	The Statement of Expectations Order came into effect on 1 July 2024, setting benchmarks for council performance on development assessment and a number of other metrics. The minimum performance standards in the SoEO for determining development applications for which councils are the consent authority (including by a local planning panel) appear to have been met for the 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 year.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	Council nominates a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as the Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

Purpose of Report

To nominate a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Council’s Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

Background

The Faster Assessments program aims to help councils meet new housing targets in NSW.

Round 1 of the Faster Assessments Incentive Program rewards eligible councils for their performance during the 2024–25 financial year. This round is available to the 53 metropolitan and regional NSW councils with housing targets above 1,000 dwellings.

In Round 1, eligible councils compete for their share of up to $67 million of grant funding to deliver local infrastructure such as roads, open spaces, and community facilities.

Comments

Statement of Expectations Order

The relevant Statement of Expectations Order (SoEO) came into effect on 1 July 2024, setting benchmarks for council performance on development assessment and a number of other metrics. The minimum performance standards in the SoEO for determining development applications for which councils are the consent authority (including by a local planning panel) are whichever is the lesser of Council’s previous financial year average, or an average of 115 days of lodgement between 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. At the time of writing, Council understands that it has met the performance benchmarks for the 2024/2025 period.

Eligible councils are ranked according to the assessment criteria outlined in the grant guidelines. The criteria are designed to reward councils that have made significant progress to meet and exceed their average assessment expectations, and to ensure consistent high performance is recognised.

The Faster Assessments Incentive Program

All eligible councils will automatically be considered and do not need to apply. Though successful councils will be notified, they will be asked to nominate an infrastructure project for funding in line with the program’s requirements.

The maximum amount of funding a successful council can receive as part of Round 1 is determined by its housing target. Ku-ring-gai sits in the 5000-10000 category which falls into the grant cap category of $2 million.

The anticipated window for documenting and nominating a preferred infrastructure project is somewhat ill defined (October-November 2025), so it is unlikely that Council can delay nominating a project until after the “Infrastructure Nominations” stage actually opens. Staging timeframes are identified in the table below.

Now that the stages and milestones have been released and Council has a reasonable expectation that it has exceeded key program metrics, it needs to identify a suitable infrastructure project to which it would deploy program funding. Once performance is confirmed by DPHI, Council can apply for up to $2 million.

Eligibility Criterion

Nominations by successful councils must meet the following eligibility criteria to be considered for funding under the program. These are set out in Table 6 - Infrastructure eligibility criteria of the grant guidelines.

Eligibility Criterion	Description	Rationale
Maximum nominations	Each successful council can nominate one project for funding.	Priority project that can benefit from program funding up to program funding caps.
Eligible areas	Projects can be located anywhere within the LGA. Councils are encouraged to pick projects in key housing growth precincts. The strategic merit of projects will need to be justified as part of the assurance process.	Projects to enable or service new dwellings.
Ineligible projects	Funding for land acquisition, strategic business cases, planning and design work will only be considered if it can be demonstrated that project delivery is achievable by 30 June 2029.	This ensures funding is directed towards infrastructure projects that can be completed within the Housing Accord Period.
Co-contribution	Funding from other sources, including co-contribution by council, is accepted but not mandatory. There is no limit to the total value of the nominated project, if funding required from the program is within the program funding caps per council.	Program is designed to support projects that align with local needs, regardless of overall project value.
Funding caps	The funding ask is within the maximum amount provided by the program to a council each round. The caps apply as a total per council (see Section 1.4).	Projects remain within funding limits and align with program budget constraints.
Completion	Project must be completed within the Housing Accord Period by 30 June 2029.	Eligible projects must support/enable housing within the Housing Accord Period.
Ineligible expenditure	Operational expenditure post-delivery; infrastructure (including parts of infrastructure) already fully funded by council or other sources including State or Federal grants and local infrastructure contributions; community consultation; legal matters; costs incurred before the funding announcement; salaries of existing staff or staff not involved in the project; administrative overheads such as office equipment and vehicles.	Prevents duplication of grant allocations across funding sources / infrastructure funding programs. Funding is efficiently allocated to key delivery outcomes.
Incomplete nomination	A nomination must include quality information for assessment. Projects may miss out on funding if insufficient information is provided to undertake the assurance process.	Evidence-based decision making to promote the efficient use of public money.

Infrastructure Assurance

The outcomes of the strategic and technical assessments will be reported to the Grants Governance Committee (GGC) indicating the level of support for projects according to the criteria outlined below:

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The final list of projects recommended for funding will be submitted for Ministerial approval. Following this, endorsement from Infrastructure NSW and approval from the Treasurer will also be sought, in line with the requirements of the Restart NSW Fund Act 2011.

A full copy of the Faster Assessments Incentive Program Round 1 competitive grant guidelines are at Attachment A1.

Outline of Proposed Project

The scope of the project is to provide a two-storey, fit-for-purpose community use building to meet the primary needs of the netball community including:

· Stage 1 – Ground floor

o Toilets

o Changerooms

o Canteen

o Umpires room

o Medical rooms

o Storage

o Officials rooms

· Stage 2 – 1 First floor

o Presentation/community rooms

o Meeting rooms

o Ancillary kitchen and storage room

It is understood that Ku-ring-gai Netball Association (KNA) are seeking to progress both stages together.

The new building would sit in the location of the existing amenities building at Canoon Road.

