Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 28 August 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

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 9

File: S02131

Meeting held 14 August 2018

Minutes numbered 221 to 249

minutes from the Mayor

Petitions

PT.1 Petition Regarding Parking at 4 Park Avenue, Gordon Behind Lifeline's Office (Sixty Three [63] Signatures) 34

File: S03496

“We, the volunteers who handle the Lifeline crisis calls, as well as the office staff and volunteers, have problems parking as the car park behind the Lifeline office at 4 Park Avenue, is often full. We can be late for our shifts finding alternate spots.

Our requests for allocated Lifeline parking have so far not met with success or acknowledgment of these difficulties – so this petition, signed by Lifeline staff and volunteers, is once again, trying to find a solution.

We provide a vital service to the community and would appreciate having less stress wondering whether we can find a parking space or not!”

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 Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy 35

File: S11705

To adopt the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy.

Recommendation:

That the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be adopted.

GB.2 Delegation of Authority to the General Manager 40

File: CY00259/10

To review the delegation of authority granted by Council to the General Manager, in accordance with section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Recommendation:

That Council delegates to the General Manager all functions of the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 and any other Act, which can be delegated, excluding:

(i) those functions specified in clauses (a) to (u) of section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993;

(ii) the acceptance of tenders for an amount greater than $150,000;

(iii) writing off any debts for an amount greater than $10,000;

(iv) writing off any rates or charges for an amount greater than $100;

(v) any functions expressly required, by a resolution of Council made after this date, to be exercised by resolution of Council.

GB.3 Investment Report as at 31 July 2018 45

File: FY00623

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.4 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 4th Quarter 2017 to 2018 52

File: FY00623

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the year ended 30 June 2018.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 30 June 2018 be received and noted.

GB.5 Minutes of Audit Committee Meetings held in 2016/2017/2018 58

File: CY00458/6

To provide Council with a copy of the Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meetings held in December 2016, April, June, September, December 2017 and March 2018.

Recommendation:

Council receives and notes this report.

GB.6 Lindfield Village Green Heads of Agreement with TfNSW 61

File: S10840

To inform Council of the terms proposed in a Heads of Agreement (HoA) with TfNSW.

Recommendation:

That Council approves the HoA (Attachment A1) and that the General Manager or his delegate be authorised to continue financial negotiations with TfNSW with a view to finalising an Agreement for Lease (including capital funding) for the delivery of commuter car spaces on the LVG site.

GB.7 Rooftop Community Gardens - Response to Notice of Motion 68

File: S12018

To report on research conducted on rooftop gardens in response to Notice of Motion – Rooftop Community Gardens.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council endorses the principle of rooftop communal gardens to facilitate residential amenity within high density residential housing developments and that the Ku-ring-gai Architecture and Urban Design Awards include a new landscape category to recognise and reward rooftop gardens.

GB.8 Havilah Lane Voluntary Planning Agreement - 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield 84

File: S11436

To report back following the exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

Recommendation:

That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Mayrin Three Pty Ltd to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Havilah Lane, Lindfield.

GB.9 Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy - Part 1 - Community Centres and Libraries 94

File: S10162

To report to Council Part 1 of a draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy that addresses the provision of libraries and community centres across the LGA to 2036.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the draft Community Facilities Strategy Part 1 – Community Centres and Libraries for public exhibition and that the results of the exhibition are reported back to Council prior to finalising the document.

GB.10 Heritage Reference Committee recommendations for Heritage Home Grants applications Financial Year 2018/19 106

File: S11080

For Council to adopt the recommendations from the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) regarding the allocation of Heritage Home Grants for 2018/19.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the HRC recommendations and approves the recommended grant applications for the Heritage Home Fund for 2018/19 and adopts the proposed changes to the Heritage Home Grants guidelines.

GB.11 Finalisation of Planning Proposal for new and expanded Heritage Conservation Area in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon 110

File: S11437

For Council to make a determination in relation to the final composition of the Planning Proposal to include 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 determine how to finalise the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas in the KLEP 2015 and KLEP LC 2012.

GB.12 Monthly Project Status Report - July 117

File: FY00621

To provide Council with the Project Status Report for July 2018.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for July 2018.

