Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 8 May 2018 AT 7:00 pm

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

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

www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

NOTE

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

GB.14 RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library

Attachment A1: ....... Tender Assessment Report and Recommendations

Attachment A2: ................................. Additional Financial Statement

Attachment A3: .... Independent Performance and Financial Assessmen t

These attachments are classified confidential under section Section 10A(2)(d)(iii) because it would reveal a trade secret

Address the Council

NOTE:

Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be recorded on the official audio recording of this meeting.

Documents Circulated to Councillors

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 19

File: S02131

Meeting held 10 April 2018

Minutes numbered 76 to 95

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 Ku-ring-gai Council staff's major breakthrough on swimming pool safety 39

File: CY00133/10

I wish to advise my Councillor colleagues and the Ku-ring-gai community of a successful investigation by our compliance staff concerning public safety and backyard swimming pools.

This has ultimately led to a voluntary recall by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) of over 90,000 swimming pool gate latches sold across Australia. The faulty gate latches are:

• SafeTech Top Pull Gate Latch (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe Top Pull Gate Latch (Key Lockable)

• SafeTech TriLatch (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe TriLatch (Key Lockable)

The latches are also available as part of the following kits:

• SafeTech Trade Packs (Key Lockable)

• G8Safe MegaPack (Key Lockable)

More information about the voluntary recall is available at www.accc.gov.au

The background to this investigation is lengthy and complex, but is testament to the tenacity and investigative skills of our compliance staff, who identified a major flaw in the latch system in these two types of backyard swimming pool gates. The latch fault exists on gates which have an optional key locking system and allows the gate to appear locked when it is actually open.

Once our staff had established without doubt that the two types of swimming pool gate posed a major risk to children’s safety, they alerted NSW Fair Trading. A detailed investigation was subsequently conducted and this has led to the voluntary recall.

Drowning in backyard swimming pools is a leading cause of preventable death in children under five years. Statistics by the NSW Child Death Review Team reveal that a significant number of drownings occur as a result of a young child accessing a pool via a faulty gate. The annual drowning report prepared by Royal Life Saving Society in 2017 reveals that an average of 15 young children die each year in backyard swimming pools.

Those who believe they may have any of these latches on their gate should contact the supplier to arrange for a refund on the latch they have purchased. They should also arrange to have the gate latch replaced as quickly as possible. Ku-ring-gai has 15,161 swimming pools on the NSW swimming pool register and there will be pool owners in our community who will need to replace these gate latches.

I wish to pay tribute to and congratulate the staff involved in this investigation, particularly our specialist compliance staff responsible for swimming pool safety, whose diligence and persistence has played a major role in averting an alarming public safety issue. This recall acts as a timely reminder for all pool owners to check their pool gates to ensure they self-close from any position. We recommend that gate checks be carried out regularly as part of ongoing pool maintenance. Residents can also arrange an inspection of their swimming pool by contacting the Council’s customer service team on 9424 0000.

Petitions

PT.1 Petition for Footpath Maintenance along Pentecost Avenue Pymble to Mona Vale Road 41

File: 88/05929/01

‘We, the undersigned petition the Council to inspect and repair the footpath from 39B Pentecost Avenue Pymble to Mona Vale Road to eliminate any risk of injury. (Twenty nine [29] signatures).’

I hereby request that all of the footpath be examined, paying particular attention to the stretch from 39B Pentecost Avenue Pymble, where the garden overgrowth is causing the footpath to be even narrower especially compared to further down e.g. in front of 55 Pentecost Avenue.

Other sections in this strip have been patched with bitumen and there are badly cracked driveways making it particularly difficult for residents in wheelchairs to access St Ives Village.

For the purposes of publication some text has been omitted from the wording of this petition, as it contains personal and health information as defined by the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

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 Draft Community Strategic Plan 2038 42

File: S11275

To place Council's draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku‑ring-gai 2038’ on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

GB.2 Draft Resourcing Strategy 2018-2028 48

File: S11276

To place Council's Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That the report on Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2018– 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy be received and noted.

GB.3 Draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Draft Operational Plan 2018-2019 57

File: FY00382/10

To place Council's draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, as amended, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

GB.4 Easy to do Business program 70

File: S11862

To provide Councillors with background information about the Easy to do Business program, and to seek Councillor support to enter into an agreement with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business program.

Recommendation:

That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into a contract with Service NSW to participate in the Easy to do Business program.

GB.5 Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy 75

File: S07306/2

To provide Council with the draft Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy following review and update, and to seek Council approval to place the updated draft policy on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the updated draft Policy for the Management of Community and Recreation Facilities for public exhibition, with a report detailing any comments received to come back to Council following the exhibition period.

GB.6 Investment Report as at 31 March 2018 80

File: S05273

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 2018.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for March 2018 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

GB.7 Keep Australia Beautiful NSW Annual Fundraising Dinner 2018 88

File: CY00043/10

To advise Council of an invitation from Keep Australia Beautiful NSW to purchase tickets for their annual fundraising dinner, to be held at Strangers Dining Room, Parliament House on Wednesday 23 May 2018.

Recommendation:

That Council consider the invitation from Keep Australia Beautiful NSW and determine if it will support the purchase of tickets to the annual fundraising dinner for Councillors interested in attending.

GB.8 Consideration of the submissions on the planning proposal for several heritage conservation areas in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon 92

File: S11437

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 (KLEP LC 2012).

Recommendation:

That Council proceeds with a heritage listing for several revised heritage conservation areas.

GB.9 Rezoning 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase (former East Roseville Bowling Club) 104

File: S09742

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to rezone the former East Roseville Bowling Club at 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to permit R3 Medium Density Residential development.

Recommendation:

That Council prepares a Planning Proposal to 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to R3 Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2015.

GB.10 Reclassification and Rezoning - 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon - former Gordon Bowling Club 113

File: S11955

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to reclassify and rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon, the site of the former Gordon Bowling Club.

Recommendation:

That Council prepares a Planning Proposal to rezone part of the land at 4 Pennant Ave, Gordon (Lot Y DP387680) to R3 Residential Medium Density and reclassify the site from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’.

It is recommended that Lot X DP387680 retain the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning and ‘community’ classification, allowing for this lot to be categorised as a Natural Area, providing for the retention of the trees and open space for passive recreation.

GB.11 Lindfield Village Green 122

File: S10840

To update Council on negotiations with TfNSW regarding funding for commuter parking spaces, advise on potential funding options available to Council for a 3 Level basement design, update on the Development Application for a third underground level of parking at the Lindfield Village Green (LVG) and approve the preparation and submission of a Capital and Expenditure Review to the NSW Office of Local Government.

Recommendation:

That Council notes the progress of the three (3) level basement design and approves additional funds for this amendment to the project and that a Capital Expenditure Review be prepared for referral to the Office of Local Government.

GB.12 NSW Department of Education - Joint Use Project Proposal - St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre 134

File: S03899

To update Council on discussions and “in-principle” support with the NSW Department of Education (DoE) on the Joint Use Project Proposal for community use of the school facilities at St Ives High School. Included in this report are the findings of the St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre Feasibility Study which supports the demand and financial sustainability of the project. An Advocacy Strategy has also been provided to assist in the financial delivery of the project.

Recommendation:

Council continues the “in principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposal at St Ives High School; endorse the attached Advocacy Strategy and notes that the as yet fully identified financial contribution will be required in the 2020 and 2021 financial years.

GB.13 Bushfire Preparation - Rubbish Collection (Green Waste) 147

File: S02294

To consider providing an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties.

Recommendation:

That Council accept the recommendation not to provide an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties and to include an option for weekly green waste collection to be included in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender. It is recommended also to issue resident in fire prune areas vouchers to self-dispose domestic vegetation at Kimbriki Waste Management Centre.

GB.14 RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library 153

File: RFT10-2018

To consider the tender received for the upgrading of the existing HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) System in Gordon Library, and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

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

GB.15 Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage 158

File: S09449

To provide Council with an update of the feasibility and cost of moving the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage.

Recommendation:

That a further report to Council be provided on the feasibility and incurred cost to move the timber dwelling to a suitable location

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Lindfield Libary, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to meet community needs 163

File: S10468

Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer, Szatow, Ngai, Pettett, Kelly and Spencer
dated 16 April 2018

Background

The current Lindfield branch library located at 259-271 Pacific Highway is about 60 years old and in need of a significant overhaul. Studies and community consultation have identified that the library is unable to deliver modern services to meet the future needs of the community, with some gaps identified including:

· Inadequate space for all activities and collections

· Shortage of shelving

· Lack of study and reading spaces

· Inadequate children's area and lack of separation of this area

· Inadequate space for events

· Lack of contemporary technology inclusions; and

· Lack of adequate parking as well as issues relating to access.

The Lindfield Library site also includes meeting rooms, resource rooms, and space for KYDS Youth Development Services (teenage counselling service) and the Lindfield Seniors.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s vision is to build a new Lindfield Village Hub located on the western side of Lindfield local centre on the Council car park off Woodford Lane behind the Pacific Highway shops. This project will include a new library that is purpose built to reflect the needs of future library users, new spaces to meet the needs of community groups such as KYDS and the Lindfield Seniors, and green spaces for residents to enjoy.

Council voted to reclassify the Lindfield Library Site as operational land on 11 November 2014 and it is the hope of Lindfield residents that the money raised by selling the old library site will go towards the construction of the new library site located at the Lindfield Village Hub.

Other Projects of Community Benefit

In the immediate short term, the Council does have more pressing needs with no funding allocated.

The St Ives Indoor Sports Complex is an initiative by the NSW Department of Education to jointly fund the construction of a sports facility at St Ives High School. While many surrounding councils have provided their residents with access to both indoor and outdoor basketball courts, Ku-ring-gai is lagging in its support of this rapidly growing sport. This offer to jointly fund the construction of a sports facility is time limited, and Council’s share is entirely unfunded.

The renewal of the Marian Street Theatre will bring back to Ku-ring-gai a place for the performing arts and is core to revitalising Killara, however this too is entirely unfunded.

The design of the Lindfield Village Green was recently changed to incorporate a third basement level of parking. While this goes a long way to address community concerns about the adequacy of parking in the area, the third basement level was largely unfunded and the project cannot progress until all funding is confirmed.

The East Lindfield Community Centre has been in a state of disrepair for many years. This community centre is located at the heart of the East Lindfield community and despite its poor layout and ineffective lighting, is used by various groups throughout the week. Council currently has no official plan, schedule, or funding to repair or rebuild this community centre.

Asset Recycling While Meeting Intermediate Community Needs

While any funds raised from the sale of the old library site should eventually go back towards the creation of the new Lindfield Village Hub, construction work was never going to take place for both projects simultaneously. In other words, construction work for the Village Hub is at least two years away and the sooner the Village Green is completed, the sooner the Village Hub can commence.

If the sale of the old library is brought forward, the funds could provide the opportunity for Council to meet the immediate needs of the community including the renewal of the East Lindfield Community Centre, commencement of the Lindfield Village Green, jointly funded construction of the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex, and the restoration costs of the Marian Street Theatre. Any funds leftover from the sale should be classified as a new restricted fund for the future construction of the Lindfield Village Hub. Subsequent asset sales (yet to be announced) should then be used to increase the value of this new restricted fund for Lindfield Village Hub, bringing it up to the sale value of the Lindfield library site plus interest.

We also recognise that the sale of the old library site will result in the disruption of activities for local community groups including patrons of the Lindfield library, KYDS Youth Development Service, and the Lindfield Seniors. Although these groups will eventually find their home in the Lindfield Village Hub, interim arrangements should also be provided so that they can continue their activities before its completion.

Councillors are aware that there are multiple vacant spaces in the Lindfield local centre that could serve as a temporary home for the Lindfield branch library, KYDS, and Lindfield Seniors until the completion of the Lindfield Village Hub.

Councillors are also aware that the Council owned property of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon, which has been set aside for the future Gordon Civic Hub, is currently underutilised. The empty spaces in this building could also potentially meet the needs of community groups until the opening of the Lindfield Village Hub.

We move:

A. That Council agrees that all funds raised from the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway (the old Lindfield Library and Community Site) should eventually facilitate the creation of the new Lindfield Village Hub (the new Lindfield Library and Community Site) including a pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway.

B. That Council staff immediately seek to identify whether there is an appropriate alternate home for the Lindfield branch library, and a report come back to Council with urgency outlining transitional arrangement options.

C. That Council staff immediately seek to identify transitional arrangements for KYDS, as well as any other tenants of the current library site for which there are obligations to negotiate or discuss alternate accommodation requirements. This report should also come back to Council with urgency, and the vacant space in 828 Pacific Highway Gordon should be considered as part of this report.

D. That this new Council reaffirms the selection of Marian Street (not Gordon Civic Hub) as the preferred option for theatre in Ku-ring-gai, and that the renewal of the Marian Street Theatre should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan.

E. That the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan.

F. That Council provides its in principle support for the knockdown and rebuild of the East Lindfield Community Centre at 9 Wellington Road East Lindfield, being Lot X of DP 414251, and that this should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan. (If for whatever reason a knockdown and rebuild is not possible, then Council should instead restore the Lindfield Community Centre to a safe condition that complies with modern day BCA standards while also considering what additions and alterations are possible to maximise community benefit).

G. That Council staff should immediately commence the process of community consultation and design of a modern, brighter, and more optimally laid out East Lindfield Community Centre at Lot X of DP 414251. When reporting back to the Council, staff are welcome to refer to the recently completed structural assessment report, explaining the merits of knockdown and rebuild vs. a costly repair of the building in compliance with modern BCA standards. When reporting back to the Council, staff are also invited to suggest ways of reducing the net cost of the rebuild.

H. That subject to the certainty of relocating services mentioned in B and C above, Council approves the divestment of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield, being Lot 8 in DP660564 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP212617.

I. That the divestment of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield be carried out by an open competitive process in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

J. That the General Manager and/or his delegate to obtain two (2) independent valuation reports to establish the market value in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

K. That Councillors are to be provided with copies of the valuation reports on which market value is determined in accordance with J. above.

L. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to set the reserve price established by an independent valuation report prior to divestment.

M. That In the event the property does not reach the reserve price that Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate within a variance of 10% of the reserve.

N. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate any special conditions and contract terms required to protect the Council’s interests.

O. That Council authorises the General Manager to execute all documentation and affix the Council Seal if required, to all documents associated with the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield, being Lot 8 in DP660564 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP212617.

P. That net proceeds from the sale of 259-271 Pacific Highway are fully made available to the knockdown and rebuild of the East Lindfield Community Centre (to a design that is agreed upon by Councillors) (and where knockdown rebuild is not possible, then the restoration of the Community Centre as per (F) and (G) above), to meet funding shortfalls of the Lindfield Village Green, to entirely rebuild the Marian Street Theatre (to a design and business plan that is agreed upon by Councillors), and also to build an indoor sports complex at St Ives High School in collaboration with the Department of Education (to a design and business plan that is agreed upon by Councillors). This Council resolution is consistent with the draft Property Development and Investment Policy which states that Councillors are to determine what allocation of sale proceeds should go towards the Property and Development Reserve (irrespective of whether alternate capital projects have yet been added to the long term financial plan or not).

Q. That the difference of the sale price (O) and cost of other projects (P) be classified as new restricted funds dedicated to facilitating the development of the Lindfield Village Hub, including a pedestrian bridge across Pacific Highway. This restricted fund will be known as the Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund.

R. That all future asset sales should first and foremost go towards topping up the value of this new Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund (Q), at least up to the value of the sale price (O) plus an annualised rate of interest of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate (currently 1.50%) + 4.00%. The intent of this part is to ensure that the full value of the old Lindfield library site goes towards facilitating the development of the new Lindfield library site (A), including a pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway.

S. That after the Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund is topped up to the level stated in R, Council should resume contributing the Sale Proceeds of Strategic Surplus Properties towards the Property Development Reserve.

T. That the rolling amounts available in each of Council’s unrestricted funds and restricted funds (including the Property Development Reserve, Lindfield Village Hub Former Library Restricted Fund (Q), as well as the shortfall to reaching the value of library site sale price plus interest (O, R)) are to be reported in the Council’s monthly investment report.

NM.2 Discontinuance of legal actions in relation to Bunnings Development at 950 Pacific Hwy, Pymble 168

File: DA0307/17-6

Notice of Motion from Councillor Spencer dated 26 April 2018

Background

The protracted legal battle between Ku-ring-gai Council and Bunnings in relation to Bunnings Development at 950 Pacific Hwy, Pymble, has cost ratepayers a staggering $520,000.00 in legal expenses, along with costs which have been awarded to Bunnings by the Court.

It is understood that Bunnings' legal expenses exceed $500,000.00 and that does not include various experts such as planners, engineers, arborists, urban designers, and heritage consultants. Details are as follows.

Material facts

1. 2006-2011 – 5 heritage reviews, 3M building not identified as item of heritage significance.

2. 17/07/2012 – Council resolved not to support listing 3M building.

3. 12/2012 – Bunnings Purchased Site.

4. 15/05/2013 – Bunnings submitted a rezoning application.

5. 27/08/2013 – Council to consider a planning proposal to amend Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) to permit hardware and building supplies as a use permissible with consent under the B7 - Business Park zone...... Council resolve that the matter be deferred until an independent heritage report comes back to Council with a study of the 3M Building and the site.

Question from Councillor Citer on legal expenses

Councillor David Citer asked a Question Without Notice in the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 7 March 2018 and it is reprinted below:

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

59 Bunnings Site - Legal Expenses

File: S10721

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor David Citer

Could Councillors please obtain an idea of how much has been spent on legal action against Bunnings establishing a warehouse on the old 3M building site? Is there a further Notice of Intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal?

Answered by Director Development and Regulation

The Director Development and Regulation advised he would take the question regarding legal expenses on notice.

In relation to the legal action against Bunnings, the Director advised Bunnings lodged the appeal not Council.

In relation to whether or not the Notice of Intention to appeal has been lodged, that is correct, it is merely a holding measure to enable Council to have that option should, based on consideration of the decision, which is only recently been released in written form determine Council’s prospects warrants such. And, as I indicated earlier, Jamie Taylor in an email last week stated there would be a briefing for Councillors, basically explaining the circumstances and answering any questions in relation to this matter.

Response from Bunnings

A response from Bunnings to the above Question Without Notice was sent to Councillors on 23 March 2018 (Annexure “BNM1”). Upon further enquiry, a further response was received on 13 April 2018 (Annexure “BNM2”). The content of the same is reprinted below:

Decision 1 (File 2016/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 20/7/16 interim judgement Amended Plans invited (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1658). Decision made, no further action.

Decision 2 (File 16/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 25/10/16 Leave granted to reopen proceeding to address new heritage item caselaw (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council; (No 2) [2016] NSWLEC 1659) Decision made, no further action.

Decision 3 (File 17/43289)

Ku-ring-gai Council (appellant) vs Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (respondent)

Decision: 3/3/17 Appeal dismissed with costs (Ku-ring-gai Council v Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 16) Decision made. Costs awarded to Bunnings, yet to be resolved.

Decision 4 (File 2016/152878)

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (appellant) vs Ku-ring-gai Council (respondent). Decision: 16/5/17 Appeal upheld with conditions (Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No.4) [2017] NSWLEC 1238) Decision made, no further action.

Decision 5 (File 2017/206960)

Ku-ring-gai Council (appellant) vs Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (respondent)

Decision: 28/2/17 Appeal dismissed with costs (Ku-ring-gai Council v Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 19) Decision made. Costs awarded to Bunnings yet to be finalised. Bunnings offer dated 3 April 2018. No response from Council yet.

On 29 May 2017 Ku-ring-gai Council commenced proceedings in the Court of Appeal against Bunnings (Case 2017/96526). This matter has not yet been heard. No hearing yet, prospective discontinuance by Council given later proceedings. Bunnings offer to settle costs arising from possible discontinuance dated 22 March 2018. No discontinuance nor response from Council.

On 13 March 2018 Ku-ring-gai Council filed a Notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Case 2018/81252). No formal appeal has yet been filed. No update – Council still reviewing its options?

On 5 October 2017 Bunnings filed an appeal against the quantum of section 94 contributions. (Case 17/1266642). A hearing date has been set for 25 & 27 July 2018. Council has offered a compromise figure which Bunnings’ supports in principle. Prospective consent orders to be heard by Court on 20 April. If this proceeds in this manner and is accepted by Court, this matter will be resolved.

On 20 March 2018 Bunnings filed an appeal against the deemed refusal of DA 307/17 (Case 2018/89311) – DA identical to May 2017 Court approval. This is yet to have its first directions hearing. Appeal lodged by Bunnings to preserve our appeal rights. No hearing and very early in Court process. This DA was listed on the Planning Panel agenda until removed by Council officers. Bunnings would prefer DA to proceed to the Panel for determination instead of proceeding through another lengthy Court process.

Conclusion

A prolonged battle with Bunnings is not in the best interest of Ku-ring-gai ratepayers especially when monies could be better spent elsewhere. The litigation has been ongoing since 2015 with no end in sight. We must stop throwing away “good money after bad.” The parties have already spent over $1 million in legal expenses. It is time for Council to reconsider the cost/benefit of the litigation and whether to spend another $1 million in legal expenses.

Feedback I received from speaking with members of the community suggests that the litigation between Council and Bunnings is unnecessary. Bunnings is a ratepayer too. The objections to having a Bunnings in the Business Park do not reflect the current views of many Ku-ring-gai residents. For instance, Ku-ring-gai has many D.I.Y. residents and the larger Bunnings are only found in Pennant Hills and Chatswood.

Bunnings has proposed a much better development since then and it is suggested that the new development will revitalise the area by creating some 200 ongoing positions within the store, and by attracting renewed commercial interest in the Business Park with 1000s of customers expected to patronise the proposed Bunnings each week.

The ripple effect in the local economy will be positive.

Recommendation

I therefore move that:

A. Council's solicitors be instructed to not pursue all current and proposed proceedings in the Court of Appeal against Bunnings.

B. The General Manager be granted delegated authority to expeditiously and reasonably settle all outstanding costs matters with Bunnings.

C. Council's solicitors be instructed to prepare a report in relation to DA 307/17 for which leave has been granted to amend Bunnings’ proposal.

D. The General Manager to prepare a report for Council's future consideration, proposing the amendment of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to remove the 3M building from Schedule 5 (Heritage Items).

NM.3 Improving public communication on Lindfield Village Green, and withdrawal of MOD0030/18 172

File: S10840

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 30 April 2018

Ku-ring-gai Council is about to embark on its most expensive construction project to date. The Lindfield Village Green, located at 8-10 Tryon Road and 3-5 Kochia Lane Lindfield, will potentially cost more than $30m. When completed, it will serve as a wonderful green space for the residents of Lindfield and its surrounding suburbs, however the project has historically been riddled with controversy largely due to a perceived lack of regular and earnest community consultation during the design phase.

Many residents still have concerns over the latest design (MOD0030/18) which was lodged on 28th February 2018 and is to be determined by the Sydney North Planning Panel. It is important that as a Council, we publicly acknowledge our residents’ concerns either by providing a coherent explanation as to why we are satisfied with the current design, or by admitting to making a mistake. And if we have made mistakes, we should follow up by either fixing the design or providing a range of measures to minimise the impact of each mistake.

It is important that we address any flaws in the design as soon as possible, as flaws are significantly cheaper to correct during the design phase than later during construction or after completion. If any flaws are built into the final product, chances are that the Council will not have the financial capacity to fix them in the next decade, and instead, residents will be impacted by the flawed design for the next 50 years.

A list of some of the residents’ concerns is provided below. Note that this list is not exhaustive.

Trolley Management

Council needs to manage public expectations as to whether it supports the movement of shopping trolleys into and out of the future Lindfield Village Green carpark. If not, why not, and what range of measures will it take to manage trolleys in the local area?

Single Elevator Access (Single Point of Failure)

Residents have expressed concern as to whether a single elevator is sufficient to service the needs of four levels and 241 car parking spaces (136 short stay, 105 commuter). What kind of waiting intervals will visitors have to face? Will congestion be exacerbated by people using shopping trolleys and prams? What will people with mobility issues (such as wheelchairs, prams, and possibly shopping trolleys) do when the single elevator is out of service? If the single elevator is out of service and spare parts are required for fixing it, how many days or weeks will people with mobility issues be impacted by this outage?

Note that the design does not include any access ramps or alternate methods for people with mobility issues to safely get in and out of the basement levels. Residents are concerned about this critical single point of failure.

It should also be noted that the single elevator is much larger than a standard elevator. At 2100mm x 2000mm, it has a load capacity of 29 people which may comfortably fit a dozen people (excluding bulky items such as wheelchairs, prams, and trolleys). But despite the impressive size of the single elevator, the issue of a critical single point of failure and an outage of unknown duration does not appear to be adequately addressed.

Future Parking Demand

There are concerns that the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessments reported by Cardno on 19 December 2016, 07 June 2017 and 21 February 2018 do not accurately reflect the observations of local residents.

On Monday 07 March 2016, just before 9am, my wife and I drove into the Tryon Road carpark and we noted that the carpark was full. I had to drop off my wife before parking the car ~500m away on Nelson Road.

Similarly, residents have provided many photos which, although they do not cover every parking space in the area, show that the carpark can get quite full (Attachment A1).