To nominate a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as Council’s Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

In addition, the President of the KNA has provided the following commentary:

The proposed project at Ku-ring-gai Netball Association, Canoon Road will deliver a modernised clubhouse designed to meet the needs of the Netball Association and wider community. The redevelopment will build upon the existing footprint, with the addition of a new level, improved storage and meeting spaces, training areas for child safety training programs, and a reconfigured canteen to support ongoing revenue generation. The project will include the installation of a lift to ensure accessibility, as well as court resurfacing and surrounding landscaping works. These improvements will provide a functional and welcoming facility for the broader community, enabling the Ku-ring-gai Netball Association to better serve its community as population growth continues.

The total project cost is estimated at $3 million. The Association has been saving for this project for 25 years and is prepared to commit $1.2 million towards this redevelopment from its established building fund. Early concept sketches and preliminary designs will be prepared by AUSCO to support accurate costings, with Ku-ring-gai Council to provide specifications around the site footprint, services, and utilities. This investment will ensure long-term sustainability of the facility and strengthen its role as a community hub for sport and recreation.

A more detailed grant project proposal would be tied back to the Netball Australia National Facilities Policy (Attachment A2).

Strategic Merit

The Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management (PoM) was adopted in August 2017.

The PoM sets out a Strategic Management Plan to guide the future use and development of the site for the community. Since it adoption key actions have been implemented as part of the ongoing improvement and amenity provision.

Under section Amenity Action Item 32 – Investigate an additional amenity building to increase the number of male and female toilets, umpires room, first aid room and additional storage.

Representation from the Ku-ring-gai Netball Association has been made to Council to assist in the strategic planning to improve the current amenities of the site. Currently the provision of amenities to the site are not fit-for-purpose with additional storage provided by the use of shipping containers which Council discourages.

The project is to undertake the renewal of the current amenities building to address current and future needs including the provision of community use capacity to be available for hire to the community.

integrated planning and reporting

Infrastructure and assets support community needs

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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.

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

A2.2.1: Engage with community partners to improve sporting, leisure and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities. Responsible: Mana

Governance Matters

Grant assessment criteria and assurance processes are well documented in the program guidelines.

Procurement would be by Council within the framework of existing procurement polies and procedures.

A Heads of Agreement would be prepared as part of project development, with all funds being available to Council prior to contractor engagement.

Risk Implication statement

There are no material risks that arise from the recommendations contained in this report other than wherein KNA is not able to provide sufficient project documentation to allow infrastructure assurance as part of the grant process. Minor issues may occur, but these can be managed within Council’s current policies, procedures, resources and budget.

A more detailed risk matrix specific to the project will be prepared in it proceeds.

Financial Considerations

Over the last 10 years Council has spent $1.129 million dollars at Canoon Road Netball Courts.

Funds allocated in Council’s development contributions plan for Canoon Road have been fully utilised as part of the above expenditure.

There are no additional funds allocated in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan in the next 10 years.

Council’s building prioritisation matrix ranks this project as 44. The existing proposed treatment is refurbishment only, with an estimated budget (indexed) of $420,000.

Social Considerations

Inherent in Council’s Community Strategic Plan is to ensure that recreation, sporting, and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

Environmental Considerations

The project would require preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 once Council has endorsed the project and KNA has provided construction ready plans and specifications.

Community Consultation

Not required at this stage.

Internal Consultation

KNA has been meeting with Council staff over more than 12 months in relation to this project.

Council’s Operations Department has been requested to provide details of services for concept and detailed design.

Summary

The Faster Assessments program aims to help councils meet new housing targets in NSW.

In Round 1, eligible councils compete for their share of up to $67 million of grant funding to deliver local infrastructure such as roads, open spaces, and community facilities.

Funding from other sources, including co-contribution by council, is accepted but not mandatory. There is no limit to the total value of the nominated project, if funding required from the program is within the program funding caps per council.

These improvements will provide a functional and welcoming facility for the broader community, enabling the Ku-ring-gai Netball Association to better serve its community as population growth continues.

The total project cost is estimated at $3 million. The Association is prepared to commit approximately $1.2 million towards this redevelopment from its established building fund.

Recommendation:

That Council nominates a new amenity building and clubhouse at Canoon Road Netball Courts as the Round 1 project for the Faster Assessments Incentive Program.

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Faster Assessments Incentive Program Round 1 Grant Guidelines		2025/325074
	A2⇩	Netball Australia National Facilities Policy - March 2016		2025/325076

[1] A sample size of 400 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence. This means that if the survey was replicated with a new sample of N=400 residents, 19 times out of 20 we would see the same results within a margin of +/-4.9%.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.1 / 3

Item GB.1	CY00022/17

Attachments:	A1 ⇩	27082025 KTC Minutes		2025/326560
	A2 ⇩	Draft Terms of Reference for the Local Traffic Forum		2025/268101

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.2 / 6

Item GB.2	S02696

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.3 / 8

Item GB.3	CY00817/3

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.7 / 23

Item GB.7	S14000/2

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.8 / 25

Item GB.8	EM00046/9
	8 September 2025

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.9 / 26

Item GB.9	FY00623/8
	3 October 2025

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.10 / 27

Item GB.10	FY00621/8

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.11 / 29

Item GB.11	CY00473/12

Attachments:	A1⇩	Commercial Leasing Policy 2025	2025/317669
	A2⇩	Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy 2025	2025/317677
	A3⇩	Easement Management Policy 2025	2025/317675

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 21 October 2025	GB.16 / 55

Item GB.16	S15095