Cardno on the other hand undertook a study with a sample size of one day (Tuesday 15 November 2016) while also ignoring the fact that construction activity already had the impact of discouraging local visitors to the area. On this single day, it noted that “the peak car parking demand occurred at 11:00am when there were 112 cars parked in the car park, corresponding to 23 spaces being vacant” (Attachment A2). However, it is obvious to any local resident that the Cardno study was wrong, and it appears that the flawed methodology was overlooked by the Sydney North Planning Panel when it made its earlier decision on the project (Panel Reference 2017SNH008, DA Number DA0651/16). The study also does not appear to consider weekend parking demand.

I currently believe that the 136 short stay spaces offered by the future Lindfield Village Green (with a paid parking management system), along with the 41 retail spaces offered by Lindfield Markets, the 62 retail spaces offered by Aqualand, and various parking options that Council can provide on the surrounding streets might be adequate to meet local demand on weekdays 7am to 7pm. However not all residents are convinced.

It must also be noted that the previous Sydney North Planning Panel decision required that “The use of the approved car park does not include the restriction of parking to different classes of users. Any allocation of long-term or commuter parking shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Such long-term parking spaces shall be available for use by others outside these times.”

What this effectively meant was that on weekends and on weeknight, residents would have free access to 181 parking spaces. Now under the current S96 modification, weekend and weeknight parking has been reduced by 25% to 136 parking spaces. With regard to this, the Cardno Report did not appear to consider current or future weekend parking demand hence residents are concerned.

Traffic Flow Estimates, Projections, and Changes

There are also concerns as to whether the traffic flow estimates and projections reported by Cardno as recently as 21 February 2018 can be relied upon. Apparently it is based on “SIDRA 7” and the projected future demand is for “2027 Background with LVG & Aqualand”.

To the common person, it is not clear what this means. Does “LVG & Aqualand” mean that the traffic study used the flawed demand measurements (above) as LVG baseline, along with Aqualand traffic study information that cannot even be found on the Council’s DA website? Does “LVG & Aqualand” also mean that all other buildings in the area, both those that have recently been completed (such as Lindfield Markets) as well as those that are currently under construction or undergoing the DA process, have not been factored into the traffic flow estimates for the report dated 21 February 2018? Does the LVG baseline include any demand generated by the green space itself?

To the common person, this is all mumbo jumbo that is tainted by the flawed parking study conducted by Cardno. To date, Council appears to have done little to assure the public that future traffic flows in the area will be adequate.

And any local resident knows that accessing Pacific Highway via Lindfield Avenue and the Balfour Street Railway Tunnel is a nightmare during peak periods and weekends. Is Council going to do anything about it?

Will there be any further changes to traffic signalling, traffic directions, and traffic flows in the local area? When will such improvements be made? How will they be funded?

Other Concerns

Residents also have other concerns such as:

• Acoustics of supermarket delivery trucks moving along inclined laneways next to residential areas.

• The decision to cut off Chapman Lane and Kochia Lane (West) from vehicular access (a way for trucks to access the supermarkets while minimising acoustic impacts on residents).

• Whether Havilah Lane will definitely be widened to two lanes.

• Why there is no plan for a children’s playground when there is no other children’s playground in the local area (closest ones are at considerable distance, Two Turners Reserve, Roseville Park, East Lindfield Shops, Greengate Park).

• Why Council has opted for an additional café instead of additional green space or a playground.

• Provision of Emergency Parking and Loading Zones.

• Whether there will be a Parking Guidance System and Dynamic Availability Signage.

While Council staff have many sensible answers to the questions above, the general public does not know these answers. And the information is either not available on the Council website, or is not easily accessible.

I move:

A. That Council immediately withdraws its application of MOD0030/18 (Lindfield Village Green).

B. That Council updates the design for Lindfield Village Green to include a second passenger elevator. To compensate for the loss of parking spaces resulting from the second passenger elevator, the panhandle on levels B2 and B3 should be extended from the current design of 4 parking spaces on each level to 8 parking spaces on each level. The funding for the extra elevator and larger panhandle may come from other asset sales discussed tonight.

C. That Council immediately updates its main Lindfield Village Green webpage (Attachment A3) to include a detailed project timeline in place of the current “Project Update” section. To assist in a speedy implementation, Council could potentially copy and paste the information included in the recent email titled “Activate Lindfield – Project Update April 2017” [sic] dated 26 April 2018 (Attachment A4), then make other additions as required.

D. That similar to the Frequently Asked Questions webpage for 259 – 271 Pacific Highway (Attachment A5), a Frequently Asked Questions webpage should be created for the Lindfield Village Green before the end of May 2018. This webpage should include answers to the outstanding concerns raised by residents as part of DA0651/16 and MOD0030/18, as well as the concerns listed above.

E. That Council staff confidentially provide the Councillors with a copy of all responses to MOD0030/18, along with a report on whether there are any other design changes that they believe need to be made, or further studies that they believe need to be undertaken. Councillors should be allowed at least a few days to read this report and to provide their feedback before the submission of the next Lindfield Village Green s96 modification.

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS

Questions Without Notice

Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson)

Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward)

Councillors S Ngai (Roseville Ward)

Councillors D Citer & M Smith (St Ives Ward)

Councillors D Greenfield & C Spencer (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (George Bounassif)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Acting Manager Corporate Communications (Sally Williams)

Manager Records and Governance (Amber Moloney)

Minutes Secretary (Christine Dunand)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00 pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor Ngai declared he is an employee of Origin Energy and he may have a less than significant non pecuniary conflict of interest in item GB.9 GM Delegation for acceptance of RFT – Retail Electricity and Renewable Energy PPA and would remain in the Chamber during the debate.

General Manager declared staff conflicts of interest in item C.1 General Manager’s Performance Review – Proposal for Review Facilitation, all staff would leave the Chamber during the debate.

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Clarke)

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:

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 General Manager's Performance Review - Proposal for Review Facilitation

Attachment A1: Proposal for KMC GM Performance Review Facilitation - Attachment to Mayoral Minute 10 April 2018

This attachment is classified under Section 10A(2)(a) because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors)

NOTE:

GB.1 Code of Conduct - NSROC Panel of Conduct Reviewers

Attachment A2: NSROC 2017-2021 Panel of Conduct Reviewers

Attachment A3: NSROC 2017-2021 Conduct Reviewer Panel – Submissions

These attachments are classified confidential under Section 10A(2)(d)(i) because if disclosed could prejudice the commercial position of ther person who supllied it.

GB.2 Major Projects Governance, Resourcing and Financing

Attachment A1: Attachment A1 - Governance Advice for Ku-ring-gai Council Major Projects ThinkClear Group Report Craig Calder

This attachment is classified confidential under Section 10A(2)(a) because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors);

Attachment A5: Attachment A5 - Major Projects Group Structure (draft)

This attachment is classified under Section 10A(2)(a) because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors)

GB.3 Lindfield Village Hub Reference Committee

Attachment A4: Nomination results from spreadsheet

Attachment A5: Pre interview responses

Attachment A6: Confidential attachment panel recommendation

These attachments are classified under Section 10A(2)(a) because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors)

GB.6 Public exhibition submissions - Proposed Closure of a Portion of Public Road - Balfour Lane Lindfield

Attachment A3: Legal Advice

This attachment is classified under Section 10A(2)(f) because it contains information about the security of the Council, Councillors, Council Staff or Council Property

Attachment A5: Submissions & responses

This attachment is classified under Section 10A(2)(a) because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors)

GB.8 Tender RFT04-2018 - Primula Oval Sportsfield Lighting Upgrade

Attachment A1: List of tenders received and recommendation

Attachment A2: Tender Evaluation Panel’s assessment

These attachments are classified confidential under section Section 10A(2)(d)(iii) because it would reveal a trade secret.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Address the Council

The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the agenda:

Janet Harwood Local Government in Australia

John Townend Save Marian Street Theatre

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:

MM.1 - Councillors Consultative Finance Forum - Report by Mayor Jennifer Anderson dated 10 April 2018

GB.9 - GM delegation for acceptance of RFT - Retail Electricity and Renewable Energy PPA - Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 29 March 2018

GB.10 - Proposed lease of Community Classified Land
Suite 1, 12-18 Tryon Road, Lindfield - Report by Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets dated 4 April 2018

Memorandums:

Refer QWN 27 February 2018 Minute number 43 - Question without Notice from Councillor Spencer – Financial Management of Ovals in Ku-ring-gai

Memorandum from Director Operations dated 26 March 2018 detailing the financial management of ovals in Ku-ring-gai.

Refer QWN 27 March 2018 Minute number 73 - Question without Notice from Councillor Ngai – Introducing a Kerb Ramp at Kochia Lane

Memorandum from Director Operations dated 6 April 2018 advising the installation of two (2) kerb ramps in Kochia Lane.

Refer QWN 27 March 2018 Minute number 72 - Question without Notice from Councillor Greenfield – Tree on the corner of Ada Avenue and Pacific Highway Wahroonga

Memorandum from Director Operations dated 6 April 2018 advising the tree has been inspected and that it forms part of a significant avenue of similar trees and is part of a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

Refer OMC 10 April 2018 – GB.2 Major Projects Governance, Resourcing and Financing

Memorandum from General Manager dated 10 April 2018 with an additional Recommendation ‘That the Charter for the Councillors Major Projects Consultation Forum include the provision that the Chair is the Mayor and in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor will act at Chair.’

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 27 March 2018

Minutes numbered 61 to 75

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Clarke)

That Minutes numbered 61 to 75 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

Councillors Consultative Finance Forum

File: CY00546/2

Vide: MM.1

After the 2017 election Council established a Finance Committee to consider financial matters separate to the Ordinary Meetings of Council.

The Finance Committee was established as a formal Committee of Council under the Local Government Act. There are specific requirements for how meetings are held, agendas published and decisions made.

In GB 2 on this meeting agenda, an alternate structure is proposed to be established for Councillors in relation to Major Projects, being the Councillors Major Projects Consultative Forum. The Consultative Forum is not a formal Committee of Council and does not require published agendas, nor formal debate and decision making.

In line with the Councillors Major Projects Consultative Forum, a similar structure would provide a more flexible and inclusive platform if also adopted for consideration of finance matters. A Councillors Finance Consultative Forum would allow for open exchange and discussion between Councillors and staff without the requirement to vote on recommendations, which would be reserved for the Ordinary Council meetings. The Forum would provide an improved structure for discussion of confidential material and briefings by consultants and staff and also remove the need for a limited number of individual Councillors to be elected, with all Councillors to be members.

A proposed Terms of Reference is set out below.

Councillors Finance Consultative Forum – Terms of Reference

Introduction

Ku-ring-gai Council is a complex organisation with a large annual budget and assets of more than a billion dollars, providing services and facilities to a growing population. It is important that Council manages its finances well to ensure a sustainable future.

The Local Government Act sets out the principles of sound financial management at Section 8B as follows:

(a) Council spending should be responsible and sustainable, aligning general revenue and expenses.

(b) Councils should invest in responsible and sustainable infrastructure for the benefit of the local community.

(c) Councils should have effective financial and asset management, including sound policies and processes for the following:

(i) performance management and reporting,

(ii) asset maintenance and enhancement,

(iii) funding decisions,

(iv) risk management practices.

(d) Councils should have regard to achieving intergenerational equity, including ensuring the following:

(i) policy decisions are made after considering their financial effects on future generations,

(ii) the current generation funds the cost of its services.

Objectives

The primary objectives of the Consultation Forum are to:

· enable focused consideration of financial matters

· enable a collaborative dialogue between Councillors, management and advisors on key financial issues

Matters for Consideration

The Consultation Forum may consider matters falling within the scope of Section 8B of the Local Government Act, including but not limited to:

· long term financial planning

· budgets and quarterly budget performance

· asset management

· investments

· loans

· fees and charges

· rating

· legal issues and costs

The General Manager will determine matters to be considered at each meeting of the Consultation Forum. Councillors may request specific matters be placed on the agenda of the Consultation Forum via the General Manager.

Composition

The Consultation Forum will be open for all Councillors to attend along with relevant members of management and key advisors as required.

Chair

The Chair of the Finance Committee is the Mayor.

In the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor will act as Chair.

Delegations

The Consultation Forum has no delegation from Council and does not make recommendations to Council.

Meeting Frequency

Consultation Forums will be held four times annually, as scheduled by the General Manager in consultation with the Mayor and Councillors. Additional Consultation Forums may be called by the Mayor or General Manager.

Terms of Reference Review

Councillors should review the continuing relevance of the Terms of Reference every two years. Where changes are deemed necessary they will be submitted to Council for endorsement.

Resolved:

1. That Council dissolve the Finance Committee and establish a Councillors Finance Consultation Forum, with the Terms of Reference as set out in this Mayoral Minute.

2. That the first meeting of the Councillors Finance Consultation Forum be held on Tuesday 1 May 2018.

3. That no action be taken on GB5 Finance Committee Meeting Date.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Finance Committee Meeting Date

File: CY00546/2

Vide: GB.5

To recommend that the date for the next meeting of the Finance Committee be brought forward to allow for consideration of the draft budget, Operational Plan, Delivery Program and Resourcing Strategy.

No decision was made in relation to this item as per the resolution in Minute number 78.

PETITIONS

Don't Ringbark Our Park

File: S11390

Vide: PT.1

“We, the undersigned, request no reclassification of 9, 15, 17 Dumaresq Street Gordon till such time as there is a complete Green Space plan for Gordon. (Four hundred and thirty five [435] signatures)”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Citer)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Code of Conduct - NSROC Panel of Conduct Reviewers

File: S08447

Vide: GB.1

For Council to establish a panel of conduct reviewers in accordance with the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Smith)

A. That Council receive and note the Report; and

B. Endorse the recommended NSROC Regional Panel of Conduct Reviewers as outlined in Attachment A2 to this Report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Public exhibition submissions - Proposed Closure of a Portion of Public Road - Balfour Lane Lindfield

File: 88/06274/01

Vide: GB.6

To update Council on submissions received on the proposed closure of a portion of the public road Balfour Lane Lindfield in order to progress the road closure.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Kelly)

A. That Council acknowledges the submissions relevant to the closure and relocation of the public road and submits a formal road closure application for a portion of Balfour Lane, Lindfield, to the Department of Primary Industry – Lands & Water.

B. That Council in order to avoid any uncertainty of the status of Balfour Lane and before dedicating land as a public road under Section 16 Roads Act ,1993, gives 28 days’ notice of its intention to do so to be served on the owner of the land.

C. That Council formally gazettes the land marked as “Lane 30 feet wide” in DP4915 as public road in accordance with Section 16 Roads Act 1993.

D. That upon closure and issuance of the Certificate of Title for a portion of Balfour Lane, Lindfield, the land be classified as Operational Land free of encumbrances.

E. That in the event the proposed legislative changes to the Roads Acts ,1993 become protracted a further report will be submitted to Council to consider the compulsory acquisition of Balfour Lane, Lindfield in order to deliver Council’s strategic planning objectives for Precinct L1 Balfour Street Retail Centre as contained in the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Havilah Lane Lindfield - offer to enter into a VPA to dedicate land for laneway widening

File: S11436

Vide: GB.7

To advise Council of the formal receipt of a letter of offer for the dedication of land in Havilah Lane for the purposes of laneway widening and future public domain improvements.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That the receipt of a formal offer to enter into a VPA from the development at 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield and backing on to Havilah Lane in Lindfield be noted and delegation be granted to the General Manager or his nominee to progress the matter in line with Council’s adopted strategic planning documents until it is ready for reporting for exhibition.

B. That Council endorses staff undertaking an active role to facilitate the dedication of land for road widening along laneways identified in Council’s adopted Strategic Planning documents including the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2010 and/or the Ku-ring-gai- Contributions Plan 2010 ahead of formal notifications of offers to enter into Voluntary Planning Agreements as part of the core administrative function of implementing Council’s adopted strategies.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Tender RFT04-2018 - Primula Oval Sportsfield Lighting Upgrade

File: S11385

Vide: GB.8

To consider the tenders received for the refurbishment of Primula Oval Sportsfield lighting and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That Council decline to accept any of the tender submissions for RFT04-2018 Design Construct Sportsfield Lighting – Primula Oval, Corner of Highfield Road and Primula Street, Lindfield NSW 2070.

B. That fresh tender not be called due to the cost, time and staff resources needed for the process, as it is unlikely to elicit any new submissions, and may result in less submissions than has been previously received.

C. That Council enter into negotiations with the three (3) tenderers ‘A’ to ‘C’ as identified in the Confidential Summary.

D. That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate the terms of the contract contemplated in “C” above.

E. That the Major and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council behalf in relation to the contract.

F. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

G. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GM delegation for acceptance of RFT - Retail Electricity and Renewable Energy PPA

File: RFT18-2017

Vide: GB.9

That Council delegates responsibility for the acceptance of the renewable and “regular grid energy” components of an electricity supply contract to the General Manager, following review by Council’s internal Energy Management Working Group, to ensure Council’s requirements have been met.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

That Council delegates responsibility for the acceptance of the renewable and ‘regular grid energy” components of an electricity supply contract to the General Manager, following review by Council’s internal Energy Management Working Group, to ensure Council’s requirements have been met.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Proposed lease of Community Classified Land Suite 1, 12-18 Tryon Road, Lindfield

File: S07252/9

Vide: GB.10

To seek Council approval to lease the commercial space at Suite 1, 12-18 Tryon Road, Lindfield (Lot 1 SP37466) for a maximum term of five years.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That Council approves the public notification of the proposal to enter into a lease agreement of Suite 1, 12-18 Tryon Road, Lindfield (Lot 1 SP37466) for a period up to five years.

B. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate the future lease terms to protect Council’s interest.

C. That Council authorises the Mayor and General Manager to execute all documentation associated with the future leasing of the property.

D. That Council authorises the Seal of Council to be placed on all necessary documentation.

E. That public notification of the proposal to enter into a lease is undertaken in accordance with Section 47A of the Local Government Act, 1993.

F. That in the event objections are received a further report be submitted to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items
where there are speakers first, after a
motion moved by Councillors Clarke and Smith
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Greenfield withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

Councillor Greenfield returned

Gordon Town Centre Plans

File: S10376

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Szatow and Citer dated 29 March 2018

Residents are very concerned about the lack of green space in Gordon – for health and environmental reasons.

In view of this and the fact that at the OMC of 3rd March, Council resolved to institute a Gordon Public Realm Reference Committee,

We move:

That all plans for development of the area bounded by the Section 94 blocks bought by Council for green space 9, 15 and 17 Dumaresq St, Radford Place, the Council carparks and the Council owned properties at 818 and 828 Pacific Highway be put on hold until the Gordon Public Realm Reference Committee has reviewed the current Gordon Town Centre Plans in their entirety and Councillors have had a chance to examine afresh the plans and the Committee’s recommendations.

The following members of the public addressed Council on this matter:

Trish Simper

Sandra Van Der Water

Jennifer Baker

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Citer)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

For the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Spencer, Citer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Greenfield and Smith

Councillor Pettett withdrew during discussion

Councillor Szatow withdrew during discussion

Councillor Pettett returned

Councillor Szatow returned

Major Projects Governance, Resourcing and Financing

File: S11906

Vide: GB.2

To provide Council with the findings of a review of the governance, resourcing and financial parameters for Council’s major projects.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Citer)

A. That Council establish a Councillors Major Projects Consultation Forum and adopt the Charter attached to this report.

B. That Council establish a Major Projects Advisory Committee and adopt the Charter attached to this report.

C. That the following change be made to the draft Property Development and Investment Policy. The words “Sale proceeds of Strategic Surplus Properties are to be allocated to the Property Development Reserve unless otherwise committed in Council’s long Term Financial Plan” will be replaced with “The allocation of Sale Proceeds of Strategic Surplus Properties is to be determined by council resolution as part of the sale process for each property, with the default position of 100% going towards the Property Development Reserve”.

D. That the draft Property Development and Investment Policy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days and subsequently be reported back to Council.

E. That Council note that an internal Major Projects Steering Committee has been established by the General Manager.

F. That Council note the proposed staffing structure of the Major Projects Group.

G. That Council endorse the increased allocation of funding from s94 developer contributions for major projects as required to resource the proposed staff and committee structure and progress the developments.

H. That council thanks Craig Calder for his contribution in starting the Major Projects initiative, and for his role thus far as the Acting Head of Major Projects.

I. That the recruitment of a permanent Head of Major Projects will commence before the end of this Financial Year. For reference, Councillors should confidentially be provided with the CV’s and other application material of the top five candidates.

J. That the Charter for the Councillors Major Projects Consultation Forum include the provision that the Chair is the Mayor and in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor will act at Chair.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Lindfield Village Hub Reference Committee

File: CY00551

Vide: GB.3

To provide Council with nominations for the Lindfield Village Hub Community Reference Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Pettett)

A. That Council establishes a Lindfield Village Hub Community Reference Committee.

B. That Council select the first seven members from the shortlist as outlined on page 233 of the confidential attachments, to sit on the Reference Committee.

C. That Council selects Councillors Ngai, Kelly and Citer to sit on the Reference Committee.

For the Resolution: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Spencer, Greenfield, Citer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke and Smith

The above Resolution was subject to an Amendment to Part C which was LOST. The Lost Amendment was:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Anderson)

C. That Council selects Councillors Ngai, Clarke and Citer to sit on the Reference Committee.

For the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson and Councillor Clarke

Against the Amendment: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Spencer, Greenfield, Citer, Smith, Kelly and Szatow

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as the Amendment

when put to the vote was LOST

The above resolution was subject to an amendment to Part C which was ABSORBED.

The original motion was:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Pettett)

C. That Council selects Councillors Ngai, Kelly and Szatow to sit on the reference committee.

Councillor Szatow declined the nomination due to other commitments.

2018 National General Assembly of Local Government - Nomination of Delegate

File: S02133

Vide: GB.4

For Council to determine the voting delegate for the 2018 National General Assembly of Local Government.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Anderson)

A. That Council determines the Mayor Jennifer Anderson be the one voting delegate for the 2018 National General Assembly of Local Government.

B. That other Councillors interested in attending notify the General Manager by Wednesday 2 May 2018.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Spencer, Greenfield, Citer, Smith and Kelly

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Szatow

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE - SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS

A Motion moved by Councillor Greenfield
to have the matter dealt with at the meeting
and was CARRIED

The Mayor ruled Urgency
and the matter was dealt with

Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage

File: S09449

Vide: BN.1

There is an urgent need to assess the potential to move the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage because there is a risk that it will be demolished in April 2018 by the developer. Currently located in the laneway behind Harris Farm at Lindfield.

The cottage is over 100 years old and was moved to its current location by horse and cart.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Smith)

Council investigate the feasibility and cost of moving this structure to a suitable location and present a report back to council as soon as possible.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Directors and Councillors Insurance Policy

File: S09647/4

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cheryl Szatow

Would the General Manager please make available the Directors and Councillors Insurance Policy and organise a briefing on it for Councillors.

This question is as a direct result of the Directors Course that Councillor Clarke and I attended recently where a large component was concerned with risk.

Answered by General Manager

The General Manager advised he would provide a copy of the policy and organise a briefing.

Current Financial Capacity for basement level Lindfield Village Green, Marian Street Theatre and St Ives Indoor Sports Centre

File: CY00546/2

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Sam Ngai

Can you please tell us whether our Council currently has the financial capacity to proceed with the three basement level Lindfield Village Green, the Marian Street Theatre as well as the proposed Department of Education St Ives Indoor Sports Centre, if so how, and if not what are the levers available to Council, if any, to see all three happen at once?

Answered by Director Corporate

The Director Corporate advised those three projects are not in Council’s current long term financial plan, and would like to take the question on notice and address it at the Councillor Finance Consultation Forum on 1 May 2018.

Use of Gazebo Morona Avenue Tennis Courts

File: S11199/2

Vide: QN.3

Question Without Notice from Councillor David Citer

I have received advice that residents hiring the Morona Avenue Tennis Courts are sitting out in the elements rather than using the adjoining gazebo. The gazebo is being used for children’s parties on a first come first serve basis.

Could I ask if Council has a policy whether the hirer of the courts at Morona Avenue also has rights to use the adjoining gazebo?

Answered by Director Community

The Director Community advised she would take the question on notice.

Damaged reputation of Ku-ring-gai Council and Management of Public Perception

File: S10890

Vide: QN.4

Question Without Notice from Councillor Sam Ngai

Councillor Ngai advised he has residents who are disillusioned with Council, and tell him they cannot be bothered writing to Council because the Council has already made up its mind on the Lindfield Village Green, from their perspective.

What are we going to do to assure our residents that we have actually listened to their concerns, that we are not just steamrolling ahead, that our traffic flow modelling is accurate and that we are actually engaged with them and have an updated website?

Answered by General Manager

The General Manager advised he would take the question on notice and give a more detailed response in written form.

All Councillors have been briefed on traffic modelling at the Green.

In terms reputation I think that some of the structures and governance structures that were put in place in GB.2 tonight are certainly aimed directly at that, the level of independence with the external committee, dedicated resources to community engagement, risk. So that is exactly what we are trying to do with establishing some of those structures. But will provide a more detailed response.

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

General Manager's Performance Review - Proposal for Review Facilitation

File: CY00254/10

Vide: C.1

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(a), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

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

Report by Mayor Jennifer Anderson dated 3 April 2018

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Pettett)

A. That Council issues an immediate expression of interest to select a consultant to facilitate the General Manager's performance reviews to commence 1^st July 2018, with the current contract to continue until 30 June 2018.

B. That council thanks Greg Ptok for his contribution in review facilitation of the General Manager’s Performance Review between 2009 – 2013 and 2015 – 2018.

C. Councillors should confidentially be provided with the CV’s and other application material of the top candidates for consideration.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion.

The Amendment was carried UNANIMOUSLY and became the Motion.

The Original Motion was:

(Moved: The Mayor Councillor Anderson/Clarke)

A. That Council accept the proposal for review facilitation by Ptok Consulting with a Council Term Facilitation Contract until June 2021.

B. That the Mayor advise Gregor Ptok of Council’s decision.

The following motion was foreshadowed during debate:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson)

A. Council appoints Mr. Greg Ptok to undertake the General Manager's annual performance review for the period ended May 2018.

B. Following the annual review, that Council issues an expression of interest to select a consultant to facilitate the General Manager's future performance reviews.

Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors Clarke and Greenfield
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor adverted to the consideration of the matter referred to in the Minute numbered 95, and to the resolution contained in such Minute.

The Meeting closed at 9:45pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 10 April 2018 (Pages 1 - 4) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 8 May 2018.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.1 / 41

Item GB.1	S11275
	13 April 2018

Draft Community Strategic Plan 2038

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To place Council's draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku‑ring-gai 2038’ on public exhibition.

background:	The NSW Local Government Act 1993 requires Councils and communities to review their Community Strategic Plans following election of a new Council and before 30 June the following year.

comments:	The preparation of the draft Community Strategic Plan has been developed to incorporate and address relevant information relating to social, environmental, economic and civic leadership issues, respond to social justice principles, and has regard to relevant State, metropolitan and regional plans and to meet the requirements of the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) Integrated Planning & Reporting.

recommendation:	That pursuant to Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

Purpose of Report

To place Council's draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku‑ring-gai 2038’ on public exhibition.

Background

The NSW Local Government Act 1993 requires councils and communities to review their Community Strategic Plans [CSP] following election of a new council. The review must be informed by:

· an ‘End of Term’ report prepared by the outgoing council which looks at the implementation and effectiveness of the current CSP in achieving its objectives over the previous council’s term;

· an assessment and updating of information about the local area that informed the original CSP, including a stock-take of issues, pressures and trends affecting the area. This is to be undertaken by the incoming council;

· an assessment of key State, metropolitan, regional and local policy settings and directions that influence decision-making for the local area; and

· engagement with the community to identify key issues, challenges and opportunities impacting on the area over the long term and how they might be addressed.

The review provides the Ku-ring-gai community and Council with the opportunity to revisit the current CSP and, in particular, the Plan’s long term objectives to ensure they reflect contemporary community thinking, needs and expectations and take account of new challenges and trends.

Community engagement and consultation for the review of the CSP has been guided by a Community Engagement Strategy [CES], presented to Council in October 2017. The strategy is based on the social justice principles of equity, access, participation and rights and informed by industry practice and techniques.

Section 402 of the Local Government Act requires Council to place the draft CSP on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days, to consider submissions received as a result of the exhibition and to adopt the CSP with any amendments before the 30 June 2018.

Comments

The CSP sits above all other council plans and policies in the planning hierarchy. The purpose of the Plan is to identify the community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future, and plan strategies to achieve them. These strategies will take into consideration the issues and pressures that may affect the community and the level of resources that will realistically be available.

The results of our review of the current CSP, including community engagement and consultation, has been a reaffirmation of the community’s priorities reflected in the issues and long term objectives contained in the current CSP. Accordingly, those issues and long term objectives have been restated in the draft Plan, while changes have been made to other aspects of the Plan. These include the social and economic profile of Ku-ring-gai going forward as well as changes to local, regional and state government policy settings. Indicators of progress for the long term objectives have also been reviewed and updated. The format of the draft CSP has been refreshed to provide a document that is easier to navigate and simpler in content.

The draft Community Strategic Plan 2038 can be found at Attachment A1.

The attached Discussion Paper (Attachment A2) provides a summary of social and economic trends and state and regional policies affecting Ku-ring-gai into the future and a summary of community feedback from initial engagement and consultation activities for the CSP.

Preparation of the draft CSP has been guided by the Integrated Planning and Reporting principles and requirements of the Local Government Act. The Plan has also been developed to incorporate and address relevant information relating to social, environmental , economic and civic leadership issues, respond to social justice principles, and has regard to relevant State, metropolitan and regional plans and to meet the requirements of the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) Integrated Planning & Reporting.

The structure of the draft CSP is as follows:

· Six themes that group issues and long term objectives together;

· Issues under each theme that have been generated from key areas of concern or priority identified by the community;

· Long term objectives that describe the desired future state or outcome for each issue;

· Progress indicators that show whether we are heading in the right direction. Progress is measured against desired trends.

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L3.1 - The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.

L3.1.1 - Council’s integrity and operation effectiveness is continually being improved through its leadership, decision-making and policies.

L3.1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting documents and complete all statutory reporting required under the Local Government Act and Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Governance Matters

Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, requires that each local government area must have a community strategic plan that has been developed and endorsed by the council.

The Act requires a council to place a draft CSP on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days, to consider submissions received as a result of the exhibition and to adopt the CSP with any amendments before the 30 June 2018.

Development of the draft CSP has been undertaken in accordance with the Act and the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual and Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines.

Risk Management

Council has a statutory obligation to prepare a community strategic plan, and place it on public exhibition, consider feedback, and adopt the CSP before the beginning of the financial year.

Financial Considerations

Council’s Resourcing Strategy identifies the resources required to implement the long term objectives established by the CSP for which Council is responsible for.

The Resourcing Strategy includes long-term financial planning, workforce management planning and asset management planning.

The financial and resource requirements to deliver the aspirations and long term objectives identified in the CSP are detailed in the draft Resourcing Strategy, and draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2018-2019, which are being considered by Council and will be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the draft CSP.

Social Considerations

The CSP sits above all other Council plans and policies. The purpose of the Community Strategic Plan is to identify the community’s vision, long term objectives and priorities for Ku-ring-gai’s future and plan strategies to achieve them.

The draft CSP has been informed by a review of social and economic changes, issues and challenges affecting Ku-ring-gai over the next 10 – 20 years as well as the results of community consultation and engagement.

The Plan has also been developed to reflect social justice principles and to address the quadruple bottom line social, economic, environment and civic leadership issues.

Environmental Considerations

Our development of the draft CSP has been informed by the very high value that the Ku-ring-gai community places on the local natural environment. This high value has been reaffirmed through community research, engagement and consultation undertaken over the past 18 months.

Community Consultation

Community engagement and consultation for the review and development of the draft CSP has been guided by a Community Engagement Strategy [CES], presented to Council in October 2017.

The CES, included in the attached Discussion Paper (Attachment A2), explains the principles and guidelines Council has followed, key areas of focus and an indicative program of actions.

A summary of community feedback from initial engagement and consultation activities is included in the attached Discussion Paper. The results of these activities have reaffirmed the issues and long term objectives contained in the existing CSP as ongoing priorities for the Ku-ring-gai community.

The next major phase of consultation for the draft CSP will commence with the plan being placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. During this period input from the community will be sought, considered and reported back to Council in June 2018.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on legislative and Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements for all NSW Councils. They have also been briefed on the development of all Integrated Planning & Reporting documents, including the Resourcing Strategy.

Consultation has taken place across the entire organisation in developing the CSP and performance measures.

Summary

The NSW Local Government Act 1993 requires councils and communities to review their Community Strategic Plans following election of a new council. The review must be informed by:

· an ‘End of Term’ report prepared by the outgoing council which looks at the implementation and effectiveness of the current Community Strategic Plan in achieving its objectives over the previous four years;

· an assessment and updating of information about the local area that informed the original Community Strategic plan, including a stock-take of issues, pressures and trends affecting the area. This is to be undertaken by the incoming council;

· an assessment of key State, regional and local policy settings and directions that influence decision-making for the local area; and

· engagement with the community to identify key issues, challenges and opportunities impacting on the area over the long term and how they might be addressed.

The results of our review of the current CSP, including community engagement and consultation, has been a reaffirmation of the community’s priorities reflected in the issues and long term objectives contained in the current CSP. Accordingly, those issues and long term objectives have been restated in the draft Plan, while changes have been made to other aspects of the CSP. These include the social and economic profile of Ku-ring-gai going forward as well as changes to local, regional and state government policy settings. Indicators of progress for the long term objectives have also been reviewed and updated. The format of the draft CSP has been refreshed to provide a document that is easier to navigate and simpler in content.

It is recommended, and required by legislation, that the draft Community Strategic Plan be placed on public exhibition for at least 28 days, and that following the consultation a report will be brought back to an ordinary meeting of Council in June 2018.

Recommendation:

A. That the report on the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be received and noted.

B. That pursuant to Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 June 2018.

C. That the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’, be forwarded to relevant NSW Government agencies as part of the public exhibition process.

D. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Ku-ring-gai 2038’.

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Co-ordinator

Deborah Silva

Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 ⇨	Draft Community Strategic Plan 2038	Excluded	2018/118060
	A2 ⇨	Draft Discussion Paper	Excluded	2018/118256

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.2 / 47

Item GB.2	S11276
	11 April 2018

Draft Resourcing Strategy 2018-2028

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE of report:	To place Council's Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy on public exhibition.

background:	The Resourcing Strategy is the link between the long-term Community Strategic Plan and the medium-term Delivery Program and details how the strategic aspirations of Ku-ring-gai can be achieved in terms of time, money, people and assets. Its component parts include: · 10 year Long-Term Financial Plan; · 10 year Asset Management Strategy; and · 10 year Workforce Management Strategy.

comments:	Every NSW council is required to prepare a Resourcing Strategy that supports the Community Strategic Plan and the Delivery Program.

recommendation:	That the report on Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2018– 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy be received and noted.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council endorsement for the Resourcing Strategy

Background

Following a local government election councils in New South Wales are required under the Local Government Act 1993 to prepare a suite of documents that form the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework. These documents include:

· The Community Strategic Plan;

· The Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· The Resourcing Strategy.

These plans are developed concurrently with the other plans of the IP&R framework.

The Resourcing Strategy is the link between the long-term Community Strategic Plan and the medium-term Delivery Program and details how the strategic aspirations of Ku-ring-gai can be achieved in terms of time, money, people and assets. The Resourcing Strategy is comprised of the following components:

· 10-year Long-term Financial Plan;

· 10-year Asset Management Strategy; and

· 10-year Workforce Management Strategy

The Resourcing Strategy is designed to be a living document to reflect changing financial and asset information. Initiatives within the Resourcing Strategy will be reviewed annually to ensure relevance in the changing environment and to incorporate any community feedback.

Comments

As required by the integrated planning framework and in order to comply with the legislative reforms Council’s Resourcing Strategy is comprised of the required components which are discussed below.

Attachment A1 provides a copy of the Resourcing Strategy 2018-2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan (Attachment A2), the Asset Management Strategy (Attachment A3) and the Workforce Management Strategy (Attachment A4).

Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP)

The first part of the Resourcing Strategy consists of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). The LTFP is Council’s 10 year financial planning document with an emphasis on long-term financial sustainability. Financial sustainability is one of the key issues facing local government due to several contributing factors including cost shifting from other levels of government, ageing infrastructure and constraints on revenue growth. A financially sustainable Council is one that has the ability to fund on-going service delivery and renew and replace assets without imposing excessive debt or rate increases on future generations.

This is an important document, which will test the community aspirations and goals against financial realities. Contained in this plan are:

· projected income and expenditure, balance sheet and cash-flow statements;

· assumptions used to develop the plan;

· sensitivity analysis – highlight factors most likely to affect the plan;

· financial modelling for different scenarios;

· methods of monitoring financial performance.

Balancing expectations, uncertainty of future revenue and expenditure forecasts is one of the most challenging aspects of the financial planning process. As such, the longer the planning horizon, the more general the plan will be in the later years. Every effort has been taken to present the most current estimates and project scopes to be included in this plan.

Asset Management Strategy (AMS)

The second part of the Resourcing Strategy deals with asset management planning, in particular the Council’s:

· Asset Management Policy; and

· Asset Management Strategy.

The Asset Management Strategy is supported by Asset Management Plans for each asset class. These plans are due to reviewed in 2018/19. Together, these documents and our processes, data and systems (including asset registers and technical databases) make up Council’s Asset Management Framework.

The revised Asset Management Strategy 2018-2028 demonstrates to Ku-ring-gai residents and stakeholders how Council’s asset portfolio supports the service delivery needs of the community both now and into the future (10 years). The revised Strategy also includes an Asset Management Improvement Plan to ensure that organisational practices and procedures are continually improved.

The Strategy establishes the current condition and value of all assets; the preferred condition and level of service of all assets; and the systems, resources, processes and financing options to achieve the preferred condition and level of service.

Asset Portfolio

As of 30 June 2017, Ku-ring-gai Council’s asset portfolio consists of a net carrying value over $1.16 billion of infrastructure, plant & equipment and land. Infrastructure assets include:

· roads and transport (roads, footpaths, kerb and gutters, car parks located at business; areas, road structure and street furniture, bridges);

· buildings (operational, community and commercial);

· stormwater drainage; and

· recreation facilities (sports fields, parks, bushland).

Workforce Management Strategy (WMS)

The third and final part of the Resourcing Strategy is the Workforce Strategy. An effective Workforce Management Strategy establishes a framework for building the capability of our workforce to provide Council with the people best able to inform its strategic direction, develop innovative approaches to complex issues, and deliver appropriate services effectively and efficiently.

The Workforce Management Strategy provides a link between service and strategic objectives and associated workforce implications. In addressing the human capital requirements for Council’s Delivery Program, the Workforce Management Strategy spans ten years and considers all potential resources and knowledge requirements.

Governance Matters

Section 8a of the Local Government Act, 1993, sets out the guiding principles for all councils to apply in exercising their functions. Specific to the Resourcing Strategy is the following:

· Councils should plan strategically, using the integrated planning and reporting framework, for the provision of effective and efficient services and regulation to meet the diverse needs of the local community.

· Councils should apply the integrated planning and reporting framework in carrying out their functions so as to achieve desired outcomes and continuous improvements.

· Councils should manage lands and other assets so that current and future local community needs can be met in an affordable way.

· Councils should work with others to secure appropriate services for local community needs.

· Councils should be responsible employers and provide a consultative and supportive working environment for staff.

· Councils should consider the long term and cumulative effects of actions on future generations.

Section 403 of the Local Government Act, 1993, requires that Council has a long term Resourcing Strategy for the provision of the resources required to implement the strategies established in its Community Strategic Plan. The Resourcing Strategy includes long term financial planning, asset management planning and workforce management.

Section 406 of the Local Government Act, 1993, requires that Council complies with the Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines. The Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual and Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines are comprehensive tools that have been used in the development of the Resourcing Strategy and to support the implementation of I P & R.

The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting requires Council to report, in the annual financial statements, the condition of Council’s assets.

Risk Management

Council has a statutory obligation to prepare a Resourcing Strategy, and adopt the strategy prior to the beginning of the new financial year. The Resourcing Strategy must also be informed by the Community Strategic Plan, currently being revised and must follow the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993. A failure to do so may result in the Governor of NSW dismissing the Council (section 255).

Risk management is a significant part of the development of the Resourcing Strategy and the identified risks are included in each component document.

Financial Considerations

Council’s LTFP quantifies the cost of Council’s services and capital expenditure for the next 10 years.

A portfolio of all project proposals has been developed, including estimates of costs and funding sources to determine current and future funding requirements. This project portfolio has been linked to the LTFP.

The plan contains a series of assumptions. Year 1 of the LTFP – 2018/19 is the draft budget for the next financial year and is based on Council’s current revised budget. Years two (2) to ten (10) are calculated by extrapolating the budgets across each of the remaining years using these assumptions and known changes.

Council’s Asset Management System (AMS) is being progressively developed to identify the level of funding required to adequately maintain community assets and the most effective way of applying funds to ensure these assets continue to provide the level of service the community expects from them.

The LTFP has incorporated a principle of applying any otherwise surplus funding in future years to closing the asset renewal gap as a priority. Council recently undertook an independent review of Council’s future financial sustainability and the state of infrastructure assets and adopted a “Road to Sustainability” funding strategy. This strategy looks to address the infrastructure backlog and invest additional funding in infrastructure renewal as a priority. As part of this review Council also undertook a horizontal service review to identify additional sources of revenue and reduce operational expenditure that will provide extra funding for infrastructure renewal.

Council has resolved to apply to IPART under Section 508(2) of the Local Government Act to continue the special rate variation for the Environment (Environmental Levy) permanently. This rate income is devoted to expenditure for environmental programs and works and has been in place since 2005, however is due to expire in June 2019.The renewal request is for a permanent levy. The LTFP has considered 2 scenarios, which will be incorporated for public exhibition into the Delivery Program and Operational Plan and are also detailed in the Resourcing Strategy.

These are:

Scenario 1 - Base Case Scenario without the Special Rate Variation (SRV) for the Environment (Environmental Levy)

This scenario can be delivered without approval of the special rate variation application. It involves reduced rates collections compared to 2018/19 as the special rate variation component of Council’s Environmental Levy, totalling approximately $2.8M per annum would be eliminated together with the associated environmental works that this funds. Without this additional funding for environmental works, the quality of our natural environment, including our waterways and bushland, would decline, as well as the environmental performance of our buildings; support for community programs would decrease; the operational cost savings realised through Levy initiatives would fall; and the essential service functions provided by levy funded staff would be significantly compromised. The impact of this scenario is discussed in more detail in the LTFP.

Scenario 2: Scenario with the Special Rate Variation (SRV) for the Environment (Environmental Levy)

This scenario requires approval from IPART of Council’s special rate variation renewal application. It would mean that existing levels of rates income would be maintained and the existing level of funds available for environmental program and works be maintained. This amount is estimated as $2.8M for 2018/19 and grows in future years with estimated rates pegging and property growth. This scenario is Council’s preferred one and is also considered sustainable. The impact of this scenario is discussed in more detail in the LTFP.

Highlights and significant changes to the Long Term Financial Plan

The following LTFP highlights are based on Council’s preferred scenario from above, where the Environmental levy (special rate variation) is renewed.

· A recurrent operating surplus before capital income and asset sales is achieved in all years to fund capital works.

· All Fit for the Future KPIs are met during the life of this Plan.

· Additional funds (above the standard renewal program) of $73 million over 10 years identified through the “Roads to Sustainability” funding strategy to be redirected to infrastructure assets renewal from 2018/19 onwards contributing to closing the infrastructure backlog (cost to satisfactory, revised at $20.6 million) by 2024/25 and cost to agreed level of service (revised at $47 million) by 2027/28.

· “Road to Sustainability” funding strategy identifies additional funding from the following initiatives and sources:

- Horizontal service review - a combination of additional operating revenue and decreases in operating expenditure.

- Divestment of assets - proceeds from asset sales.

- Property Development Reserve - interest earned from investing proceeds from asset sales - Council has established a Property Development Reserve in the Long Term Financial Plan, accumulated from the proceeds of asset sales. This reserve is created to ensure that Council has sufficient funds in reserve to insulate against the financial risks of development of three local centre revitalisation projects over the next 10 years. These projects are major developments in Lindfield, Turramurra and Gordon that will provide civic improvements and community facilities.

· A total of $124 million will be allocated to asset maintenance over 10 years, $247 million to asset renewals and $90.6 million (excluding Local Centre Major Projects) to build new or upgrade existing assets.

· Provision for the phased-in cost of extra superannuation contributions eventually totalling $870K pa, as the statutory rate increases from 9.5% to 12% from 2021/22 to 2025/26.

· Continuation of a permanent special rate variation for environmental programs and works (Environmental levy) of $2.8 million in 2018/19 and growing in future years. This is subject to approval from IPART.

· Maintaining a working capital target of $5 million in 2018/19, this is maintained at 5.5% of operating expenses (excluding depreciation).

· S94 Contributions Plan Projects totalling expenditure from S94 reserves of $273.9 million over 10 years. These works are included in the Plan on the proviso that future asset sales will be made to fund the estimated funding gap of projects that require a co-contribution from Council. ($9m over 10 years).

· Delivery of a total capital works and other major projects program over 10 years totalling almost $597M (at future prices). Some significant projects included in this and delivered within the next 10 years are:

- Implementation of Koola Park Master Plan

- Putarri Reserve

- Implementation of St Ives Village Green Master Plan

- Lindfield Village Green

- Lindfield Village Hub

- Turramurra Community Hub

- Construction of St Ives Showground Regional Play Space

- Construction of new park at Duff Street & Allan Avenue, Turramurra

The full list of capital and operating projects proposed for the next three years is provided in the Draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2018 -2019.

Social Considerations

The Community Strategic Plan (CSP) sits above all other Council plans and policies. The purpose of the CSP is to identify the community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future and plan strategies to achieve them.

The Resourcing Strategy has been developed to implement strategies to achieve the long term objectives established in Council’s Community Strategic Plan – Our Ku-ring-gai 2038.

Environmental Considerations

The Resourcing Strategy supports the continuation of the SRV for the Environment (Environmental Levy). Council has resolved to make a separate application to IPART during 2018/2019.

Community Consultation

Varied and extensive community consultation engagement has been undertaken in preparing the suite of IP & R documents.

In October 2017, Council endorsed the Community Consultation Strategy, which has been used during the development of the IP & R documents.

Specific community engagement was undertaken throughout 2017/18, which has now been incorporated into the Resourcing Strategy.

The Resourcing Strategy and component documents will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, and input from the community will be sought, considered and reported back to Council in June 2018.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on the legislative requirements of Integrated Planning & Reporting applicable to all NSW councils. They have also been briefed on the development of all Integrated Planning & Reporting documents, including the Resourcing Strategy.

Consultation has taken place between Strategy and Environment, Community, Operations and Corporate departments in the preparation of the Resourcing Strategy.

Summary

Following a local government election all councils in New South Wales are required under the Local Government Act 1993, to prepare a suite of documents that form the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework. These documents include;

· The Community Strategic Plan;

· The Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· The Resourcing Strategy.

The Resourcing Strategy includes the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Strategy which are integrated documents.

The Resourcing Strategy is Council’s commitment to show how it will allocate resources to deliver the objectives and strategies identified in the Community Strategic Plan (CSP).

The Resourcing Strategy will assist with Council’s future financial planning and provide an indication of the annual funding requirements as indicated in the long term financial plan.

The completion of the Resourcing Strategy validates Council’s commitment to improving our financial sustainability, asset management and workforce practices and processes.

The development of the Resourcing Strategy has been informed by community consultation, surveys and general feedback on policy and program delivery.

It is recommended, that the Resourcing Strategy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days, and that following the consultation a report will be brought back to an ordinary meeting of Council in June 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

A. That the report on Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy be received and noted.

B. That the draft Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

C. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Resourcing Strategy 2018 – 2028, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, the Asset Management Strategy and the Workforce Strategy.

Deborah Silva

Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

Jennie Keato

Manager People and Culture

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇨	Draft Resourcing Strategy 2018-2028	Excluded	2018/118423
	A2⇨	Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2018-2028	Excluded	2018/118956
	A3 ⇨	Draft Asset Management Strategy 2018-2028	Excluded	2018/118315
	A4 ⇨	Draft Workforce Management Strategy 2018-2028 - public exhibition	Excluded	2018/117968

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.3 / 56

Item GB.3	FY00382/10
	13 April 2018

Draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Draft Operational Plan 2018-2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To place Council's draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, on public exhibition.

background:	The development of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan has been informed by many factors that relate to the strategic direction of the Community Strategic Plan, a range of policies and strategies, fees and charges, prioritisation of capital works projects, standards for the delivery of services and income from external sources.

comments:	This Delivery Program identifies its term achievements for the next three (3) years along with an annual Operational Plan which identifies the tasks and actions to be undertaken by the Council during the first year of the Delivery Program.

recommendation:	That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, as amended, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

Purpose of Report

To place Council's draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, on public exhibition.

Background

· the Community Strategic Plan;

· the Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· the Resourcing Strategy.

These plans are developed concurrently with the other plans of the IP&R framework.

The Delivery Program is the point where the community’s strategic goals are systematically translated into actions. These are the key activities to be undertaken by the Council to implement the strategies established by the Community Strategic Plan within the resources available under the Resourcing Strategy.

The Delivery Program is a statement of commitment to the community from each newly elected Council. In preparing the Delivery Program, the Council is accounting for its stewardship of the community’s long term objectives, outlining what it intends to do towards achieving these goals during its term of office and what its priorities will be.

It is designed as the single point of reference for all principal activities undertaken by the Council during its term of office. This Delivery Program is a three (3) year program that details the key activities to be undertaken by Council to implement strategies established by the Community Strategic Plan (CSP). Whilst the Operational Plan details the activities to be engaged during the year, annual budget and is essentially an annual sub-plan of Delivery Program.

The development of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan has been informed by many factors that relate to the strategic direction of the Community Strategic Plan, a range of policies and strategies, fees and charges, prioritisation of capital works projects, standards for the delivery of services and income from external sources.

As part of the preparation of these documents, they must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback.

Comments

Attachment A1 provides a copy of the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program. This has been developed to mirror the six (6) themes contained in the Community Strategic Plan and include:

· Community, People and Culture

· Natural Environment

· Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

· Access, Traffic and Transport

· Local Economy and Employment

· Leadership and Governance

The Delivery Program identifies its term achievements for the next three (3) years along with an annual Operational Plan which identifies the tasks and actions to be undertaken by the Council during the first year of the Delivery Program.

Organisational performance will measured through performance indicators under each theme, and these have been developed to provide qualitative and quantitative information back to the community.

As required by legislation, the Delivery Program and Operational Plan also contain the income (revenue) and budget for the Council over the coming year. This incorporates the various services and projects to be delivered.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L3.1 - The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.

L3.1.1 - Council’s integrity and operation effectiveness is continually being improved through its leadership, decision-making and policies.

L3.1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting documents and complete all statutory reporting required under the Local Government Act and Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Governance Matters

Section 404 of the Local Government Act, 1993 requires Council to prepare a Delivery Program to implement the strategies established in its Community Strategic Plan, within the resources available identified under the Resourcing Strategy.

Section 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993 requires Council to have an Operational Plan which details the activities to be engaged in by the Council during the year as part of the Delivery Program. The Operational Plan must include a statement of the Council’s revenue policy for the year covered by the Plan and include statements and particulars required by the regulations.

The Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines and Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual provide comprehensive tools which have been used in the development of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Risk Management

The draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019 must be informed by the Community Strategic Plan and follow the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council has a statutory obligation to prepare a Delivery Program and Operational Plan, and for them to be placed on public exhibition, for community feedback to be considered and for the plans to be adopted by 30 June 2018. The Program and Plan must detail the activities to be engaged in by the Council during the year and must include how the Council will raise and expend its resources.

Financial Considerations

Financial summary

Ku-ring-gai Council is in a sound financial position. The 2018-19 budget provides for an operating surplus of $27 million after allowing for the depreciation expense on Council’s $1.169 billion portfolio of largely depreciable assets such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. If capital grants and contributions are excluded, the operating result remains in surplus, with a result of $7.78 million. This is consistent with Council’s long term financial plan which provides a framework to achieve continued operating surpluses.

The Operating Surplus contributes to Council’s capital works program. In 2018-19 the capital works program is $59.23 million. Details of the capital works program for 2018-19 can be found under separate Attachments.

Council’s long term financial plan and budget ensures that Council maintains adequate liquidity. This is demonstrated by the Unrestricted Current Ratio, for which the industry benchmark of greater than 1.5:1 is considered to be “Satisfactory” and greater than 2:1 to be “Good”. Council’s budget maintains a “Good” Unrestricted Current Ratio that is greater than 2:1.

Council’s 2018-19 budget provides for loan capital repayment of $1.54 million. The outstanding loan is discharged by revenue from general revenue and future net revenue generated from leasing out the investment property at 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

Council collects s.94 contributions from developers to help pay for new infrastructure and facilities for the growing population of the area. Some of the works to be undertaken in the s.94 plan cater for the existing population and these works require a co-contribution from Council’s general funds. Some contributions will also be derived from development partners for the major local centre projects. The works programmed to be undertaken over the next year are shown below:

Council’s total Rates income is “pegged” by the State Government and approval must be obtained for increases above this amount (known as Special Rates Variations).

In the 2018-19 budget the projected Rates income is $63 million. This amount includes the permanent existing Special Rates Variations for Infrastructure and the continuation of the Environmental Levy.

A summary of Council’s Funding Statement for the next three years is provided below:

Budget principles

Council’s budget for 2018-2019 is developed using the 10 Year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). The LTFP principles and financial sustainability tests applied in developing next year’s budget and future financial planning are outlined in Council’s Resourcing Strategy. In summary these are:

1. maximise funds available for projects to renew infrastructure;

2. satisfy applied tests of financial sustainability; and

3. a borrowing and loan repayment strategy.

The draft 2018-2019 budget has been developed to ensure that the LTFP financial targets are met and maintained in the future.

Major assumptions of the 2018-2019 budget include:

· CPI of 2.4% applied;

· the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved rate pegging increase of 2.3%;

· no price increase for domestic waste charges;

· fees and charges increased by an average of 2.4%;

· interest on investments estimated at 2.9%;

· employee costs increase of 3.4%;

· capital works and operational projects program of $64.8 million; and

· Section 94 revenue plus interest of $21.2 million transferred to externally restricted reserves and expenditure of $37.1 million from these reserves.

Rating structure 2018-2019

Each year the NSW Government approves a maximum percentage increase in the total income a council can receive from rates, known as the ‘rate-peg’. The rate peg for 2018-2019 has been determined by IPART at 2.3% and this percentage increase has been applied to Council’s rates.

Ordinary General Residential and Business Rates, plus the special ‘Infrastructure – Primary Rate’ together represent the total notional rates income of Council excluding the rates received from the two special rate variations. The rates structure represented in the table below divides this amount into the Ordinary Rates (59%) and ‘Infrastructure – Primary Rate’ (41%).

Under this rates structure, Council will grant a voluntary pensioner rebate (in addition to the Statutory Rebate) of 8.5% of the total rates and charges. This voluntary rebate will apply to pensioners who are eligible for the Statutory Rebate.

Rates structure including rate peg increase of 2.3%

The details of rates levied for the 2018/19 will be as follows:

Stormwater management charge

The stormwater management service charge for 2018-2019 is levied under Section 496A of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

The charges have been set in accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill 2005 and for 2018-19 are as follows:

Strata/Company titled residential home units: $12.50 per unit

Other residential property: $25.00 per rateable property

Business rateable property: $25.00 per 350 square metres of land area (a maximum charge of $1,500.00 applies to land area greater than 21,000 square metres).

Strata/Company titled business units: A minimum of $5.00 or the relevant portion of the maximum annual charge that would apply to the land subject to the strata scheme if it were a parcel of land subject to the Business rateable property charge.

Waste management charge – for business properties

The waste management charge for 2018/2019 is levied under Section 501 of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

Council’s annual waste management charges include a charge for waste management per business service provided. Upon request, a 120L waste bin to be emptied weekly will be provided. In 2018/2019 this charge will be $270 per service.

The charge for aged care/nursing homes rated as business properties will be $270 per service. The service is:

· equivalent of 120 litres of waste per service per week; and

· equivalent of 120 litres of recycling per service per week.

Domestic waste management charge

Sections 496 and 504 of the Local Government, Act 1993 (as amended) require councils to make and levy an annual charge for the provision of domestic waste (DWM) service for each parcel of rateable land for which the service is available, ensure that the cost of providing the service is met by the charge and that the charge is reasonable for the services provided. A council cannot use income from its ordinary rate towards the cost of providing DWM services.

Charges for 2018 -2019 are shown below:

Note: For Aged Care/Retirement villages rated as Residential Properties, charge is applied per service as follows:

• base service without green waste plus $152.50 (being 50%) for each additional service – 1 x bed self-care unit; and

• base service without green waste plus $76.25 (being 25%) for each additional service – 1 x bed fully serviced hostel room.

Note: For Aged Care/Retirement villages exempt from rating, charge is applied under Section 496(2) per service as follows:

• base service without green waste plus $152.50 (being 50%) for each additional service – 1 x bed self-care unit; and

• base service without green waste plus $76.25 (being 25%) for each additional service – 1 x bed fully serviced hostel room.

Fees and charges schedule for 2018 - 2019

The draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan includes a range of proposed increases to current fees and charges in 2018-2019. Underlying these is the draft pricing methodology in relation to fees and charges which are not prescribed by legislation. The pricing methodology seeks to ensure Council recovers its costs in delivering of services, while also allowing for fees and charges to be discounted, where appropriate, in recognition of Council’s community service obligations.

Council’s Fees and Charges have been increased where appropriate. Fees that have not been subject to an annual increase include Statutory and Regulatory Fees, Section 94 Contributions and those where it was not commercially viable to do so. Attachment A2 provides the 2018-2019 draft Fees and Charges Schedule.

Compliance levy

A compliance levy of 0.20% of the development cost or Capital Investment Value of a proposed development will be introduced and charged on each development application. With the increase in population and development in the area, there are greater demands on Council to ensure compliance with legislation. There is also an expectation in the community that Council officers are available to take effective action and ensure that the environmental performance of all development in Ku-ring-gai is enhanced.

Social Considerations

The Community Strategic Plan sits above all other Council plans and policies. The purpose of the Community Strategic Plan is to identify the community’s vision, long term objectives and priorities for Ku-ring-gai’s future and plan strategies to achieve them.

The draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan have been developed to progress, during this Council’s term, the long term objectives contained in the Community Strategic Plan and achieve Council’s strategies and term achievements.

Environmental Considerations

The Delivery Program & Operational Plan details specific community objectives and organisational tasks required through the continuation of the SRV for the Environment (Environmental Levy). A separate application will be made to IPART during 2018/2019.

Community Consultation

Varied and extensive community consultation engagement has been undertaken in preparing the suite of IP & R documents.

In October 2017, Council endorsed the Community Consultation Strategy, which has been used during the development of the IP & R documents.

Specific community engagement was undertaken throughout 2017/2018, which has now been incorporated into the draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan.

The draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, and during this period input from the community will be sought, considered and reported back to Council in June 2018.

It is the responsibility of Council to consider all submissions made during the exhibition of the draft plan and program prior to adopting the plan. The feedback received during the exhibition period will be reported back to Council and make recommendations accordingly.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on legislative changes and Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements for all NSW Councils. They have also been briefed on the development of all Integrated Planning & Reporting documents, including the draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan.

Consultation has taken place across the entire organisation in preparation of the draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan, and in developing the performance measures, establishing base line data and targets.

Summary

· the Community Strategic Plan;

· the Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· the Resourcing Strategy.

The Delivery Program is the point where the community’s strategic goals are systematically translated into actions. These are the key activities to be undertaken by the council to implement the strategies established by the Community Strategic Plan within the resources available under the Resourcing Strategy.

The Delivery Program is a statement of commitment to the community from each newly elected council. Whilst the Operational Plan details the activities to be engaged during the year, annual budget and is essentially an annual sub-plan of Delivery Program.

As part of the preparation of these documents, they must be placed on public exhibition for a period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback.

It is recommended, and required by legislation, that the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, be place on public exhibition for 28 days, and that following the consultation a report will be brought back to an ordinary meeting of council in June 2018.

Recommendation:

A. That the report on Council’s draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, be received and noted.

B. That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019, as amended, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days commencing Friday, 11 May 2018.

C. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the draft Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2018-2019.

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Co-ordinator

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accountant

Deborah Silva

Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇨	Draft Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2018-2019	Excluded	2018/119256
	A2⇨	Draft Fees & Charges 2018/2019 - Public	Excluded	2018/116175

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.4 / 68

Item GB.4	S11862
	10 April 2018

Easy to do Business program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To provide Councillors with background information about the Easy to do Business program, and to seek Councillor support to enter into an agreement with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business program.

background:	Service NSW developed the Easy to do Business program to support business by removing barriers to make it faster and easier to start, grow and run a small business. The program was developed and piloted in 2016 with Parramatta Council, and further trials were conducted with Northern Beaches and other Councils. The program is being rolled out in over 100 local government areas in NSW, including Hornsby, Willoughby and North Sydney. The program has scope to benefit both the local business community and Council, with minimal financial cost.

comments:	As a member of the Small Business Friendly Councils Program, Council actively seeks new opportunities to support local businesses. Council became aware of the Easy to do Business program last year, and is now investigating program participation to better support cafés, small bars and restaurants to start and grow in Ku-ring-gai. Internal staff discussions indicate support to join the program which will benefit both Ku-ring-gai businesses and Council.

recommendation:	That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into a contract with Service NSW to participate in the Easy to do Business program.

Purpose of Report

Background

Service NSW developed the Easy to do Business program to support business by removing barriers to make it faster and easier to start, grow and run a small business. The program was developed and piloted in 2016 with Parramatta Council, with further trials with Northern Beaches and other Councils. The program being rolled out in over 100 council areas in NSW, including Hornsby, Willoughby and North Sydney. The program has scope to benefit both the local business community and Council, with minimal financial cost.

The program is a free service for business owners that offers:

· personalised support and step-by-step guides tailored specifically for business,

· ‘How-to Guides’ online information to help businesses understand government licensing, approvals and regulations, and

· online tools and support tools

The program tackles the time, complexity and duplication issues faced when starting or growing a business in NSW, and cuts red tape allowing businesses to focus on running the business rather than dealing with bureaucracy.

In turn, the program offers numerous benefits to Council:

· no cost to sign up and participate

· high-quality, 'decision ready' applications – reducing transition costs and increasing productivity

· supports delivery of Council’s strategic objectives of boosting the local economy and enabling employment growth

The roll out of the Easy to do Business program is a staged process, with each phase focusing on a particular industry sector. Stage One (the current phase) covers cafes/restaurants and small bars. Benefits to the sector are quickly being realised:

Previously, cafes, small bars and restaurants would have to deal with up to 13 agencies, 75 regulations, up to 30 phone numbers and complete 48 forms, taking as long as 18 months to navigate. This program has seen this reduced to one digital application and one phone number, reducing the opening time for businesses to 90 days.

The initiative will provide a customer, who wishes to set up a café, restaurants or small bar, with a single point of contact within Service NSW who will help them navigate all the required approvals to operate the business, including registering the business, obtaining an ABN, and the required Council approvals.

Service NSW is currently working with business and government stakeholders to identify the focus for next phase of the Easy to do Business program, following the completion of Phase One - cafés, small bars and restaurants.

Comments

Council has participated in the NSW Small Business Friendly Councils (SBFC) program since 2016. This program provides the opportunity for participating councils to implement programs that support small business, share resources and information with other participating councils and promote this to the local business community.

Because of this initiative, Council is already working closely with the business community, providing a broad ranging program of business engagement and training, while actively promoting other local business groups (including Chambers of Commerce), to support the local economy and boost employment.

As a member of the SBFC, Council actively seeks new opportunities to support local businesses. Council became aware of the Service NSW Easy to do Business program last year, and is now investigating full program participation to better support cafés, small bars and restaurants develop and grow in Ku-ring-gai.

The NSW Small Business Commissioner, Ms Robyn Hobbs, and representatives from Service NSW attended a meeting in Ku-ring-gai Council Chambers with the Mayor and staff on 7 December 2017 outlining the benefits of the program, and seeking Ku-ring-gai Council’s support to become members of the program.

A subsequent meeting between staff and a representative from Service NSW was held in February 2018 to further explore the program and its possible implementation in Ku-ring-gai. The meeting concluded that the program could work well in Ku-ring-gai and this view was supported by the General Manager and Directors meeting on 6 April 2018.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 5: Local Economy and Employment

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
Ku-ring-gai’s business community, government agencies and regional partners are working in an effective and integrated way to strengthen and develop Ku-ring-gai’s local economic base.	Participate in and initiate regional programs that will broaden economic employment opportunities for Ku-ring-gai residents.	Actively engage with local and regional business stakeholders including Chambers of Commerce (Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Ryde, Warringah, Chatswood), NSW Business Chamber and Office of the NSW Small Business Commissioner, and Economic Development Australia's training and events programs to broaden economic employment opportunities for Ku-ring-gai residents.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s business community, government agencies and regional partners are working in an effective and integrated way to strengthen and develop Ku-ring-gai’s local economic base.

Participate in and initiate regional programs that will broaden economic employment opportunities for Ku-ring-gai residents.

Actively engage with local and regional business stakeholders including Chambers of Commerce (Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Ryde, Warringah, Chatswood), NSW Business Chamber and Office of the NSW Small Business Commissioner, and Economic Development Australia's training and events programs to broaden economic employment opportunities for Ku-ring-gai residents.

Governance Matters

There are no significant Governance implications associated with the Easy to do Business program. A formal agreement between Council and Easy to do Business would be developed and authorised by the General Manager. Council would continue to undertake all assessments as per appropriate legislation.

Risk Management

No immediate risks in participating in the Easy to do Business program have been identified.

Financial Considerations

There are no significant financial implications for Council as participating in the program is free. All support material, training and advice is provided by Service NSW at no cost. Implementation of the program should lead to reduced processing times and costs relating to applications to Council.

Social Considerations

This program will support local employment opportunities by giving potential business investors more confidence that Council supports small business through actively reducing the costs and red tape associated with small business start-up.

Environmental Considerations

There are no significant environmental considerations associated with this report.

Community Consultation

Community consultation was not required for this report, however the Easy to do Business program has been supported within the business and economic development sector.

Internal Consultation

Relevant staff and senior managers from Strategy and Environment, Development and Regulation, Corporate and Community have been consulted on the Easy to do Business program.

Summary

Service NSW developed the Easy to do Business program to support business by removing barriers to make it faster and easier to start, grow and run a small business. The program was developed and piloted in 2016 with Parramatta Council, with further trials with Northern Beaches and other Councils. The program is being rolled out in over 100 local government areas in NSW, including Hornsby, Willoughby and North Sydney.

Internal staff discussions and limited discussions with local businesses indicate support for joining the program which will benefit both Ku-ring-gai business and Council.

This report recommends Council enter into a contract with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business program.

Recommendation:

A. That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into a contract with Service NSW for the Easy to do Business initiative.

B. That Council delegate authority to the Mayor and General Manager to execute any necessary documents under the Common Seal of Council.

William Adames

Community & Business Engagement Co-ordinator

Virginia Leafe

Manager Corporate Communications

Janice Bevan

Director Community

Attachments:

Easy to do Business overview presentation

2018/098909

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.5 / 73

Item GB.5	S07306/2
	17 April 2018

Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To provide Council with the draft Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy following review and update, and to seek Council approval to place the updated draft policy on public exhibition.

background:	The initial Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Lands and Facilities, adopted in 2010, set the requirements and expectations for use and management of community and recreational facilities, infrastructure and land owned by, or under the care control and management of Ku-ring-gai Council.

comments:	The updated Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Facilities (2018) will continue to ensure fair equitable and maximum access to Council’s community assets for community and sporting groups. The updated policy also complies with current legislation, relevant Plans of Management and related Council policies.

recommendation:	That Council endorse the updated draft Policy for the Management of Community and Recreation Facilities for public exhibition, with a report detailing any comments received to come back to Council following the exhibition period.

Purpose of Report

Background

The initial Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Land and Facilities, adopted in 2010, set the requirements and expectations for use and management of community and recreational facilities, infrastructure and land owned by, or under the care control and management of Ku-ring-gai Council (Council’s Community Facilities).

Comments

The updated draft Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy (2018) (Attachment) covers a broad range of organised activities undertaken by individuals and user groups who access and utilise Council’s community facilities. These groups include the general public, community groups and social clubs, sporting clubs, childcare services, industry groups, businesses and commercial users, and religious and government organisations.

The policy ensures fair, equitable and maximum access to Council’s facilities and complies with current legislation, Plans of Management and Council policies.

The policy addresses the following agreements:

• lease hold agreements

• licence agreements

• temporary access agreements

• seasonal allocations

• casual or permanent bookings

• one-off or casual hire arrangements

• contracts for provision of services

Lease and licence agreements are available for long term uses only. The granting of a lease or licence over a facility on community land, the conditions of the lease or licence, and the potential uses of a facility, are set down in the relevant Plans of Management.

The Local Government Act states:

A Council may grant a lease or licence of community land, but only in accordance with Section 46 and (if relevant) section 47 NSW Local Government Act 1993.

In accordance with this policy, Council may offer a rebate to sporting groups of up to 80% and to frontline community groups, a rebate of up to 90%. The rebate is intended to support community groups in providing services in Council owned facilities. An updated Level of Subsidy matrix has been developed as an appendix to this policy to ensure financial support is provided on a fair and equitable basis.

The updated policy also addresses the following:

· Priorities of Hire – simple definitions of the hire priorities are included in the policy

· Leases and Licences will take priority over all other agreements – casual hire is offered for any remaining times

· Organised Activity – a new category in the policy

· Simplifying agreements – giving options in the types of agreements will give greater flexibility in a user group and Council selecting the best option

· Fee Waivers – eligibility guidelines have been updated for fee waivers

· Permanent hire rate for community and commercial hire of community facilities

· Licence and lease holders may receive concessions via the Rental Rebate structure which includes a revised matrix for determining subsidies

integrated planning and reporting

Community People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C1.1

An equitable and inclusive community that cares and provides for its members.

C1.1.1

Council’s policies, programs and advocacy address the social and health needs of all age groups, reduce disadvantage and address gaps in service provision.

Develop partnerships with the community and key stakeholders to deliver community programs.

C1.1.2

Access has increased for communities that face barriers to using social services and facilities.

Develop and implement programs that respond to community needs and address a range of accessibility issues and alleviate social isolation.

C4.1

A community that embraces healthier Lifestyle choices and practices.

C4.1.2

New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.

Develop and implement sports programs in co-operation with local sporting clubs and providers.

Governance Matters

Dealings over Council’s Community Facilities must be in accordance with applicable legislation and Plan(s) of Management and associated Council policies. In all dealings, Council’s position as either landowner or land manager must be identified in order to ascertain applicable legislative provisions.

Risk Management

The draft policy provides for impartiality, transparency, accountability when hiring and leasing Community land and facilities.

The revised draft policy sets out the framework, responsibilities and processes for Council and officers to account for, and to manage the use of and access to Council’s community facilities.

Financial Considerations

Council’s community facilities should be effectively managed to ensure optimal utilisation, cost recovery, and alignment to Council’s strategic objectives.

All invoicing and accounts are established pursuant to Council’s adopted Fees and Charges or as approved by Council for Leases and Licences and managed in accordance with the procedure and relevant finance policies.

Should a service demonstrate a level of financial capacity, and not require the continued support of Council to deliver their services, there is provision within the policy to manage the level of rebate offered through a transparent assessment process.

Social Considerations

Community buildings play a vital role in providing spaces that are essential in improving social cohesion and quality of life for residents and community groups. Council facilities offer access for a range of groups from educational and cultural to micro businesses, to safe and secure space for meetings and celebrations.

Likewise, Council’s sporting facilities provide opportunities throughout the community for volunteering, social interaction and organised healthy activities and competitions.

The range of user groups is extensive and varied. They include ratepayers and the general public, community groups and social clubs, sporting clubs, childcare services, industry groups, businesses and commercial users, and religious and government organisations.

This policy addresses the broad range of organised activities of individuals and user groups who access and utilise Council’s Community Facilities. To balance community needs and revenue opportunity, Council’s community facilities should be effectively managed to ensure optimal utilisation, cost recovery, and alignment to Council’s strategic objectives.

Environmental Considerations

There are no specific environmental considerations relating to the adoption of this draft policy.

Community Consultation

The revised draft policy will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993.

At the conclusion of the public exhibition period a further report will be submitted to Council detailing any submissions received.

Internal Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with the General Manager and Director’s group, managers across Council departments and staff involved in dealing with leases and licences.

Similar policies from other Councils have also been considered in the review of this draft policy.

Summary

The original Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Land and Facilities was adopted in 2010.

It is timely to review and update the original policy to ensure it complies with current legislation, relevant Plans of Management and Council policies.

The updated draft Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy (2018) sets the requirements and expectations for use and management of community and recreational facilities, infrastructure and land owned by, or under the care, control and management of Ku-ring-gai Council.

The draft policy also sets out the framework, responsibilities and processes for Council and officers to account for, and to manage the leasing and licencing of Council’s property assets.

This report recommends the updated draft Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Facilities be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993.

At the conclusion of the public exhibition period a further report will be submitted to Council detailing any comments received.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorse the draft Policy for Management of Community and Recreation Facilities and approve the draft policy for public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993.

B. That a further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition process.

Mark Taylor

Manager Community & Recreation Services

Janice Bevan

Director Community

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - Draft Management of Community and Recreation Facilities Policy

2018/118951

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.6 / 78

Item GB.6	S05273
	23 April 2018

Investment Report as at 31 March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 2018.

background:	Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to March 2018 was $3,652,000 against a budget of $2,925,000 giving a YTD favourable variance of $727,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for March 2018 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

Purpose of Report

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 2018.

Background

Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Comments

Investment Portfolio Performance Snapshot

The table below provides the investments portfolio performance against targets identified in Council’s Investment Policy as well as other key performance indicators based on industry benchmarks.

Cumulative Investment Returns against Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to March 2018 was $3,652,000 against a budget of $2,925,000 giving a YTD favourable variance of $727,000 including S94 contributions. Furthermore, Council has gained a higher rate of return than budgeted.

The total return on investments for the month of March is provided below.

A comparison of the cumulative investment returns against year to date budget is shown in the Chart below.

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of March 2018 was $175,427,000 compared to $178,959,000 at the end of February 2018, a net cash outflow of $3,532,000. The cash outflow was mainly due to creditors payments.

Four investments have matured in March 2018, two new investments were purchased during the month.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmarks

Overall during the month of March the investment performance was well above the industry benchmark. The benchmark is specific to the type of investment and the details are provided below.

· AusBond Bank Bill Index is used for all Council’s investments

Table 1 - Investments Performance against Industry Benchmarks

Table 2 below provides a summary of all investments by type and performance during the month.

Attachment A1 provides definitions in relation to different types of investments.

Table 2 - Investments Portfolio Summary during March 2018

Investment by Credit rating and Maturity Profile

The allocation of Council’s investments by credit rating and the maturity profile are shown below:

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

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Governance Matters

Council’s investments are made in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states:

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

(a) must provide the council with a written report (setting out details of all money that the council has invested under section 625 of the Act) to be presented:

(i) if only one ordinary meeting of the council is held in a month, at that meeting, or

(ii) if more than one such meeting is held in a month, at whichever of those meetings the council by resolution determines, and

(b) must include in the report a certificate as to whether or not the investment has been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the council’s investment policies.

(2) The report must be made up to the last day of the month immediately preceding the meeting.

Risk Management

Council manages the risk associated with investments by diversifying the types of investment, credit quality, counterparty exposure and term to maturity profile.

Council invests its funds in accordance with The Ministerial Investment Order.

All investments are made with consideration of advice from Council’s appointed investment advisor, CPG Research & Advisory.

Financial Considerations

The budget for interest on investments for the financial year 2017/2018 is $3,890,700. Of this amount approximately $2,606,800 is restricted for the benefit of future expenditure relating to development contributions, $661,400 transferred to the internally restricted Infrastructure & Facility Reserve, and the remainder of $622,500 is available for operations.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Certification - Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government General Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Summary

As at 31 March 2018:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $175,427,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to March 2018 was $3,652,000 against a budget of $2,925,000, giving a YTD favourable variance of $727,000.

Recommendation:

A. That the summary of investments and performance for March 2018 be received and noted.

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

Investments definitions specific to Council’s investment portfolio

2016/124274

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.8 / 89

Item GB.8	S11437
	1 March 2018

Consideration of the submissions on the planning proposal for several heritage conservation areas in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 (KLEP LC 2012).

background:	A planning proposal was prepared to include several heritage conservation areas for KLEP 2015 and the KLEP LC 2012. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 15 September 2017 and 23 October 2017. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition.

comments:	A total of 258 submissions were received during the public exhibition of the panning proposal. The submissions have been reviewed and the planning proposal has been revised.

recommendation:	That Council proceeds with a heritage listing for several revised heritage conservation areas.

Purpose of Report

Background

On 26 November 2013 Council resolved to place 14 potential heritage conservation areas on non-statutory exhibition. This was a peer review of the areas reviewed by Paul Davies Pty Ltd in 2010. These reviewed HCAs were exhibited from 7 March 2014 to 7 April 2014. This work was undertaken by Heritage Consultants Sue Jackson-Stepowski Pty Ltd, Carste Studios and John Oultram.

On 26 November 2013, members from the Pymble community addressed Council regarding the heritage significance of Pymble. Council resolved to seek quotations from a heritage consultant to undertake a further heritage review of Pymble.

Perumal Murphy Alessi Pty Ltd were engaged to undertake this review. On 26 May 2015 Council resolved to place this review of the Pymble East and West HCAs on exhibition.

These were exhibited for a non-statutory period from 5 June 2015 to 3 July 2015.

On 6 December 2016 Council resolved to prepare and submit a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) for Gateway Determination to include several heritage conservation areas on schedule 5 and the Heritage Map of KLEP 2015 and KLEP LC 2012. The Department issued a Gateway Determination to allow exhibition on 2 May 2017.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 15 September 2017 and 23 October 2017. Owners were notified by a letter that included a map of the affected area and brochure briefly explaining the proposal, the process and the community’s opportunity to make comment. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition.

Comments

Heritage conservation areas conserve the heritage values of an area, rather than a particular item. These are areas in which the historic origins and relationships between various elements create a cohesive sense of place that is worth keeping. These elements can include the buildings, gardens, landscape, views and vistas.

In undertaking the heritage conservation area review, Council is acknowledging the unique and valuable heritage character of Ku-ring-gai. Those areas which are recommended by this report represent the best heritage streetscapes within Ku-ring-gai. The determining factors in assessing which heritage conservation areas should be included in the Ku-ring-gai Principal Local Environmental Plan include:

· Cultural significance – as assessed by the heritage consultant Architectural Projects Pty Ltd. This assessment reviewed the intactness of heritage conservation areas that were previously recommended by the 2006 study Housing in NSW Between the Wars prepared for the National Trust (NSW) by Robertson and Hindmarsh and/ or the Godden Mackay Logan Urban Conservation Area studies (2001-2005).

· Submissions – issues raised in the submissions are addressed in Attachments A1 to A14. The pubic submissions covered a variety of topics including support or objecting against the findings of the HCA review, factual corrections, concerns regarding incorrect assessment of contributory values and the financial impacts of inclusion in a heritage conservation area.

· Proximity to gazetted Heritage Conservation Areas – where the proposed HCA is adjacent to an existing HCA the extension completes and/or further conserves those conservation areas already gazetted.

· Other planning considerations under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plans and associated Development Control Plans, including issues such as the management of fire prone areas and interaction with interface zones of areas with medium or high residential density.

Common themes from the community submissions

Council received 258 community submissions for the heritage conservation area peer review, several of these were duplicates sent by mail and electronically: 189 submissions were against the proposal and 23 submissions were for the proposal, the rest were unclear or did not express a for-or-against opinion. A summary of the submissions for each heritage conservation area can be found in Attachments A1 to A14.

Common themes from the submissions were:

Implications of inclusion in a heritage conservation area

There are both costs and benefits to inclusion in a heritage conservation area, both to the individual and to the community. Protecting a conservation area has the benefit of conserving for current and future generations the aesthetic and social qualities which give the area its cultural value and make it a great place to live. Other benefits include certainty as to the types of development that occur in a conservation area. The character of the area is required to be retained; therefore development which is out of character or out of scale to the area is unlikely to gain development approval. New dwellings and demolitions in conservation areas are not complying development for the purpose of the Exempt and Complying Development Codes. As such these developments would require development applications and be the subject of neighbour notification, giving the community opportunity to comment on development in their local area. Heritage items or places within heritage conservation areas that are deemed as meeting the criteria for being heritage restricted under section 14G of the Valuation of Land Act, 1916 may be eligible for a heritage restricted valuation for the purposes of land tax.

Restrictions that result from inclusion in a heritage conservation area include additional development controls such as additions being located to the rear and not visible, or at the least not visually dominant, from the street. Demolition for new builds on contributory sites may not be supported. Additional storeys on single storey buildings are generally not supported. Lot subdivision or amalgamation may not be supported. Rendering and painting of original face brick and other previously unpainted surfaces is not permissible. Development applications may need to include a heritage impact statement prepared by a heritage professional recognised by the NSW Heritage Office. As stated previously, it is recommended Council undertake a review of how its requirements and practices can reduce the administrative costs of heritage listing.

Ku-ring-gai Council does run a heritage home grant program. Owners of contributory buildings wanting to undertake conservation works are eligible to apply. Last year grants were given for roof repairs, window restoration and face-brick repointing. Applicants can apply for up to $5,000 based on a $ for $ allocation

Support for protecting the local area from increased residential density

Several submissions inferred that Council’s creation of heritage conservation areas was a bid to protect large areas from rezoning for increased residential density. The study areas were originally defined in the 1996 study Housing in NSW Between the Wars prepared for the National Trust (NSW) by Robertson and Hindmarsh. Several of these areas, known as Urban Conservation Areas, were reviewed by the consultants Godden Mackay Logan between 2001 and 2005. The Godden Mackay Logan studies provided statements of significance, detailed histories and refined boundaries for the Urban Conservation Areas they reviewed. Those conservation areas assessed by Godden Mackay Logan as being of cultural significance were included in draft Local Environmental Plans and referred to the Department of Planning for review and gazettal. These LEPs were not gazetted. There has been a long history at Ku-ring-gai and a desire expressed by the community for the creation of heritage conservation areas to protect Ku-ring-gai’s unique garden suburbs. The up zoning of low density residential areas and the loss of heritage has been of concern to many residents in these areas. The outcome of creating heritage conservation areas will be to conserve Ku-ring-gai’s local heritage. The aim of the heritage conservation area is to identify and conserve the best heritage streetscapes within Ku-ring-gai, it is not a mechanism to stop development

Impact on house prices from reduced demand

It was a large concern from the majority of objectors that inclusion within a heritage conservation area would reduce house prices as fewer people would be interested in buying these properties, therefore reducing demand and reducing price. There are many factors affecting house prices in Sydney however demand to live in premium suburbs with access to schools and public transport (particularly the train line) remains strong. Suburbs such as Wahroonga and Roseville who have many individual listings and heritage conservation areas still achieved record prices for house sales following heritage designation. However, this is an observation and understanding the effect of change on prices requires modelling and statistical assessment.

A summary of studies reviewing the impact of heritage listing on house prices can be found in Attachment A15. While the results of these studies vary it has been generally found that locational factors such as proximity to schools and public transport, and household attributes such as number of bedrooms and car parking spaces have a greater influence on price than heritage listing.

Objection to blanket listing

The “blanket” approach as referred to in several submissions is consistent with heritage practice across NSW where areas with historical significance that have many contributing elements are given protection to ensure their conservation into the future. Non-contributing elements are included as they fall within this boundary and their unmanaged change could have a negative impact on the heritage values of the contributing elements. No area is without change. Change is an inevitable consequence of time. Inclusion within the boundary of the HCA will mean that future change will be managed to conserve and enhance the HCA. Inclusion within a HCA does not mean a property is now preserved and nothing will ever change again, it means that future changes will need to have consideration for conserving the heritage values that contribute to the overall significance of the heritage conservation area.

The National Trust (NSW) study Housing in NSW Between the Wars 1996 prepared by Robertson and Hindmarsh

The earliest conservation area review of Ku-ring-gai was undertaken by Robertson and Hindmarsh in 1996 and reported in the study Housing in NSW Between the Wars prepared for the National Trust (NSW). The areas of heritage significance identified by Robertson and Hindmarsh were known as Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs). These Urban Conservation Areas were the focus of subsequent heritage conservation area reviews. The reviews are as follows:

· Between 2001 and 2005 several of these Urban Conservation Areas were reviewed by the consultants Godden Mackay Logan. The Godden Mackay Logan studies provided statements of significance, detailed histories and refined boundaries for the Urban Conservation Areas they reviewed. Due to state government policy at the time none of these areas were gazetted.

· In 2008 Paul Davies Heritage Consultants further reviewed those Urban Conservation Areas located within the Town Centres boundaries. As a result of this work 14 Heritage Conservation Areas were gazetted on 25 May 2010.

· Between 2009 and 2010 the areas outside the Town Centres were assessed by Paul Davies Pty Ltd (areas north of Ryde Road and Mona vale Road) and Architectural Projects (areas south of Ryde Road and Mona Vale Road). From these assessments a further 28 heritage conservation areas were gazetted on 5 July 2013.

· Between 2013 and 2018 a further 3 heritage conservation areas have been gazetted in separate planning proposals.

The difference between the Robertson and Hindmarsh report and all the heritage conservation area assessments in Ku-ring-gai that followed is the Robertson and Hindmarsh did not undertake individual assessments of the contributory values of the buildings within their recommended conservation areas. Instead their assessment highlighted areas that had known subdivisions and development “between the wars” and was not an assessment of intactness of the built historical layer of the key development periods.

A heritage conservation area is more than a pattern drawn on a map and translated into a property boundary. In Ku-ring-gai it is the history of settlement and change and tells an important story of how the people in Ku-ring-gai lived in the past and how they live now. In Ku-ring-gai a heritage conservation area demonstrates the relationship between heritage landscapes and the historic built environment in response to socio-demographic and population change. Where significant change has occurred and the historic layer has been lost or compromised, a potential conservation area may have lost its integrity and no longer reach the threshold for inclusion as a statutorily recognised heritage conservation area.

The work by Robertson and Hindmarsh was highly valued for its time and moving forward provides an important framework for research and understanding. Best practice heritage today requires that there be a level of intactness to understand the historical layers. This is not just buildings but also landscape and other cultural values. For these reasons merely being in the historic Urban Conservation Area is not reason enough for inclusion. This report and the heritage reports undertaken by consultants for Ku-ring-gai endeavours to understand the level of intactness and the history of change to include those areas that best represent the history and heritage of Ku-ring-gai.

Review of the maps and proposed HCAs

Following the exhibition period Council staff reviewed the submissions and then once again reviewed the proposed heritage conservation areas taking into consideration the information gleaned from the submissions, changes on the ground (demolitions and/or new developments including alterations and additions) and Council held records (such as historical photographs, Council reports, property files and development applications).

Below is a summary of the Council officer’s recommendation for each heritage conservation area. Further information for each of the heritage conservation areas can be found in Attachments A1 – A11 which includes comments, summary of submissions, revised ratings and revised mapping.

Summary of heritage conservation area recommendations

Type (new/extension)	Proposed name	#	LEP	Consultant	Recommendation
Extension	Mahratta Conservation Area	C4	KLEP	John Oultram	Proceed Extension to existing Mahratta Conservation Area (C4)
New	Gilroy Road Conservation Area	C42	LCLEP	SJS and John Oultram	Proceed amended
Extension	Hillview Conservation Area	C40	LCLEP	SJS	Not proceed
New	Mona Vale Road Conservation Area	C43	KLEP	SJS and PMA	Not proceed
New	Telegraph Road Conservation Area	C44	LCLEP	SJS	Proceed amended Telegraph Road Conservation Area (C44)
New	Lanosa Estate Conservation Area	C45	KLEP	SJS	Not Proceed
New	Athol Conservation Area	C46	LCLEP	PMA	Proceed amended. Athol Conservation Area (C46)
Extension	Pymble Heights Conservation Area	C8A and C8B	KLEP and LCLEP	PMA	Not Proceed
Extension	Fern Walk Conservation Area	C9	KLEP	PMA	Not Proceed
New	West Pymble Conservation Area	C11A and C11B	KLEP and LCLEP	PMA	Proceed amended Extension to Pymble Avenue Conservation Area (C11)
Extension	Orinoco Conservation Area	C10A and C10B	KLEP and LCLEP	PMA	Not Proceed

Maps of the heritage conservation areas recommended to proceed can be found at Attachment A16.

Mahratta Conservation Area - Wahroonga (C4 extension)

The Mahratta Conservation area extension is recommended to proceed unamended. The contribution ratings for the buildings in the proposed extension of Mahratta did not change as a result of the submissions. The majority of submissions were objections. The issues raised included the lack of heritage significance, the impact of change and the effect on house prices. The extension to the Mahratta HCA is recommended to proceed. The historic houses contribute to the understanding of Federation and Inter-war development of Fox Valley Road and provide important context to Mahratta.

Gilroy Road Conservation Area – Turramurra (C42)

The Gilroy Road Conservation Area (C42) is recommended to proceed with changes. The key development period is as an early Inter-War, ‘garden estate’ aesthetic demonstrated by smaller buildings on allotments with sizeable backyards and space for cars to park adjoining dwellings. Regular shaped and sized allotments containing single storey cottage style dwelling houses either in Federation style or Inter-War/bungalows predominate. Modifications have occurred over time including painting of brickwork and side carports; however the overall original building form and style remain legible. It is considered that the identified areas of Gilroy Road and Eastern Road demonstrate historic and aesthetic heritage values and should be listed as a Heritage Conservation Area with amended boundaries as detailed in this report.

Hillview Conservation Area – Turramurra (C40 extension)

The Hillview Conservation Area extension is not recommended to proceed. The peer review recommended an extension of the existing Hillview Heritage Conservation Area. The two contributory properties to be added are from the Federation period, 2 Kissing Point Road being a single storey Queen Anne style Federation house and 1362 Pacific Highway being a two storey house in the Federation style. Both houses are being adaptively reused for businesses. While both buildings have contributory values in their forms, scale and setbacks, both buildings have some change.

The land on which they are located is zoned B2 Local Centre. The DCP reviewed these sites and set development controls for new development that responds to the context of the heritage items on Pacific Highway while making a positive contribution to future development on the master-planned Town Centre sites (see Activate Turramurra). Objecting submissions expressed the opinion that heritage listing would contravene the objectives of the B2 zoning and by extension the Sydney District Plan and s.117 Ministerial Directions. The front of several buildings from 1356-1362 Pacific Highway have been zoned SP2 Classified Road. Given the opportunity the site presents to the Turramurra local centre, and the future potential compromise of the SP2 zoning, it is recommended the extension not proceed.

Mona Vale Road Conservation Area - Pymble and Gordon (C43)

The Mona Vale Road Conservation Area Pymble and Gordon (C43) is not recommended to proceed. The area displays a range of residential properties of different ages and styles, however the impacts of Mona Vale Road have greatly impacted on its legibility and level of intactness. It is noted that the street contains many excellent examples of residential development, however a significant proportion of these are already listed as individual heritage items. On balance, it is considered that as a whole Mona Vale Road does not meet the threshold for listing as a heritage conservation area.

Telegraph Road Conservation Area - Pymble (C44)

Telegraph Road Conservation Area Pymble (C44) is recommended to proceed with changes. Telegraph Road’s importance as a transport route dates back to the area’s early development as a timber getting location and it remains an important transport link to this day. Telegraph Road retains many significant examples of high quality, architect designed residential development reflecting the historical trend of wealthy Sydney residents seeking refuge from the more crowded inner urban areas. It is considered that Telegraph Road demonstrates historic, aesthetic and historical association heritage values and should be listed as a Heritage Conservation Area with amended boundaries detailed in this report.

Lanosa Estate Conservation Area - Pymble (C45)

The Lanosa Estate Conservation Area Pymble (C45) is not recommended to proceed. The streets contain a mix of building styles, forms and building materials. Inter-war building styles dominate but there are also examples of 1950s and 1960s dwellings, as well as more recent project home developments. A significant proportion of original properties have undergone substantial changes over time and no longer present in their original forms or retain their original fabric. This has significantly undermined the heritage values of the area and, consequently, the area is not considered to meet the threshold for listing as a heritage conservation area.

Athol Conservation Area – Pymble (C46)

The Athol Conservation Area is recommended to proceed as an amended and reduced conservation area. Based upon submissions and review of Council held information, the rating of several properties in this draft HCA were changed to neutral. The western side of the HCA is recommended to proceed. The houses on this side include the heritage items Athol (19 Athol Street) and Claverton (3-5 Alma Street). The houses date from the 1890s through to the 1950s. The inclusion of the Athol Conservation Area will contribute to the heritage values and the setting of existing Park Estate Conservation Area.

Pymble Heights Conservation Area – Pymble (C8A and C8B extension)

The extension to the Pymble Heights Conservation Area is not recommended to proceed. Several of the ratings were changed due to unsympathetic additions including second storeys and demolition rebuilds. Given the small size of these potential extensions to the Pymble Heights Conservation Area these few changes had a large impact on the significance of these streetscapes. The area does have character in terms of the gardens and the streetscape but does not read as an intact heritage area.

Fernwalk Conservation Area – Pymble (C9 extension)

This extension to the Fernwalk Conservation Area is not recommended to proceed. In this relatively small extension the ratings on five houses changed from contributory to neutral, the main reason being unsympathetic additions and loss of design integrity. The predominance of neutral properties has undermined the heritage significance of the area and the area is not recommended to proceed,

West Pymble Conservation Area – Pymble (C11A and C11B)

The wider area of West Pymble Conservation Area was rejected as a potential HCA due to the predominance of neutral properties in large clusters and the large number of submissions who believed this to be an “unjustified blanket listing”. It was agreed that the large areas of neutral properties did not warrant inclusion within a heritage conservation area. Instead several potential small HCAs were reviewed and reassessed more closely where clusters of contributory buildings were indicated on the exhibited map. As a result of this reassessment it is recommended that the Pymble Avenue Conservation Area( C11) be extended to include 65-77B Pymble Avenue. This extension includes development from the 1930s through to the 1960s. This is considered an important period of development with a further subdivision to existing lots. One of the more recent builds is an exceptional example of the work of renowned architect Russell Jack.

Orinoco Street Conservation Area (C10A and C10B)

The exhibited map of this extension to the Orinoco Street Conservation Area rated all the properties as neutral and all of these properties were battle-axe lots. These properties, following review, remained neutral. This area is not recommended to proceed as there is no gain to the HCA from the inclusion of historical buildings. This extension to the conservation area is not recommended to proceed.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Strategies, Plans and Processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions

Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans

Governance Matters

This report addresses issues of heritage protection in line with Council’s recently gazetted LEPs. The process for the preparation and implementation of the Planning Proposal to implement the new Heritage Conservation Area is governed by the provisions contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Council was issued with plan-making delegation under Section 2.4 (previous s23) of the EP&A Act 1979 to finalise the Planning Proposal.

Risk Management

This report provides the level of detail and the justification, including preliminary community consultation

Financial Considerations

The costs associated with this matter are covered by the Strategy and Environment Department, Urban and Heritage Planning budget.

Social Considerations

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council local government area will be identified and protected.

Environmental Considerations

Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist Council in meeting this requirement.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was exhibited from 15 September 2017 until 23 October 2017. It was advertised on Council’s website and in the North Shore Times and Hornsby Advocate. Postcards announcing the public exhibition were hand-delivered to the affected properties and letters were sent and hand-delivered to the owners of affected and adjacent properties inviting submissions.

In some cases Council staff undertook additional site inspections of the proposed heritage conservation areas with the local residents to enable staff to fully comprehend their submissions.

The recommendations by Council officers were also considered by Council’s Heritage Reference Committee. There were no objections raised to the recommendation. One member did request Council revisit Fox Valley Road Wahroonga (area outside the exhibited HCA) for consideration as a heritage conservation area and expressed their support for the inclusion of the extension to the Hillview HCA.

A member of the HRC has raised concerns about the extent of Gilroy Road and Eastern Road proposed for inclusion within the HCA and has recommended that the boundaries be extended to include additional properties. The exhibited HCA boundaries were approved for progression under the Gateway determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment. Therefore, this report cannot include matters outside of these areas. This matter can be further reviewed and referred back to the Heritage Reference committee.

Internal Consultation

This report has been referred to the relevant sections of Council and the Heritage Reference Committee for comment.

Summary

This report considers the community submissions to a planning proposal to list eleven additional heritage conservation areas in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon. Based on the submissions and further heritage assessment five conservation areas are recommended to proceed.

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolves to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the amended heritage conservation areas as identified in Attachment A16 in Schedule 5 and the Heritage Map of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

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

C. That those who made a submission be notified of Council’s resolution.

Andreana Kennedy

Heritage Specialist Planner

Maxine Bayley

Strategic Planner Heritage

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Assessment - Extension to Mahratta Conservation Area (C4)	2018/106010
	A2	Assessment - Gilroy Road Conservation Area Turramurra (C42)	2018/107105
	A3	Assessment - Extension to Hillview Conservation Area Turramurra (C40)	2018/105690
	A4	Assessment - Mona Vale Road Conservation Area Pymble and Gordon (C43)	2018/105960
	A5	Assessment - Telegraph Road Conservation Area Pymble (C44)	2018/105955
	A6	Assessment - Lanosa Estate Conservation Area Pymble (C45)	2018/105958
	A7	Assessment - Athol Conservation Area Pymble (C46)	2018/106311
	A8	Assessment - Pymble Heights Conservation Area (C8A & C8B)	2018/106566
	A9	Assessment - Fernwalk Conservation Area Pymble (C9)	2018/105446
	A10	Assessment - West Pymble Conservation Area (C11A & C11B)	2018/106991
	A11	Assessment - Orinoco Conservation Area (10A and 10B)	2018/107040
	A12	Submission summary table - West Pymble and Orinoco	2018/108327
	A13	Submission summary table - subject is all HCAs	2017/334722
	A14	Submission summary table - HCA Not Specified	2017/343501
	A15	Attachment: Brief literature review of the effect of designation on area on house prices	2018/109311
	A16	Maps with recommended boundaries	2018/115925

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.9 / 100

Item GB.9	S09742
	1 February 2018

Rezoning 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase (former East Roseville Bowling Club)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to rezone the former East Roseville Bowling Club at 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to permit R3 Medium Density Residential development.

background:	47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase, is currently zoned for public recreation purposes, and the site was previously used a Bowling Club. Due to declining membership and increasing maintenance costs the club terminated their lease with Council and have vacated the property.

comments:	The sites future use under the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning is not considered the highest or best use of the site. The co-ordinated and orderly use of the land would be best facilitated preparing a Planning Proposal to rezone the site to permit medium density residential development. There is sufficient strategic and site specific merit for the rezoning of the site to proceed.

recommendation:	That Council prepares a Planning Proposal to 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to R3 Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2015.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to rezone the former East Roseville Bowling Club at 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase to permit R3 Medium Density Residential development.

Background

Description of the Site

The former bowling club is located at the northern end of Warrane road, Roseville Chase near Babbage Road. Surrounding development compromises detached residential dwellings.

The site known as 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase comprises 4 lots with a total area of 10,110 sqm.

· Lot33 DP 3285 - 3,844 m²

· Lot32 DP 3285 -3,844 m²

· Lot 3 DP26343 - 1,766 m²

· Lot B DP403780 - 656m²

On June 28 June 2017 The East Roseville Bowling Club Limited advised Council that they proposed to relocate to the Lindfield Bowling Club at 2b Carlyle Rd, Lindfield on a date after 13 October 2017 and that East Roseville Bowling Club Limited terminates its lease with the Ku-ring-gai Council and will vacate the property on 31 December 2017.

The key reasons for the Club vacating the property were;

· membership age profile and reduction in numbers;

· workload of a few members;

· operational difficulties with fewer and aging membership;

· likelihood of future financial difficulties and leasehold risks; and

· opportunity to merge with Lindfield Bowling Club;

Former Roseville Bowling Club House

View of Central Bowling Green facing north-west

Zoning

The site is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Comments

A Planning Report for 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase sets out the justification and implications for a Planning Proposal for proposed amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone from the current site from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential is included at Attachment A1.

The key points from the Planning Report are outlined below.

The current RE1 Public Recreation zoning is not considered the highest or best use of the site. The co-ordinated and orderly use of the land would be best facilitated by rezoning to the land to permit medium density residential development.

Consistency with strategic planning framework – The Planning Proposal for the proposed rezoning the site is consistent with the following objectives from strategic planning documents, including Council’s Community Strategic Plan, the Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities and the North District Plan, as follows:

· increase housing supply;

· housing choice and diversity;

· housing affordability; and

· integrating land use and transport.

Increased housing supply - Rezoning to medium density meets objectives relating to the delivery of housing supply and contributes towards the additional 92,000 new homes required in the North District from 2016-2036. The rezoning will increase the amount of land available for redevelopment in an existing urban area, increasing local housing supply.

Housing choice and diversity - Currently, most new homes built in NSW fall into two categories – either a traditional free standing house or apartments. Almost 75% of all dwellings in Ku-ring-gai are traditional free standing houses, which is much higher than the Greater Sydney average of 55%. Ku-ring-gai also has a significantly lower proportion of medium density dwellings than the Greater Sydney average. Rezoning to medium density residential provides housing choice which better meets the needs of Sydney’s changing population by providing a broader range of housing options to suit different lifestyle needs.

Housing affordability – Medium density housing, such as townhouse style development, provides an alternative and more affordable housing choice, when compared to a free standing home.

Integrating land use and transport - The site is well located in terms of access to jobs, services and public transport, consistent with the objective of a 30min city. The site is in reasonable proximity – 2km to the Roseville local centre which provides access to shops and services, and in close proximity to buses to the Northern Beaches, Chatswood and North Sydney.

Open Space Assessment

Council’s Open Space Acquisition Strategy (OSAS) establishes the principles and priorities for acquiring open space. An assessment of the subject site against the OSAS has been undertaken in Attachment A1. The review concludes when assessed against the principles and criteria under the OSAS, the subject site (or part of) is not a suitable location for a park because:

· the site is located in a priority 6 zone which is a low level priority;

· the site is very well served by parks; and

· a park on the site would duplicate and conflict with the facilities currently provided in Malga Reserve.

Potential Contamination

A stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation has been undertaken on the sites by Alliance Geotechnical March 2018. A number of areas of environmental concern (AEC) were identified for the site:

· these AEC may present an unacceptable exposure risk (in the context of land contamination) for future land use settings; and

· the site could be made suitable (from a land contamination perspective) for future land use settings, subject to further assessment of the identified AEC, and management / remediation of potentially unacceptable contamination risks (if warranted).

Zoning

The site is not identified as a Heritage item nor located in a heritage conservation area. There are no heritage items or HCAs in the vicinity of the site. The property is not identified on Council’s Bush Fire Prone Lands Map.

The property does not contain any areas of Biodiversity Significance under the KLEP 2015 Biodiversity Map. A small section of the south-western portion of the site is identified is identified under KLEP 2015 - Greenweb Mapping with the identification minor area of Canopy Remnants. This is associated with the adjoining residential properties to west.

Under Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 (Schedule 4) the site is identified as Operational Land.

It is recommended that Council rezones the whole site to R3 – Medium Density Residential and divests the whole site with the funds being used for asset renewal and replacement and capital works scheduled in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. This option will provide the best financial outcome for the broader Ku-ring-gai community.

integrated planning and reporting

Places Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

C6.1.1 Council’s planning approach to the provision of housing across Ku-ring-gai addresses the supply, choice and affordability needs of the community.

Analyse and monitor Council land holdings available for potential development.

Monitor housing choice in Ku-ring-gai local government area.

Governance Matters

Planning Proposal

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

Should the site be rezoned, any future divestment would be subject to a separate report and resolution of Council, and would be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

Risk Management

The former bowling club site is now vacant and Council has an opportunity to consider the rezoning of the site to a higher and better use. Rezoning will also assist in provision of additional housing supply and choice for Ku-ring-gai and allow funds to be recycled into areas identified in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Financial Considerations

Cost of preparing the Planning Proposal and associated studies covered by the Urban Planning, Strategy Department Budget (but will be capitalised against sale of the asset in the future). The rezoning of 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase and any future divestment will assist Council to effectively manage its financial position to meet community expectations for renewal and replacement of assets.

Social Considerations

The rezoning of 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase will assist with providing additional housing supply and improved housing choice (townhouses) for Ku-ring-gai. This is consistent with Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

Environmental Considerations

A Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation has been undertaken for the subject site which notes that there may be contamination present as a result of past land use activities, including uncontrolled demolition, uncontrolled filling, application of herbicides/pesticides and chemical storage. The report concludes that the site could be made suitable (from a land use contamination perspective) for future land use settings, subject to further assessment, management and remediation.

Community Consultation

If the Planning Proposal proceeds to a formal Gateway Determination, consultation with the relevant State Agencies and with the community will be undertaken - including a notification period (28 days) to all residents in the catchment of the site, notification in the local press and on Council’s website.

Following the conclusion of the exhibition period, the submissions will be assessed and the final draft Planning Proposal reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation with other Departments of Council (where relevant) has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Summary

47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase, is currently zoned for public recreation purposes, and the site was previously used a bowling club. Due to declining membership and increasing maintenance costs the club terminated their lease with Council and vacated the property.

The future use under the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning is not considered the highest or best use of the site.

The co-ordinated and orderly use of the land would be best facilitated by preparing a Planning Proposal to rezone the site to permit medium density residential development. There is sufficient strategic and site specific merit for the reclassification and rezoning of the site to proceed.

Recommendation:

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared in accordance the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rezone 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential and apply floor space ratio development standard of 0.8:1, height of buildings of 11.5m and minimum lot size of 1200sqm.

B. That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Gateway Determination.

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

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Planning report - 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase

2018/115706

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.10 / 108

Item GB.10	S11955
	21 February 2018

Reclassification and Rezoning - 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon - former Gordon Bowling Club

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to reclassify and rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon, the site of the former Gordon Bowling Club.

background:	The site has historically been used by Gordon Bowling Club, which, due to declining membership terminated their lease with Council and vacated the property in early 2018.

comments:	The site is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation. The site’s future use under the current zoning is not considered the highest or best use of the site. Nor is the site considered an appropriate location for more intensive recreation uses. Reclassifying and rezoning the site is consistent with the objectives relating to increasing housing supply, housing choice and housing affordability within strategic planning policies and plans such as Council’s Community Strategic Plan, the Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities, and the North District Plan.

recommendation:	That Council prepares a Planning Proposal to rezone part of the land at 4 Pennant Ave, Gordon (Lot Y DP387680) to R3 Residential Medium Density and reclassify the site from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’. It is recommended that Lot X DP387680 retain the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning and ‘community’ classification, allowing for this lot to be categorised as a Natural Area, providing for the retention of the trees and open space for passive recreation.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider a Planning Proposal to reclassify and rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon, the site of the former Gordon Bowling Club.

Background

Description of site and use

The site is located at the eastern end of Pennant Avenue, Gordon. The site is situated approximately 250m west of the Pacific Highway, Gordon. The site is irregular in shape, with a main frontage to Pennant Avenue, and a pedestrian access handle to the north of the site providing access to Bushland Avenue, Gordon (between numbers 18 and 22 Bushlands Avenue).

The site has a combined area of 12,838sqm. The site comprises:

· Lot X DP387680 – 1638sqm

· Lot Y DP387680 – 1.12ha

Lot X DP387680 contains trees and vegetation identified as Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, and asphalt entrance and exit driveways to the carpark.

Lot Y DP387680 contains the former clubhouse, asphalt carpark, 3 bowling greens, greenkeepers storage shed and pedestrian access handle to Bushlands Avenue.

The site was occupied by the former Gordon Bowling Club, which leased the site from Council. In 1953 the club was granted a 50 year lease to use the land. On 15 August 2017 Gordon Bowling Club Limited advised Council that they wished to terminate the lease with Council and vacate the property in early 2018. The key reason for the club terminating the lease and vacating the site was declining membership.

The site is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Comments

A detailed Planning Report which sets out the justification and implications for a Planning Proposal for proposed amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to reclassify the site from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ and to rezone from the current zoning of RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential is included at Attachment A1. Some of the key matters are summarised below:

Objectives and Intended Outcomes – To rezone the site to facilitate future development for multi dwelling housing. This could involve the following options:

Option 1

· Reclassify part of the site being Lot Y DP387680 from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’;

· Rezone part of the site being Lot Y DP387680 from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential;

· Apply a floor space ration of 0.8:1;

· Apply a maximum height of buildings of 11.5m;

· Retain the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning and ‘community land’ status on part of the site being Lot X DP387680.

This option allows for the retention of Lot X DP 387680 as community land, allowing for the Lot to be categorised as a Natural Area – Bushland under the Local Government Act 1993, providing for the retention of the trees and open space for passive recreation.

Option 2

· Reclassify the whole site being both Lot X DP387680 and Lot Y DP387680 from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’;

· Rezone whole site from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential;

· Apply a floor space ratio of 0.8:1;

· Apply a maximum height of buildings of 11.5m.

Need – The site’s future use under the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning is not considered the highest or best use of the site. The co-ordinated and orderly use of the land would be best facilitated by reclassifying the site to ‘operational land’ and rezoning to medium density residential to provide greater housing choice while still being compatible with the surrounding context and built form.

Consistency with strategic planning framework – the Planning Proposal for the proposed amendments to reclassify and rezone the site is consistent with the following objectives from strategic planning documents, including Council’s Community Strategic Plan, the Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities and the North District Plan, as follows:

1. Increase housing supply - Rezoning to medium density meets objectives relating to the delivery of housing supply and contributes towards the additional 92,000 new homes required in the North District from 2016-2036. The rezoning will increase the amount of land available for redevelopment in an existing urban area, increasing housing local housing supply.

2. Housing choice and diversity - Currently, most new homes built in NSW fall into two categories – either a traditional free standing house or apartments. Almost 75% of all dwellings in Ku-ring-gai are traditional free standing houses, which is much higher than the Greater Sydney average of 55%. Ku-ring-gai also has a significantly lower proportion of medium density dwellings than the Greater Sydney average. Rezoning to medium density residential provides housing choice which better meets the needs of Sydney’s changing population by providing a broader range of housing options to suit different lifestyle needs.

3. Housing affordability – Medium density housing, such as townhouse style development, provides an alternative and more affordable housing choice, when compared to a free standing home.

4. Integrating land use and transport - The site is well located in terms of access to jobs, services and public transport, consistent with the objective of a 30min city. The site is in close proximity – 600m walking or 400 as the crow flies - to Gordon local centre which provides access to shops and services, and Gordon Station providing access to trains and buses to Hornsby, Chatswood, Macquarie Park, St Leonards and the Sydney CBD.

Excerpt Google Maps – Proximity to Gordon town centre and station

Open Space – The need to provide open space for passive recreation is recognised within Gordon, and Ku-ring-gai as a whole. Council’s Open Space Acquisition Strategy has been prepared to establish a series of principles for acquisition of land for local parks within priority areas. The priority areas are generally around the local centres and along the main road corridors where there is limited existing parkland and where new development is increasing the local population.

The Open Space Acquisition Strategy (OSAS) establishes principles and priorities for acquiring open space in Ku-ring-gai. An assessment of the subject site against the OSAS has been undertaken in Attachment A1. When the site is assessed against the principles and criteria under the OSAS, the subject site it is not considered suitable as a park primarily due to limited access and visibility as well as contamination risk.

Council is committed to providing additional open space within Gordon, and Ku-ring-gai as a whole. Council has been actively acquiring land over the past 10 years for parkland in Wahroonga, Turramurra, St Ives, Killara, Lindfield and Gordon. A total of 20,000sqm of land has been purchased and much of this converted to new parklands. Council will continue to acquire sites that are better suited for the provision of open space needs for the community. There is a standing resolution of Council to convert the Gordon Golf Course to a regional park in the mid 2020’s when the current Golf Club lease concludes.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 – Community, People and Culture – C6 Housing Choice and Affordability

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

C6.1.1 Council’s planning approach to the provision of housing across Ku-ring-gai addresses the supply, choice and affordability needs of the community.

Analyse and monitor Council land holdings available for potential development.

Monitor housing choice in Ku-ring-gai local government area.

Governance Matters

Reclassification - Public land is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as any land vested in, or under Council control. Public land is managed under the Local Government Act 1993 based on its classification. All public land must be classified as either ‘community land’ or ‘operational land’.

Community land- is land Council makes available for use by the general public, for example, parks, reserves or sports grounds. Community land must not be sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed by Council.

Operational land – is land which facilitates the functions of Council, and may not be open to the general public, for example, a works depot. An operational classification permits Council to sell, exchange or grant an interest to another party in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

Reclassification of the site would be subject to the local plan making processes in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the public land management requirements in the Local Government Act 1993.

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

Divestment - Should the site be reclassified and rezoned, any future divestment would be subject to a separate Council Resolution, and would be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

Risk Management

The former Gordon Bowling Club site is now vacant, and Council has an opportunity to consider the rezoning of the site to a higher and better use. Rezoning will assist in the provisions of additional housing supply, and provide greater housing choice for Ku-ring-gai.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing the Planning Proposal and associated studies is covered by the Urban Planning Strategy Department budget and capitalised against the asset for disposal.

The reclassification and rezoning of 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon will allow Council to effectively manage its financial position to meet community expectations for projects and service delivery, particularly in the context of Council’s ”Roadmap to Sustainability”.

Social Considerations

The site is well located in terms of access to public transport and services. The site is located in close proximity to Gordon local centre providing access to retail and services, and Gordon Station. There are educational and recreation facilities close by. The increase in residential density on the site will have access to facilities shared by the local community and is not anticipated to result in significant change in the demand of infrastructure.

Rezoning the site to medium density residential will assist in the provision of additional housing supply and greater housing choice for Ku-ring-gai.

Environmental Considerations

The site is identified as containing areas of Biodiversity Significance and Riparian Lands under the KLEP 2015.

Community Consultation

Planning Proposals to reclassify public land are required to be publically exhibited for at least 28 days. Community Consultation will occur following a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning.

Council must hold a public hearing when reclassifying land from community to operational. The public hearing is chaired by an independent chairperson.

Internal Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with the relevant internal sections of Council where required for this report.

Summary

4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon is currently zoned for public recreation purposes, and the site has been historically utilised by the Gordon Bowling Club. Due to declining membership, the club terminated their lease with Council and vacated the property in early 2018.

The site’s future use under the current RE1 Public Recreation zoning is not considered to be the highest for best use of the site. The co-ordinated and orderly use of the site would best be facilitated by reclassifying the site to ‘operational land’ and rezoning to medium density residential to provide greater housing supply and choice while still being compatible with the surrounding context and built form.

When the site is assessed against the principles and criteria under the Open Space Acquisition Strategy, the subject site is not considered suitable as a park, primarily due to limited access and visibility as well as contamination risk.

It is recommended that Option 1 be the preferred option for the Planning Proposal.

There is sufficient strategic and site specific merit for the reclassification and rezoning of the site.

Recommendation:

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared in accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 for part of 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon being Lot Y DP387680 to:

1. rezone Lot Y DP387680 from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential;

2. apply floor space ratio development standard of 0.8:1, height of buildings of 11.5m and minimum lot size of 1200sqm;

3. reclassify Lot Y DP387680 from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ and formally seek to extinguish all necessary interests that apply to the land.

D. Public access being maintained through to Bushlands Avenue..

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

Alexandra Plumb

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Planning Report - 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon

2018/113079

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.11 / 115

Item GB.11	S10840
	11 January 2018

Lindfield Village Green

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on negotiations with TfNSW regarding funding for commuter parking spaces, advise on potential funding options available to Council for a 3 Level basement design, update on the Development Application for a third underground level of parking at the Lindfield Village Green (LVG) and approve the preparation and submission of a Capital and Expenditure Review to the NSW Office of Local Government.

background:	The LVG project converts an at-grade carpark to an underground carpark creating a new “Village Green” for Lindfield. Development approval for the current two level design was granted on 17 October 2017 by the Sydney North Planning Panel. At its meeting of 14 November 2017, Council in part, resolved: A. Council amends the project design to incorporate three (3) levels of parking including a minimum of 136 short stay spaces. ……….. D. A further report be brought back to Council in early 2018 outlining: i. outcomes of negotiations with TfNSW including implications on basement design; ii. A report on funding options for a modified design to include a minimum of 136 short term parking spaces.

comments:	Documentation of the three (3) level basement design has been carried out by specialist consultants in order to progress cost estimates and a Development Application has been lodged to facilitate a third level. Discussions have been held with TfNSW with a view of agreeing a Heads of Agreement regarding funding of the commuter spaces.

recommendation:	That Council notes the progress of the three (3) level basement design and approves additional funds for this amendment to the project and that a Capital Expenditure Review be prepared for referral to the Office of Local Government.

Purpose of Report

Background

The Lindfield Village Green (LVG) project was conceived by the need to provide public open space within the Lindfield Local Centre. As the cost of buying numerous individual parcels of land in the area to create a large lot were prohibitive, it was considered that the best use of Council’s S94 funds was to convert an existing at grade carpark into an underground carpark with a new village green at street level. The 2010 Contributions Plan was specifically worded to facilitate this approach. Following community consultation and a design competition, a winning concept design was chosen by Council at its meeting of 23 June 2015.

As part of an iterative process this concept design was then tested and further developed to become the ‘final concept design’ which Council resolved to support at its meeting of 23 August 2016. This design then became the basis of the current Development Application (DA) which was unanimously approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 17 October 2017.

At its meeting of 14 November 2017, Council resolved the following:

A. Council amends the project design to incorporate three (3) levels of parking including a minimum of 136 short stay spaces.

B. The General Manager or his delegate be authorised to continue negotiations with TfNSW with a view to finalising an agreement for the delivery of commuter car spaces on the LVG site separate to any provided on the Lindfield Hub. Any commuter car parking funded by TfNSW is to include a component of land value and the additional capital and operational costs are to be fully funded by TfNSW.

C. Funding options for a third basement level to be placed on the agenda for the 27th November Councillor Briefing

D. A further report be brought back to Council in early 2018 outlining:

i. outcomes of negotiations with TfNSW including implications on basement design;

ii. A report on funding options for a modified design to include a minimum of 136 short term parking spaces

E. That Council endorses the investigation of paid parking as a funding mechanism and parking management solution across all the local centre projects.

This report responds to Items A, B, C & D. Item E is to be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Comments

This report addresses the investigations into the additional funding sources required for increased short-term parking as well as updating Council on negotiations with TfNSW on funding for commuter parking within the LVG project.

Vehicle parking numbers

The existing at grade car-park has 135 short stay spaces. The approved DA provides for 80 short stay and 100 long stay car spaces over two levels of basement. The shortfall of 55 short stay spaces within the site was to be made up on the surrounding streets by converting existing unmarked long stay spaces to timed, short stay spaces in accordance with strategic Council policy.

The approved design provides for two levels of basement parking which can accommodate the following number of car parking spaces:

	B1	B2	Total
Short Stay	80	-	80
Commuter (long-stay)	-	100	100
			180

By providing a third level of basement car parking, the following parking spaces are now achieved:

	B1	B2	B3	Total
Short Stay	81	55	-	136
Commuter	-	20	85	105
				241

Potential additional funding sources

As per the requirements of clause 3.11 of The Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, Council is required to assess the cost of land acquisition versus the cost of underground car park construction, that is, based on cost alone, would it be cheaper for Council to purchase residential land in a nearby location for a park rather than construct the Village Green as proposed. This was validated in 2014 when the project was initiated. With indexing this figure is now $10,177,650. Recent valuation advice now puts this figure at $12M.

This report now seeks the increase of this component of funding to $12M.

In addition to this, a percentage of the funds from the possible pending sale of Balfour Lane property as well as the remaining funds from the sale of 9 Havilah Lane may be made available to the project. It is not intended that funding be sought from other general revenue or unrelated asset sales.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

On 20 November 2017 Mayor Anderson wrote to the Minister for Transport, the Honourable Andrew Constance MP, outlining the status of commuter parking within the Lindfield Village Green and Lindfield Village Hub projects. The letter nominated that it was now imperative to commence negotiations for funding from TfNSW allowing the provision of commuter parking spaces to be on a cost neutral basis for the Village Green project in order to progress documentation for construction. A response from Minister Constance was received on 2 January 2018 in which he supported entering into a Memorandum of Understanding for the Lindfield Hub and a funding agreement for the Village Green.

Council staff have been meeting regularly with TfNSW and have suggested that they would take on part of Level B2 and the whole of the lowest basement level (B3) for commuter car parking. Both parties have been working together on a ‘Heads of Agreement’ which outlines the terms and conditions of the final funding agreement. While the specific details of the arrangement are yet to be agreed, it is intended that TfNSW compensate Council for the up-front cost of these parking spaces along with a lease covering the ongoing maintenance costs. Negotiations have been progressing positively but are not expected to conclude until the S96 is approved and a more detailed design and costing has been completed.

Both the Heads of Agreement and the funding agreement with TfNSW will each be the subject of separate reports to Council.

Parking management

The approved DA provides (as a Condition of Consent) that ‘Any allocation of Long-term or commuter parking shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Such long term parking spaces shall be available for use by others outside these times.’ This ‘Condition’ is unacceptable to TfNSW as it is overly onerous on the timing that they anticipate the carpark will be used by commuters (such as for example hospitality and health workers) being 24 hours per day. The ‘Condition’ was deemed by the Planning Panel to be appropriate for the two (2) level design which had reduced short-stay parking spaces. However, it is considered to be unwarranted for three (3) level design which absorbs all of the existing at-grade parking within the basement.

As part of the approved DA, a further condition of consent is that Council must seek approval from the Local Traffic Committee to create a minimum of 41 on-street short-stay parking spaces after completion of works. The three (3) level design which creates a clear increase in parking numbers as opposed to the ‘like for like’ outcome achieved by the 2 level design where changes to surrounding on-street parking is required to make up numbers for the loss (in basement) of short stay parking spaces makes this condition redundant.

Therefore, the S96 seeks the removal of these two conditions.

General discussions

Based on the positive movement in negotiations with TfNSW and the requirement for cost estimates to understand the magnitude of funds required, the consultant design team were re-engaged to amended the design to include a third basement level.

S96 Application

Following the Mayoral Minute of 28 February 2017 - Lindfield Village Green additional basement level, a new cost centre was established for investigations into a third level of basement. A nominal $12,300 was placed toward this investigation. These funds have been exhausted and the total cost of the amendment of design and lodgement fees etc., will be included in a subsequent budget review. Until the DA has been determined the total cost cannot be determined. However it is anticipated that an additional $150k is required to cover the cost of amending the design.

The amended design was lodged on the 28 February 2018 and was subsequently placed on public exhibition 15 March 2018 for four (4) weeks. Consistent with Council’s decision of November 2017, no significant design changes are necessary or warranted to be made to the public domain on ground level. The design amendment is therefore largely subterranean with little impact to the surface (see discussion under Risk Management concerning lift/s and trolley management).

The application shall be determined by the Sydney North Planning Panel or by an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).

Negotiations beyond the Heads of Agreement with TfNSW

Negotiations beyond the Heads of Agreement with TfNSW can continue but are not expected to conclude until the S96 is approved and a more detailed design and costing has been completed. This process is expected to take a further six – eight months from the time of this report depending on how long assessment of the S96 takes.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure – P4 Revitalisation of our centre

Community, People and Culture – C4 Healthy lifestyles

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place.

P4. 1.1

Plans to revitalise local centre are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community

Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to co-ordinate works and achieve quality outcomes.

P4. 1.4

An improvement plan for Lindfield centre is being progressively implemented in collaboration with owners, businesses and state agencies

Engage with relevant stakeholders to establish timing, extent and partnership opportunities.

Undertake due diligence and undertake project scope.

Identify and engage with the key stakeholders.

A healthy, safe and diverse community that respects our history and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning.

C4. 1.2

New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.

Undertake acquisitions for new parks.

Undertake assessment and identify locations for new parks.

Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.

Construct parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.

Governance Matters

This project has been reported extensively to Council with a total of fourteen (14) reports to Council since 2013. The reports have addressed a broad range of matters including open space planning, project definition, project scope and budget, tenders, community engagement and concept plans and compulsory acquisition. The reports are as follows:

1. Ordinary Meeting of Council 14 November 2017 – GB.7 - Lindfield Village Green

2. Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 February 2017 – Mayoral Minute - Lindfield Village Green additional basement level

3. Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 August 2016 - GB.5 - Lindfield Village Green – Final Concept Design

4. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 May 2016 - GB.5 - Lindfield Village Green - Design Services - Request for Tender No. 07-2016

5. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2015 - GB.9 – Lindfield Local Centre – Commuter Car Parking

6. Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 June 2015 - GB.5 – Lindfield Village Green Preferred Concept Design

7. Ordinary Meeting of Council 21 April 2015 - GB.5 – Compulsory Acquisition of Roads

8. Ordinary Meeting of Council 31 March 2015 - GB.7 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

9. Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 October 2014 - GB.10 – Lindfield Village Green – Selection of Preferred Tenderers T17/2014

10. Ordinary Meeting of Council 9 September 2014 - GB.5 – Lindfield Village Green – Confirmation of Preliminary Scope of Works, Project Budget and Program

11. Ordinary Meeting of Council 7 October 2014 - GB.8 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

12. Ordinary Meeting of Council 4 April 2014 - GB.11 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

13. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 December 2013 - GB.19 - Lindfield Village Green - Tryon Road - Project Update

14. Ordinary Meeting of Council 13 August 2013 - GB.6 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

A Capital Expenditure Review is also required. This report recommends initiating this review. A final investment decision by Council would not be made until the Capex Review is complete, been reviewed by the Office of Local Government (OLG), and considered by Council.

Risk Management

Council has actively managed the key risks identified to date. Risks are summarised as follows:

Risk 1 – Council provides too much parking

There are a number of elements that contribute to the risk of over-providing parking spaces. These include:

· redevelopment of the buildings that currently rely on visitor parking in Council’s carpark (being that any new development is required to provide all generated parking wholly within its own site);

· public perception that an increase in parking numbers will worsen on-street traffic conditions;

· that Council is seen to favour one business area over another by providing parking for businesses in privately owned buildings which should have parking spaces within the buildings to service these businesses;

· that Council are seen to be encouraging cars when funds may be better spent encouraging alternative means of transport such as by proving cycle ways; and

· that future modes of transport such as car sharing, autonomous vehicles, and point to point public transport systems relieve the need and existing pressure on car parks all together.

In order to stem the eventuation of over-supply of parking spaces, it is recommended that following S96 approval and during detailed design there should be provision for adaptive re-use of one or more basement levels. Adaptive re-use might include using the space for such things as a car wash or storage facility. The detailed design should therefore include plumbing and/or conduits that can be used to facilitate such alternative uses when required.

Risk 2 - The final design exceeds the budget

Cost of the proposed work is being actively managed to ensure it stays within the project budget. Should additional funding not be available for the amended design, a paper outlining options will need to be reported to Council.

Risk 3 – Extended development assessment period may lead to an increase in the cost of

construction

There will be an impact on timing to achieve development consent due to the amended design and S96 notification and approval time. There is therefore a knock-on extension to commencement of construction. The price of construction is escalating continuously in the range of 4.8%-10% per annum and the project can therefore expect an increase in the cost of construction. Council’s available funds are not indexed at a commensurate rate, resulting in a reduction of funds over time.

Risk 4 – S96 for a third level may be refused on the basis of traffic generation

Traffic modelling concluded that all four intersections in the vicinity of the LVG project are expected to continue operating at the same satisfactory ‘Level of Service’ with 3 basement levels as with 2 basement levels. However, given that the greater road network is already operating at a critical level, there is a risk that the design providing more parking (and therefore more traffic) will not be approved or will result in the requirement for a new DA.

Risk 5 – Community is unhappy with One (1) lift

There is a perceived risk that Council (and Councillors) will receive ongoing complaints about under providing an adequate number of lifts due to prolonged wait times.

By discouraging trolleys in the lift, this risk is considerably diminished.

Risk 6 – Council reputation if the project is not delivered

Council’s reputation is not at risk from its decision to proceed with 3 levels, rather, there is a reputational risk if the project is not delivered.

Risk 7 – Ongoing negotiations with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) may delay award of the ‘Contract for construction’

Negotiations with TfNSW on the terms and conditions of a funding agreement are yet to be finalised. However, it is intended that TfNSW compensate Council for the up-front cost of commuter parking spaces along with the ongoing maintenance costs i.e. on a cost neutral basis.

Council has been acting in good faith with TfNSW by including commuter car parking in the design, carrying all design and consultation costs to date.

It is proposed to have the funding from TfNSW agreed prior to Council entering into a construction contract. It is acknowledged that it would be better from Council’s perspective to have this agreement finalised now, however there are still too many uncertainties regarding the ultimate construction cost.

Any agreement with TfNSW will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Financial Considerations

This project is identified in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan and listed in Council’s Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017. The Operational Plan 2017 – 2018 identifies funds in the Capital Works Program & Operational Projects 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/19 and 2019/2020. The current funding is generally from S94 contributions.

The project’s current budget is some $27M including upgrades to surrounding streets ($22m on the LVG project specific). It includes all contingencies, professional fees, staff time and other costs, but does not cover Operational costs over the life of the project, nor does it cover the cost of additional short-term parking (beyond 100 spaces), nor does it include the cost of commuter car spaces. This budget is indexed and with time it will be marginally different at the time of reporting the tender for construction to Council.

Should TfNSW not contribute towards the project, additional funding (both capital and operational) will need to be secured or the design modified accordingly.

This report is seeking additional funding of $150,000 to facilitate the S96 design, amendment, and lodgement fees and the increasing of the S94 land component as per Clause 3.11 of the Ku‑ring‑gai Contributions Plan to $12 million.

Social Considerations

The provision of additional community infrastructure, providing both outdoor and indoor community spaces will ensure that Lindfield Village Green becomes a vibrant and popular place to live and recreate for all ages.

Environmental Considerations

The addition of a third level of car parking arguably encourages people to drive to Lindfield instead of utilising other forms of transport such as buses, bicycles or walking. While the conversion of the existing carpark into a ‘green’ open space has obvious environmental benefits, there are no other environmental issues arising from an additional level of basement. All environmental impacts have been considered as part of the DA and are included within the approved documentation.

Community Consultation

Community engagement and consultation is an integral component of the ‘Activate Lindfield’ initiative and Lindfield Village Green project delivery. Multiple highly successful engagement activities have been undertaken since project inception in February 2014.

Engagement through the DA has indicated that a large number of the community feel that Council should provide additional underground car parking spaces. Perceived increased demand due to residential densification as well as new retail developments opened in the vicinity have given rise to concern over the shortfall between underground short-term parking spaces when compared to the existing situation.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the additional traffic generation resulting from the proposed increase in parking numbers.

The community have had their opportunity to comment on the proposal through the DA notification process.

Internal Consultation

Workshops with Council staff from Strategy and Environment, Operations, Development and Regulation, and Community Departments have been ongoing since inception of the project. The addition of a third basement level has not been part of the workshop discussions but is not considered to represent a major variation in terms of design. Rather, the major impact will be the increase in construction costs and the additional ongoing maintenance costs associated with the assets.

Summary

In August 2016 Council resolved to adopt a ‘final concept’ design for the Lindfield Village Green which was validation and refinement of the winning competition design. From the time of the project’s inception in 2014, Council has allocated funds based on one level (only) of short-stay parking.

Potential funding sources for a second level of short-stay parking plus additional operational costs have been identified as potentially coming from additional funding from Section 94 contributions and from the proceeds of the sale of Balfour Lane, and 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield.

In order to progress negotiations with TfNSW and to fully understand the implications of additional short-stay parking, documentation of the three (3) level design has been completed and a variation (Section 96) to the approved DA has been lodged. Should the S96 be approved, detailed design may be possible to commence later this year (2018) with construction starting in 2019 and completion in 2020 (calendar years).

Beyond completion of a Heads of Agreement, which will be the subject of a further report, with the finalisation of the parking numbers and construction costs, Council can finalise negotiations for capital and operational funding of the long stay (commuter) parking with TfNSW.

Recommendation:

A. That Council acknowledges the potential funding sources as identified in this report in order to finance additional short term parking spaces within the LVG basement and that the S94 component as per Clause 3.11 of the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan be increased to $12 million.

B. That a further report be brought back to Council outlining the agreed arrangements proposed in a Heads of Agreement with TfNSW.

C. That $150,000 be transferred from the 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield Proceeds Reserve to cover the costs of documenting the S96 modification.

D. That a Capital Expenditure Review be prepared and submitted to the NSW Division of Local Government.

Dean Payne

Project Manager - Major Projects

Ian Dreghorn

Manager Strategic Projects

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.12 / 125

Item GB.12	S03899
	12 March 2018

NSW Department of Education - Joint Use Project Proposal - St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on discussions and “in-principle” support with the NSW Department of Education (DoE) on the Joint Use Project Proposal for community use of the school facilities at St Ives High School. Included in this report are the findings of the St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre Feasibility Study which supports the demand and financial sustainability of the project. An Advocacy Strategy has also been provided to assist in the financial delivery of the project.

background:	Council previously resolved to enter into an “in-principle” agreement with DoE for Joint Use Project proposals at St Ives High School, Ku-ring-gai High School and the Lindfield Learning Village. As these projects are currently generally unfunded in the current or future Council budgets and all have varying attributes and costs it was considered that Council was best to prioritise the opportunities and to engage with DoE around Council’s contributions to funding. Councillors had the opportunity to attend a presentation from DoE on these projects on 20 November 2017. DoE have been advised of Council’s continued “in-principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposal at St Ives High School as its priority and that it does not wish to pursue the Ku-ring-gai High School proposal in addition to previously declined Lindfield Learning Centre project.

comments:	The proposal at St Ives High School will allow for joint use of a four court indoor sports centre. The proposal requires capital contributions from Council and at this stage, funding has not been allocated in the current or future Council budgets. A feasibility study of the indoor sports centre at St Ives High School has been completed. Whilst it shows that the centre will ultimately pay its own way, until Council’s contribution towards construction is better known the full utility of the feasibility cannot be achieved.

recommendation:	Council continues the “in principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposal at St Ives High School; endorse the attached Advocacy Strategy and notes that the as yet fully identified financial contribution will be required in the 2020 and 2021 financial years.

Purpose of Report

Background

Council at its meeting of 10 May 2016, resolved to enter into an “in-principle” agreement with the DoE for the Lindfield Learning Village for community use of various facilities on the site. Then at its meeting of 13 June 2017, Council adopted to enter into an “in-principle” agreement with the DoE for both Ku-ring-gai High School and St Ives High School for community use of various facilities on these sites.

As these projects do require capital contributions from Council and at no stage has funding been identified in current or future Council budgets, Council has been investigating the use of S94 funds for part of the funding. This is discussed further in the comments section.

Councillors had the opportunity to attend a presentation from DoE on these projects on 20 November 2017.

The basis of any agreement with DoE is that Council will in effect be making a cash contribution towards the construction costs and then will be responsible for most of the maintenance of the facilities over a term yet to be negotiated. Generally, out of school hours, Council can then let the facilities out to sporting clubs consistent with what we do with our other ovals and sporting facilities. This rental income then covers Council’s maintenance costs, plus in the long term it is envisaged that the centre would be self-sufficient or even have potential for making a profit. By way of example the Brickpit at Thornleigh (a four court facility) which is operated by Hornsby Council is understood to make a profit of over $200,000 pa.

DoE has entered into Joint Use Projects with other councils throughout the State and is looking to expand the program to other schools in the Ku-ring-gai area; those being Ku-ring-gai High School, St Ives High School, and the Lindfield Learning Village.

Council understands that currently agreements and or negotiations are in place with the following councils:

· Armidale

· Parramatta

· Ballina

· The Hills

· Cootamundra – Gundagai

· Weddin Shire

· Camden

· Hill Tops

Both Ballina and The Hills are in the construction phase.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 December 2017, Council resolved to:

· advise DoE that subject to external funding becoming available and further financial modelling and design development, of its “in-principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposals at St Ives High School as its priority and then as a second priority Ku-ring-gai High School;

· advise DoE that it will not pursue the Joint Use Project proposal at Lindfield Learning Centre but would consider granting a licence for the use of Charles Bean Field during school hours on the basis of the accelerated wear and tear and maintenance costs being reflected in any licence fees;

· carry out further studies into the feasibility, capital and operational costing of the St Ives High School project;

· allocate $60,000 to facilitate the preparation of expert reports to further assist Council in any decision making process.

Council engaged Otium Planning Group (OPG) on 30 January 2018 to complete a feasibility study on the St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre. A copy of this study can be found at Attachment A1 to this report.

On 15 February 2018 Council confirmed its continued “in-principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposal at St Ives High School, not wishing to pursue either the Ku-ring-gai High School proposal or the previously declined Lindfield Learning Centre.

In addition to this report, a similar report has been submitted to the Major Projects Steering Committee on 8 May 2018 to gain full endorsement of the major project. The report is seeking to drive funding for the project through internal funding sources in addition to contributions from key agencies and stakeholders.

Comments

Several issues must be considered in regard to this report. They are:

· Seed funding from the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve;

· funding and any use of S94 monies;

· other sources of funding;

· NSROC Regional Sportsground Strategy Review;

· the merits of each proposal;

· investigations to date;

· other matters;

· proposed forward path.

Seed funding from the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve

Beyond the $60,000 funding to facilitate the preparation of expert reports to further assist Council in any decision making process no other funding has been allocated to this project.

Funding and any use of S94/S94a monies

Council’s current S94 plan, Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 identifies a “new hockey field and multi-purpose sports field” at what is now the former nursery site at St Ives. This project was envisaged to be co-located with a new indoor sporting complex. The total cost of this is identified as $5,355,000 in 2009 dollars. If Council was to be able to use S94, as the total dollar contribution is proportional to the total population which means that a maximum of 16.75% ($896,962) can be funded from development contributions and the remainder would need to come from other sources. However, as the contributions plan does not explicitly describe an indoor complex, this money is not available to be applied to the project at St Ives High School. Similarly, as an indoor sporting complex is not listed in the section 94A plan, likewise, funding is not available from this source.

Project Bid 000175 for the St Ives Indoor Sports Facility also on the former nursery site at St Ives identifies a similar project to what is contemplated at St Ives High School. Currently this project would also rely on predominantly external funding.

Other sources of funding

An advocacy strategy has been prepared and a copy of this document can be found at Attachment A2 to this report. The objective of this document is to assist in the financial delivery of a four court indoor sports centre in the Ku-ring-gai local government area in addition to funding achieved through internal sources.

Other sources of funding may be through grants from various sporting bodies and government departments.

NSROC Regional Sportsground Strategy Review

OPG was engaged by Northern Sydney Region Organisation of Councils (NSROC) to review the Regional Sportsground Management Strategy prepared in 2011. This report serves as an update to the previous strategy with a focus on analysing future demand for the provision of sportsgrounds in the Region.

This study has confirmed the gap between demand and supply of sportsgrounds in the NSROC area. The future gap between demand and supply has been estimated in view of future population growth and potential increases in sportsground capacity.

It is acknowledged that forecasting demand over a long period has its limitations and changes in trends/demands will take place over this time which will alter current forecasts. Nevertheless, the gap is such that even if all identified initiatives were employed in the short term, a gap is still likely to be evident in 2026 which will only escalate further by 2036. Therefore, the overall aim should be to implement as many of the initiatives as possible within the next 5 years and monitor subsequent outcomes and changes in demand and develop/refine the analysis and strategy accordingly.

Ku-ring-gai represents a population of 123,500 (21%) of the NSROC population. Ku-ring-gai provides 63.6 hectares of playing space (average site area of 1.01 hectares) which equates to 27% of NSROC playing space. A winter season field allocation analysis showed that the proportion that each field/area is allocated is either over capacity (numbers rounded) 33%, at capacity 26% or within 10% of capacity 14%. This shows that 73% of fields/areas are either over, at or within 10% of their identified practical capacity benchmark.

The review presents models to estimate future demand and supply in order to define the gap, identify and quantify possible methods to address shortfall and provide direction for future actions. Essentially, given that there is an existing gap in supply and demand, in order to meet future demand the supply/capacity of sportsgrounds would need to increase by approximately 26% by 2026 and 40% by 2036.

Whilst the shortfalls in supply are usually expressed as land areas, a number of measures can contribute to address the shortfall in supply of sportsgrounds. They could include the following:

· partnerships with schools;

· improving the carrying capacity of existing sportsgrounds i.e. new or upgraded lighting, upgrading drainage/surface quality;

· additional synthetic surfaces;

· acquiring/securing additional land for new developments;

· acquiring or securing other spaces i.e. Crown land, multi-use courts;

· converting existing open space to playing fields;

· resource management; and

· new technology.

In partnership with the DoE, a preliminary review of 88 school sites in the NSROC region (two of which being St Ives High School and Ku-ring-gai High School in Ku-ring-gai) was conducted to identify any potential for increased use of school sportsgrounds. The review identified grounds with the potential to accommodate at least either a full size or a ‘three quarter’ sized football field. Sites already being managed by councils or used regularly by sporting groups were filtered out of the list. This left 29 potential fields (10 full size and 19 three-quarter size) that could be considered for shared use.

The equivalent of 14.5 hectares could be gained through the use of existing school facilities (not currently being used). The main opportunities appear to be in the Hornsby LGA followed by Ku‑ring-gai and Ryde. The potential yield from these facilities could be boosted by the use of synthetic surfaces which may also be necessary in some cases to ensure the sustainability for school and after hours use.

An initial review of options to increase the capacity of council grounds and increase the use of school grounds identifies an opportunity to increase capacity by 22% (yield the equivalent of 52 hectares of playing space). This is considered an optimistic outcome and, despite this, it is still short of the two targets (equivalent of being 10 hectares short in 2026 and 44 hectares short in 2036).

As noted, the demand and supply analysis suggest that the shortage in supply cannot be met by 2026 even if all identified opportunities are successfully employed. Beyond this, effective and viable opportunities to increase capacity will be scarce. Therefore, the ability to address the residual shortfall in 2026 and then the additional shortfall created by further population growth to 2036 is limited. This requires serious consideration and action through long term planning to create opportunities to meet future demand.

Therefore, the overall aim should be to implement as many of the initiatives as possible within the next 5 years and monitor subsequent outcomes and changes in demand and develop/refine the analysis and strategy accordingly.

Use of school fields represent the ‘low hanging fruit’ that can be acted on in the short term whilst areas where new grounds can be established may be longer term. However, these initiatives can be further augmented (i.e. additional capacity potential) through consideration of synthetic sports surfaces where possible.

Investigations to date

Council engaged OPG to prepare preliminary operating models for sporting facilities at all three sites which was provided with the report at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 December 2017.

As per the resolution from this meeting, Council further engaged OPG to prepare a feasibility study for St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre. The methodology in developing a feasibility study for St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre with DoE is as follows:

· Background Review and Project Context;

· Market Analysis and Industry Research;

· Develop Strategic Direction;

· Business Model and Concept Development;

· Business and Financial Models; and

· Summary and Conclusions.

The scope of further studies would be dependent on what information is made available from DoE including final design and costs.

From a spatial perspective, the study shows a large gap in publicly accessible indoor court provision along the Pacific Highway corridor between Wahroonga and Willoughby.

Based on Department of Planning Data, the Ku-ring-gai LGA population will increase from 123,500 in 2016 to 154,500 in 2036, an increase of 31,000 (25%). Over this period, an increase in all age groups is likely to occur, including a significant increase in highly active age groups likely to participate in sport. These factors influence the demand for additional courts and their operational viability.

As part of research for this study, several key stakeholders were interviewed to provide input into the process and/or outline and validate the need/demand for indoor facilities. Groups contacted included Basketball NSW, Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Basketball, Football NSW and Sydney North Volleyball. The information collated identified current facility usage/access and existing and potential participation in indoor sport suggesting a substantial gap in facility provision. Given the current distribution and operation of indoor sports courts in the region, the catchment for a facility at the St Ives High School site is essentially most of the Ku-ring-gai LGA and potentially part of the Northern Beaches LGA (Terrey Hills). The current and future population in this area could justify the demand for approximately 12 indoor courts.

Industry trends indicate a growing demand for indoor facilities and an emphasis on sustainability through the provision of large multi-court facilities centrally located to a sizeable primary catchment. Large multi-court facilities are more efficient from a revenue operation and competition administration perspective. These venues also provide greater opportunity to accommodate events and alternative community activities.

Previously DoE has had a preliminary indicative cost plan prepared for the project which also includes a range of school works and a proposed synthetic sports field. The following costs have been estimated:

· ‘Council Sport Centre Components’ - $22,948,473

· ‘High School Sports Centre Components’ - $16,139,352

· Total cost of the project - $39,087,825

At the time of writing this report, DoE were unable or unprepared to release their latest cost plan for the project or the business case prepared for NSW Treasury. They have however written to Council suggesting that the Council’s component would be in the range of $10-15 million with a total project cost of approximately $25 million (Attachment A3).

In the opinion of OPG and Basketball NSW, DoE’s original estimate appears to be relatively high with a square metre rate of around $4,500m² to over $5,000/m² when compared to projects both parties have been involved with recently in Sydney and NSW averaging between $1,600m²and $3,200m².

To illustrate the impact of the adopted rate, OPG provide an alternative cost model of $3,000m² in the cost plan (whilst maintaining other costs and proportional rates), the indicative costs would be as follows:

· ‘Council Sport Centre Components’ - $15,946,813

· ‘High School Sports Centre Components’ - $10,135,863

· Total cost of the project - $26,082,677

This demonstrates a potentially significant difference in project costs to Council when establishing project feasibility. This has also been supported by an independent quantity surveyor – Turner and Townsend providing an indicative cost plan of approximately $2,208m² (Attachment A4) as follows:

· ‘Council Sport Centre Components’ - $14,229,825

· ‘High School Sports Centre Components’ - $12,540,484

· Total cost of the project - $26,770,309

Five primary management models were identified to assist with the process of establishing a preferred approach for the centre. Given Council’s current approach to management of other facilities, it has been assumed that a management company would be engaged to operate the facility under an appropriate contract (refer to page 20 Table 7 of Attachment A1). The business and operating model for the proposed facility would be for Council to lease the full four court facility from the DoE with sub-licence for DoE to access the two ‘school courts’ during school hours. This would mean that Council has access to two courts at all times and the two ‘school courts’ outside of school hours (after 4pm school days and all times on other days).

A 10 year ‘realistic case’ financial model projections indicate:

· operating income is expected to increase annually ranging from around $522,000 in year 1 to around $735,000 in year 10;

· operating expenditure is expected to increase annually ranging from almost $490,000 in year 1 to approximately $623,000 in year 10;

· the centre is expected to provide annual operating surplus ranging between approximately $32,000 in year 1 to $112,000 in year 10;

· once capital renewal allowance begins the total centre result will range from a surplus of approximately $35,000 (year 5) to $62,000 (year10).

In conclusion until a detailed design has been completed and Council has received and validated a cost plan for the project it is not possible to provide further advise on the cost of the project.

Changes to Council’s contribution and scope

In May 2017 DoE nominated a total construction budget of $14,500,000 plus the cost of the provision of carparking. This proposal was for a four court indoor centre along with the conversion of a natural playing field to synthetic and carparking. The contribution sought from Council was $5,000,000 towards the sports centre, $1,500,000 towards the synthetic field and the total cost of the carparking which at that time was not and still is not known.

In recent times the scope has been amended to no longer include the synthetic sportsfield and DoE is seeking a contribution of between $10,000,000 to $15,000,000. Discussions with DoE suggest that this figure may still increase. Until Council is provided with a full cost estimate it is difficult to know what is included and what is not.

However, anecdotal evidence suggests that a facility may be able to be built for less than suggested by DoE and Council should not be responsible for any DoE requirements that are above and beyond a standard build.

Council has requested a letter from DoE stipulating the in-principle agreement to fund Council’s part of this project at approximately $10,000,000 (based on the project cost profile from the live project in Shoalhaven and used as a benchmark for the St Ives High School project). Council has also requested immediate feedback for the budget approval process from DoE which includes the funding expected from Council based on the phasing of the project and any down-payment prior to start of project

Other matters

An indoor sports centre at St Ives High School may also result in a review of the Masterplan of the St Ives Showground as some of these facilities were proposed in the current Masterplan.

Whilst Council would be taking on the responsibility of running this centre, it must be remembered that Council would enjoy the benefits of new sporting facilities without the total cost of construction and more importantly the cost of the land.

Proposed forward path

Council previously resolved to enter into “in-principle” agreements with the DoE for the three locations. These projects are currently unfunded and to do all three would be a cost impost that Council would not be able to bear without significantly cutting other projects or putting Council into an unacceptable financial position. Initial advice has indicated that each project has its own positives and negatives, however, to place Council in the best position to commit to the Joint Use Projects, St Ives High School has been prioritised as the best outcome for the community.

Due diligence with further detailed studies supports the demand and financial sustainability of the centre which provides Council with confidence to allow financial decisions to be made.

In addition to Council reviewing indicative project costs by an independent quantity surveyor to assist with establishing project feasibility, Council will continue to work with DoE to formalise layout and design. Collaboration with Basketball NSW will ensure that the social and financial return to Council is maximised.

The procurement, design and construction process will include the following key stages:

· Establishment of funding approval;

· Preliminary design including consultation with stakeholders;

· Preliminary QS;

· Detailed design;

· Updated QS;

· Planning approval;

· Procurement;

· Construction; and

· Commissioning.

DoE have indicated that they are requiring the facilities to be operational for Term 1 of 2021.

integrated planning and reporting

P6.1.1 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Partnerships are established with community groups and organisations to optimise the availability and sporting, recreation and leisure facilities.

Engage with community partners to improve Council’s sporting and recreational facilities.

Pursue improvement of sporting and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities.

Governance Matters

Should Council wish to proceed with the public use of the facilities, DoE will undertake all the planning and procurement for the works required.

Risk Management

The plans and costings for the indoor sports centre provided by DoE (November 2017) are at a conceptual level only. As a result, the current indicative project costs provided are at a relatively high rate for construction and this makes it a difficult assignment to campaign for funds when there is potentially a significant difference in project costs to Council.

In order to establish project feasibility moving forward and given the substantial influence this has on the project, Council has obtained an independent quantity surveyor as the basis for its funding approaches. This has supported the opinion of cost estimates provided by Basketball NSW and OPG illustrating the cost difference from $22,946,813 and $25,000,000 (DoE) to $14,229,825 (Turner and Townsend) based on the current concept plans.

Prior to receiving the feasibility study, ongoing operational costs of the facilities had not been fully estimated. Further work within this study has also provided the estimated difference between revenues and expenses which minimises the ongoing financial risk to Council for this project.

Financial Considerations

No funding has been provided in the Delivery Program or Long Term Financial Plan for this project and further discussions will need to be held with the various sporting groups to ascertain what funding may be available from other sources. Additionally, until a full detailed design has been adopted any cost estimate will have a margin for error.

Whilst it is relatively simple to model the operational costs, the best indication of the total cost of the project will be when tenders for the construction are received.

Initial studies suggest, that based on strong demand, future population growth and a lack of competing facilities in the primary catchment, the operation of the facility is likely be operationally and financially sustainable with an average 10 year total result likely to be a surplus of approximately $53,500.

This report is only seeking continuing support for the project and the acknowledgement that Council’s contribution will be required over the 2020 and 2021 financial years.

Social Considerations

The inclusion of community use of the facilities at St Ives High School will provide increased social and cultural venues for the community and enable better utilisation of facilities.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations will be taken into account in the documentation and design of the various upgrades to the facilities at St Ives High School and the approval process.

Community Consultation

Further consultation is required with sporting bodies and the intended future users and possible sources of funding. It is not intended to consult with the broader community as a whole because Council is in effect only becoming a tenant of DoE.

We have been advised that DoE would use their standard approval process under the Infrastructure SEPP for these projects.

Internal Consultation

Staff from Finance, Community, Strategy and Environment and Operations have been involved in the discussions and planning with the DoE representatives.

When further details are known, staff from Finance will be consulted on the likely financial implications associated with any joint use arrangement.

A similar report has been submitted to the Major Projects Steering Committee on 8 May 2018 to gain full endorsement of the major project. The report is seeking to drive funding for the project through internal funding sources in addition to contributions from key agencies and stakeholders.

Summary

DoE has previously been advised of Council’s continued “in-principle” support for the Joint Use Project proposal at St Ives High School as its priority and does not wish to pursue either the Ku‑ring-gai High School or the Lindfield Learning Centre proposals.

Council has engaged OPG to develop a feasibility study for the indoor sports facility at St Ives High School. This preliminary study has identified a shortage of publically accessible indoor courts in the North District and that a large potential catchment exists for a facility located at St Ives High School. Based on strong demand, future population growth and a lack of competing facilities in the primary catchment, the operation of the facility is likely be operationally and financially sustainable with an average 10 -year total result likely to be a surplus of approximately $53,500.

No funding has been specifically provided in the Delivery Program or Long Term Financial Plan for this project. Endorsement of the advocacy strategy from the Mayor and General Manager will be required which will endeavour to drive funding for the project through stakeholders and key sources.

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Continues its “in principle’ support for the Joint Use Project proposal for the indoor sports centre at St Ives High School subject to funding becoming available and further design development.

B. Notes that funding will be required in the 2020 and 2021 financial years.

C. Investigates all funding sources available to contribute towards the project.

D. Endorses the advocacy strategy which will endeavour to drive funding for the project through stakeholders and key sources.

Guy Thomas

Acting Open Space, Sports & Recreation Planner

Ian Dreghorn

Manager Strategic Projects

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre Feasibility Study – Otium Planning Group	2018/118104
	A2	Advocacy Strategy	2018/038838
	A3	Letter dated 26 April from School Infrastructure NSW	2018/118254
	A4	Indicative Cost Plan for the St Ives High School Indoor Sports Centre – Turner and Townsend	2018/118324

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.13 / 136

Item GB.13	S02294
	27 March 2018

Bushfire Preparation - Rubbish Collection (Green Waste)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider providing an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties.

background:	At Council’s meeting dated 6 November 2017, consideration was given to a number of service options to assist residents in preparation of their properties against bush fire. This included the issuing of a voucher to allow domestic loads of vegetation to be delivered by the resident to the Kimbriki Waste Management Centre for free disposal of their vegetation material. Council resolved to not adopt the recommendation. A further report is provided to review the option of providing an additional green waste bin for fire prone properties.

comments:	Council’s contractor has provided cost for providing vehicles, labour and bins to fire prone properties for the remaining three (3) years of the collection Contract.

recommendation:	That Council accept the recommendation not to provide an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties and to include an option for weekly green waste collection to be included in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender. It is recommended also to issue resident in fire prune areas vouchers to self-dispose domestic vegetation at Kimbriki Waste Management Centre.

Purpose of Report

To consider providing an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties.

Background

At Council’s meeting dated 6 November 2017, consideration was given to a number of service options to assist residents in preparation of their properties against bush fire. This included the issuing of a voucher to allow domestic loads of vegetation to be delivered by the resident to the Kimbriki Waste Management Centre for free disposal of their vegetation material. Council resolved to not adopt this recommendation and propose a further review as follows;

“The Feasibility and costing options be reported back to the Councillors for consideration in the upcoming 2018/19 budget process.

The report is to cover the option to provide residents with two green bins for at risk properties at a reduced price, together with increased wood chipping for eligible bushfire prone areas.”

Comments

Council`s waste/recycling and green waste collection contractor, Veolia Environmental Services, was requested to review the provision of additional bins and any associated additional resources necessary to service additional bins.

The numbers of properties affected are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Property Type	Category 1	Category 2	Buffer
Residential - Seniors Living	41	0	25
Residential - Single Dwelling	1,451	353	8,242
Residential - Units	512	19	648

Sub Total	2004	372	8915

Total Properties	11,291

Veolia provided Council with a cost estimated based on the number of properties located in fire prone zones based on 10,000 properties as a base line number.

The cost to establish the additional service is $1,174,000 for the first year to allow for acquisition of vehicles, bin purchase and bin roll out with a further $454,000 each year for the remaining time of the Contract for on-going maintenance of new vehicles and labour.

Included in Veolia`s cost is the provision of two (2) additional green waste collection vehicles, two (2) additional drivers, provision of additional green waste bins up to 10,000 bins and Veolia’s roll out to effected properties with on-going bin maintenance as required under the conditions of the collection Contract.

Plant and equipment provided for waste collection Contracts are for terms in the order of seven (7) to ten (10) years to allow for a cost effective amortisation over the full term of Contract. The cost for the two (2) additional vehicles to collect the additional green waste bins for the remainder of the current Contract is therefore very high compared to a full term amortisation.

Veolia`s cost is qualified as an estimate only. More accurate costs will be provided should Council accept the option for extra bins.

Council has modelled the cost of providing the additional service at a 75% and 50% reduced price. The annual charge for one (1) green waste bin is $150. This charge includes the supply of the bin, collection and disposal. The model incorporates 100% of the baseline number of properties as a take up rate (10,000), an estimated disposal cost and the cost to service the additional bin. Based on a 75% reduction the estimated annual loss to Council to provide the additional service is $989,466. Based on a 50% reduction the estimated annual loss to Council to provide the additional service is $1,364,466.

Another consideration is the offer to provide additional green waste services at a discounted rate. The Domestic Waste budget is a stand-alone cost centre. Under The Local Government Act Councils are required to fund the delivery of domestic waste services from the income received from the annual charges issued to rateable properties. These charges are to reflect the reasonable cost in providing the services.

Council has a range of annual charges based on nominated service levels. For example, residents opting to not utilise a green waste collection service have a reduced annual charge and properties choosing to increase their service, such as increasing their waste container from a 120 litre bin to a 240 litre, pay an additional charge. Circumstances where properties are provided with additional services, at below the reasonable cost, require the remaining properties to subside these additional services.

The cost of providing a green waste disposal voucher to residents was considered. The model incorporates a 60% take-up rate by residents living in fire prone properties. The annual cost to Council for issuing vouchers to residents in fire prone areas to allow them to dispose domestic loads of vegetation at the Kimbriki Waste Management Centre is estimated to be $240,000.

Future Green Waste Collection Services

As part of a review for future green waste collection services, the option to include a weekly green waste service across the whole LGA will be considered in the submission for the next tender for Domestic Waste Collection Services. Provision for this would allow amortisation over the full term of the collection Contract and provide for a more cost effective solution for all properties requiring more than the 360 litres currently provided each fortnight.

A mobile chipping service is currently delivered on a quarterly basis. Residents book the service to have three (3) cubic metres of tree pruning’s chipped and returned to the resident’s property. The service is provided as part of the domestic waste services with no additional costs to the resident. Residents who wish to utilise the service, as part of any fire prevention measure. can book the service. The number of bookings received for the last three (3) services are:

· August 2017 320

· November 2017 263

· February 2018 252

integrated planning and reporting

Natural Environment

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

N5.1.1

Community is responsible and engaged in improved recycling

and reduction in resource use.

Recycling is provided and waste education enhanced.

Governance Matters

Council`s Charter under Section 8 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to deliver services such as waste collection in an efficient and effective manner. The costs of providing the proposed additional green waste services for the additional costs proposed by Veolia is considered very high compared to what would normally be expected due to the expiry of the Contract in 2021.

The delivery of these extra services would result in rateable properties outside of the bush fire prone zones subsidising these additional costs.

Risk Management

The model is based on many variables. The cost to Council significantly increases if less than 10,000 homes take up the offer.

The additional services may be viewed by other members of the community as inequitable. This may potentially lead to the reduced cost services being offered to the rest of the community which would significantly impact on Council’s financial position.

Financial Considerations

It is estimated the annual loss to Council for the additional service would be:

1. 75% reduced price - $989,466.

2. 50% reduced price - $1,364,466.

Social Considerations

The proposed reduced cost service for those properties in the fire prone areas will be positively accepted, however other members of the community may feel as though they are subsidising the service which may cause divide in the community.

Environmental Considerations

All green waste would be disposed at Kimbriki Waste Management Centre where it is processed as a recyclable product.

Community Consultation

There has been no formal consultation with the community on offering services to fire effected properties at reduced costs compared to other properties utilising additional green waste bins.

Internal Consultation

The matter has been discussed with the Rates Section regarding impacts on the issuing of the Domestic Waste Charge. A process is required to identify properties that do not qualify for the service where there is currently an additional charge for a second green waste bin of $150 p.a. against those properties that do qualify and do take up the service.

Summary

Veolia has used a baseline of 10,000 properties in the bushfire zone to provide Council with a cost estimated to service additional green waste bins at a reduced cost.

Council has used these figures in the model to cost the additional service at a 75% and 50% reduced price. The annual charge for one (1) green waste bin is $150. This charge includes the supply of the bin, collection and disposal. The model incorporates 100% of the baseline number of properties as a take up rate (10,000), an estimated disposal cost and the cost to service the additional bin. Based on a 75% reduction the estimated annual loss to Council to provide the additional service is $989,466. Based on a 50% reduction the estimated annual loss to Council to provide the additional service is $1,364,466.

Council`s Charter under Section 8 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to deliver services such as waste collection in an efficient and effective manner. The costs of providing the proposed additional green waste services for the additional costs proposed by Veolia is extremely high compared to what would normally be expected due to the expiry of the contract in 2021. The delivery of these services would result in rateable properties outside of the bush fire prone zones subsidising the additional costs.

Due to the high cost of the proposed additional service, it is recommended this service be provided in the next waste collection contract where the cost can be amortised over the life of the contract. The next collection contract application is scheduled in three (3 years and can consider the weekly collection of green waste to address the demand from a range of properties across the LGA.

A mobile chipping service is currently delivered on a quarterly basis with residents booking the service to have three(3) cubic metres of tree pruning’s chipped and returned to the resident’s property. The service is provided as part of the domestic waste services with no additional costs to the resident. Residents who wish to utilise the service as part of any fire prevention measure can book the service.

Recommendation:

A. That Council not provide an additional green waste bin to fire prone properties during the remaining period of the domestic waste collection Contract.

B. That Council include in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender an option for weekly green waste collection across the entire LGA.

C. That Council issue residents in fire prone areas with vouchers to self-dispose of domestic loads of vegetation at the Kimbriki Waste Management Centre.

D. Issue of vouchers to be reviewed if the option for additional green waste service is included in the next Domestic Waste Collection Tender.

Colin Wright

Manager Waste

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.14 / 142

Item GB.14	RFT10-2018
	17 April 2018

RFT 10-2018 HVAC Upgrades – Gordon Library

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the tender received for the upgrading of the existing HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) System in Gordon Library, and appoint the preferred tenderer.

background:	Ku-ring-gai Council is proposing to upgrade the existing HVAC System in Gordon Library. The planned works will address the need to upgrade the existing HVAC System which has reached the end of its life cycle. The upgraded HVAC System will include a BMS (Building Management System) and CO₂ sensors which will provide the library with a more energy efficient and sustainable climate control. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 27 February 2018 and closed on 27th March 2018.

comments:	One submission was received. The submission was assessed using published criteria which identified the suitability of the respondent and best value to Council.

recommendation:	In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submitted by tenderer ‘A’.

Purpose of Report

To consider the tender received for the upgrading of the existing HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) System in Gordon Library, and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Background

The HVAC system in Gordon Library dates back to the early 1990’s, and as such is significantly affected by ageing and components deterioration. The existing HVAC units have reached their end of life cycle and require immediate replacement.

The proposed HVAC upgrades to the library will encompass a sophisticated BMS (Building Management system) and CO₂ sensors which will result in increased energy savings and a more reliable climate control in extreme weather conditions.

The HVAC Upgrades of Gordon Library were approved by Council’s GMD as part of the 2017/2018 Capital Works funding allocations.

Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 27th February 2018, with a closing date of 27th March 2018.

Comments

Only one tender submission was received.

A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Building Services, Community & Recreation & Environment & Sustainability departments assessed the tender submission for conformity and then for the best value for money for Council as per the published selection criteria.

Confidential attachments to this report include:

• Tender Assessment and Recommendations

• Additional Financial Statements

• Independent Performance & Financial Assessment

Based on the information provided and the independent Performance and Financial Assessment the Tender Evaluation Panel recommends the appointment of Tenderer ‘A’ was identified as having the required project specific expertise to successfully complete the upgrades within the required time frame as documented.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

P7 Enhancing community buildings and facilities

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A community progressively reducing its consumption of resources and leading in energy efficiency and providing a comfortable public space.

Standards are developed to

improve the condition and

functionality of existing and new assets.

Implement prioritised energy and water conservation and efficiency works program.

Governance Matters

Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 27th February 2018 with a closing date of 27th March 2018. Due to the specialised works associated with the planned upgrades three (3) additional HVAC contractors were invited to the open tender. Only three (3) HVAC contractors attended the mandatory pre-tender site meeting held on the 8th March 2018. At the close of tender, only one (1) tender was received. The tender submission was subsequently recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.

Confidential attachments to this report include the list of tenders received, the Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation and the independent Performance and Financial Assessment carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd.

The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.

Risk Management

Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed work:

• That work needed to be carried out by a specialised HVAC contractor with experience in projects of similar scale and complexity.

• Companies’ availability – the company was available to commence work as stipulated by Council and has the resources to complete the work within 10 weeks or less, subject to weather delays and delays by external organisations outside their control.

• That Council should not be exposed to financial risk. As part of the evaluation process the preferred tender’s financial capacity was tested through an independent Performance and Financial Assessment.

Following evaluation, including an independent Performance and Financial Assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd, the tenderer was assessed as providing the most project specific expertise to undertake the works for Council.

Financial Considerations

This project is currently listed in Council’s 2017/2018 Capital Works Building Upgrades and Operational Plan.

Social Considerations

The existing HVAC system at Gordon Library dates back to the early 90’s, as such is significantly affected by ageing and components deterioration. The existing HVAC units have reached their end of life cycle and require immediate replacement.

The proposed HVAC upgrades to Library will encompass a sophisticated BMS (Building Management system) and CO₂ sensors which will result in increased energy savings and a more reliable climate control in extreme weather conditions.

Environmental Considerations

On the basis of the environmental assessment conducted, it has been determined that the activity will have inconsequential impacts and in this case a Potential Impact Assessment is not required.

During the construction works the site will be subject to an environmental management plan which will ensure appropriate controls, such as, erosion control, silt fencing, runoff protection, tree protection, recycling appropriate materials, and dust and noise abatement.

Community Consultation

The proposed upgrades meet the objectives of Council’s Delivery Programme. Community consultation is not required.

Internal Consultation

Consultation for the proposed upgrades was undertaken by staff from Operations - Building Services, Strategy & Environment Departments and Community & Recreation Department.

Summary

Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 27th February 2018 and closed on 27th March 2018.

A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from Operations - Building Services, Community and Recreation and Strategy and Environment Departments

One (1) tender was received and was recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.

Following the evaluation and independent performance and financial check, it is recommended the Tenderer be appointed on the basis of providing the required expertise to successfully complete the upgrades within the required time frame as documented.

Recommendation:

A. That Council accept the tender submission from the Tenderer for the upgrade of existing HVAC System at Gordon Library.

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

C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to the contract documents.

D. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

George Bertoncello

Building Services Asset & Project Supervisor

Ian Taylor

Manager Engineering Operations

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Attachments:	A1	Tender Assessment Report and Recommendations	Confidential
	A2	Additional Financial Statement	Confidential
	A3	Independent Performance and Financial Assessment	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.15 / 147

Item GB.15	S09449
	18 April 2018

Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To provide Council with an update of the feasibility and cost of moving the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage.

background:	A Business without Notice was raised at Council meeting of 10 April 2018 requesting an urgent assessment to relocate the timber dwelling at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

comments:	Council to investigate the necessary physical requirements, risks and confirmed costs to relocate the timber dwelling to a new location still to be confirmed.

recommendation:	That a further report to Council be provided on the feasibility and incurred cost to move the timber dwelling to a suitable location.

Purpose of Report

To provide Council with an update of the feasibility and cost of moving the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage.

Background

At Council’s meeting of 10 April 2018, a Business without Notice as moved by Councillors Greenfield and Smith:

“There is an urgent need to assess the potential to move the Lindfield Heritage Timber Cottage because there is a risk that it will be demolished in April 2018 by the developer. Currently located in the laneway behind Harris Farm at Lindfield.

The cottage is over 100 years old and was moved to its current location by horse and cart.”

The timber cottage is located at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield with access available also from Havilah Lane Lindfield.

Comments

Council has commenced investigating the possibility of relocating of the timber cottage located at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

An inspection of the cottage was done on Wednesday 11 April 2018, to determine the condition of the building. Unfortunately, the inspection was inconclusive due to the in ability to access the site. The inspection was only of the outside of the cottage at this time.

A structural assessment would be required to determine the structural integrity of the building.

A building inspection report would be required to identify the building materials and potential asbestos within the dwelling. This would ascertain the method and cost required for transportation to a new location..

Requests for quotation to relocate the timber cottage have been sent to specialist contractors. Council received three (3) responses only.

The first response indicated no interest in providing a quote due to the difficult and challenging location.

A second quote was very broad giving an estimate of $60,000 with no required business actions identified.

The third quote was $40,000. This price was an estimate only as the contractor requires access to the site to assess and measure the building.

A Traffic Management Plan would be required for the safe transportation of the dwelling from one site to another bearing in mind the route selected allowed for the weight and size of the transportation vehicles along Council, Regional or State roads and the impact on infrastructure along the route. The plan would have to include the possibility of ensuring there were no parked vehicles in narrow streets.

It has not been identified at this time if there is a need to remove the roof section should it be too high to pass successfully under infrastructure along the route to the new location.

Quotes do not include potential tree pruning along the route if the height of the dwelling is affected by tree canopies.

The cost of relocation would have to include the reestablishment of new footings and connection of services at the new location. The relocation site for the timber dwelling has not been identified.

At this time, the existing owner of the dwelling at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield has not been approached regarding a potential sale of the cottage. The property has been recently sold and in the process of settlement. Details of the new owner could not be disclosed. Approaches to the developer of the future construction approved for the site have been unsuccessful. Therefore, it cannot be identified what costs to Council would be incurred to purchase this property for relocation.

Governance Matters

Travel permits would be required for Council, Regional or State roads along the route. Police approval is required as the building is approximately 5.5 metres wide.

A physical inspection of the route would be necessary to confirm the height of infrastructure and tree canopy were in accordance with the minimum legal height of 5.00 metre.

Existing owner’s consent, to access the property, for the purpose to receive a firm quote from any contractor is required.

Risk Management

Areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed relocation of the dwelling:

· A building assessment report is required to identify potentially harmful building materials such as asbestos.

· Height of existing infrastructure along the proposed relocation route.

· Traffic management in narrow streets, main roads and time of the day of relocation.

· Contractors to be engaged who have expertise in relocating old dwellings.

· Qualified contractors with expertise in handling asbestos, if identified on the property, are to be engaged.

Financial Considerations

Council would be responsible for the purchase, transport and relocation to the chosen site.

No funding has been allocated for this project. Additional recurrent costs will be incurred for continued maintenance and depreciation.

Social Considerations

The Business without Notice stated the dwelling is assumed to be over 100 years old and was moved to its current location by horse and cart.

The property / dwelling is not listed in the Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 as a heritage item. Searches are being done by Council officers to ascertain any further historical information.

The use of the building will be dependent on the chosen new location. Upon receiving approval to relocate the building, the use can be determined.

Environmental Considerations

A building report would be required to determine any potential asbestos on site.

Community Consultation

No community consultation has been done at this time.

Internal Consultation

Consultation was undertaken and included officers from Development & Regulation Department and Operations.

Summary

A Business without Notice was raised at Council meeting of 10 April 2018 requesting an urgent assessment to relocate the timber dwelling at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

Council has commenced investigation into the necessary physical requirements, risks and confirmed costs to relocate the timber dwelling to a new location which is still to be confirmed.

Use of the building will be dependent on the chosen new location.

No funding has been allocated for this project. Additional recurrent costs will be incurred for continued maintenance and depreciation.

The property has been recently sold and in the process of settlement. Details of the new owner could not be disclosed.

Recommendation:

A. That Council continue to investigate the feasibility and costs associated with relocating the cottage.

B. That Council continue efforts in making contact with the new owner of the property.

C. That Council provide a further report outlining any discussions with the new property owner and all associated costs involved in procuring and relocating the timber dwelling at 55a Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	NM.1 / 151

Item NM.1	S10468
	16 April 2018

Notice of Motion

Lindfield Libary, Library Village Hub and Asset Recycling to meet community needs

Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer, Szatow, Ngai, Pettett, Kelly and Spencer
dated 16 April 2018

Background

· Inadequate space for all activities and collections

· Shortage of shelving

· Lack of study and reading spaces

· Inadequate children's area and lack of separation of this area

· Inadequate space for events

· Lack of contemporary technology inclusions; and

· Lack of adequate parking as well as issues relating to access.

The Lindfield Library site also includes meeting rooms, resource rooms, and space for KYDS Youth Development Services (teenage counselling service) and the Lindfield Seniors.

Other Projects of Community Benefit

In the immediate short term, the Council does have more pressing needs with no funding allocated.

The renewal of the Marian Street Theatre will bring back to Ku-ring-gai a place for the performing arts and is core to revitalising Killara, however this too is entirely unfunded.

Asset Recycling While Meeting Intermediate Community Needs

We move:

E. That the St Ives Indoor Sports Complex should be added to the draft Long Term Financial Plan.

I. That the divestment of 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield be carried out by an open competitive process in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

J. That the General Manager and/or his delegate to obtain two (2) independent valuation reports to establish the market value in accordance Council’s Acquisition & Divestment of Land Policy 2014.

K. That Councillors are to be provided with copies of the valuation reports on which market value is determined in accordance with J. above.

L. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to set the reserve price established by an independent valuation report prior to divestment.

M. That In the event the property does not reach the reserve price that Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate within a variance of 10% of the reserve.

N. That Council authorises the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate any special conditions and contract terms required to protect the Council’s interests.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

Councillor David Citer

Councillor for St Ives Ward

Councillor Cheryl Szatow

Councillor for Gordon Ward

Councillor Sam Ngai

Councillor for Roseville Ward

Councillor Jeff Pettett

Councillor for Comenarra Ward

Councillor Peter Kelly

Councillor for Gordon Ward

Councillor Cedric Spencer

Councillor for Wahroonga Ward

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	NM.3 / 160

Item NM.3	S10840

Notice of Motion

Improving public communication on Lindfield Village Green, and withdrawal of MOD0030/18

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 30 April 2018

A list of some of the residents’ concerns is provided below. Note that this list is not exhaustive.

Trolley Management

Single Elevator Access (Single Point of Failure)

Future Parking Demand

Similarly, residents have provided many photos which, although they do not cover every parking space in the area, show that the carpark can get quite full (Attachment A1).

Traffic Flow Estimates, Projections, and Changes

Will there be any further changes to traffic signalling, traffic directions, and traffic flows in the local area? When will such improvements be made? How will they be funded?

Other Concerns

Residents also have other concerns such as:

• Acoustics of supermarket delivery trucks moving along inclined laneways next to residential areas.

• The decision to cut off Chapman Lane and Kochia Lane (West) from vehicular access (a way for trucks to access the supermarkets while minimising acoustic impacts on residents).

• Whether Havilah Lane will definitely be widened to two lanes.

• Why Council has opted for an additional café instead of additional green space or a playground.

• Provision of Emergency Parking and Loading Zones.

• Whether there will be a Parking Guidance System and Dynamic Availability Signage.

I move:

A. That Council immediately withdraws its application of MOD0030/18 (Lindfield Village Green).

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

Councillor Sam Ngai

Councillor for Roseville Ward

Background Information:	A1	Attachment A1 - LVG Photos	2018/117719
	A2	Attachment A2 - Cardno Traffic Count	2018/117729
	A3	Attachment A3 - Main Lindfield Village Green Webpage	2018/117724
	A4	Attachment A4 - Activate Lindfield - Project Update April 2017 [sic]	2018/117722
	A5	Attachment A5 - FAQ Webpage for 259-271 Pacific Highway	2018/117727

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	MM.1 / 38

Item MM.1	CY00133/10

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	PT.1 / 40

Item PT.1	88/05929/01
	17 April 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	GB.7 / 86

Item GB.7	CY00043/10
	23 April 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 May 2018	NM.2 / 156

Item NM.2	DA0307/17-6

Background Information:	A1	Annexure BNM1 - Attachment to Notice of Motion Bunnings		2018/116250
	A2	Annexure BNM2 - Attachment to Notice of Motion Bunnings		2018/116267