GB.13 Draft Graffiti Management Policy 121

File: S04840

To consider the draft policy for Graffiti Management in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

Recommendation:

That Council place the draft Graffiti Management Policy on public exhibition for 28 days and that a report be presented to Council on completion of the exhibition period.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Lindfield Village Hub Update 126

File: S10840

Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai dated 20 August 2018

The New Lindfield Library Site

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 June 2018, under GB4, council staff reported that they had “re-visited the Delivery Strategy for the Lindfield Village Hub to find ways to make the project become ‘self-funding’ both in terms of cost to construct / deliver and funding of operational and maintenance costs, including depreciation.”

Council staff also reported that “subject to planning, the market could possibly offer a range of development solutions that would meet Council’s financial requirements and deliver the Community Infrastructure and Services identified in Council’s adopted masterplan. This may require controls for the project to increase from the adopted masterplan of FSR 1.3:1 to something approaching FSR 2.5:1, subject to planning assessment.”

Many residents were concerned by the implications of a Village Hub with a Floor Space Ratio of 2.5 as it would set an unprecedented building height not just in Lindfield, but across all of Ku-ring-gai.

Many residents were also concerned about the ‘self-funding’ nature of the New Lindfield Library as the calculation strangely omitted any potential value from the Old Lindfield Library Site.

The Old Lindfield Library Site

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 8 May 2018, there were representations that the Old Lindfield Library Site located at 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield was not for sale.

Despite these representations, the public record seems to suggest that the sale of the Old Lindfield Library Site may have been planned for at least three years.

The clearest evidence is in the council staff report for 27/06/2017 which stated that “an approved DA will likely achieve an increase of between 10 – 20% in the sale value of the site”. This same message was repeated in the council staff report for 28/11/2017.

Attachment A1 provides a timeline of key council decisions concerning the Old Lindfield Library Site.

Taking a Common-sense Approach

The position that I and many other Lindfield residents hold is that IF the old library, the old community facilities, the old recreational area, and the old residential housing located at 259-271 Pacific Highway are ever sold, THEN it makes sense that at least some of that money should go towards building the new library, the new community facilities, the new recreational area, and the new residential housing at the Lindfield Village Hub.

By using the value of the old library to facilitate the development of the new library, the Floor Space Ratio of the Lindfield Village Hub will not need to approach 2.5. It could approach a lower number, resulting in lower building heights.

I move:

A. That a Floor Space Ratio of 2.5 is not desirable for the Lindfield Village Hub, and that Council should aim for a lower ratio such as 2.0 or less without compromising on the scope of other Community Infrastructure and Services identified in Council’s adopted masterplan. A pedestrian bridge across Pacific Highway remains as highly desirable for the Lindfield Village Hub and all best endeavours should be taken to deliver it.

B. That if there is ever a decision to sell the Old Lindfield Library located at 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield, that the proceeds should facilitate the development of the New Lindfield Library located at the Lindfield Village Hub.

NM.2 Consideration of Submissions on the Draft Heritage Conservation Areas: Athol Conservation Area, Lanosa Conservation Area, Mona Vale Road Conservation Area, Pymble Heights Conservation Area and Fern Walk Conservation Area 128

File: S11437

Notice of Rescission from Councillors Spencer, Clarke and Kelly dated 20 August 2018

We, the undersigned, hereby move rescission of the following motion of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 26 June 2018:

That Council does proceed with the inclusion of the Lanosa Conservation Area, Pymble Heights Conservation Area and Fern Walk Conservation Area (as exhibited) in the adopted Planning Proposal.

Should the above rescission be resolved, we further intend to move:

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

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, 14 August 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)

Councillor 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)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro)

Management Consultant (Craig Calder)

Manager Records & Governance (Amber Moloney)

Minutes Secretary (Nala Redford)

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.

No Interest was declared.

221

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Greenfield)

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

C.1 Lindfield Village Hub - Technical Advisor Tender

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

C.2 Review of Organisation Structure

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).

GB.4 Major Projects Advisory Committee

Attachment A1: Attachment 1 Recommended and Alternative Members to MPAC 14 August 2018

Attachment A2: Attachment 2 Resumes for Recommended and Alternative Members to MPAC 14 August 2018

The above attachments are considered confidential because 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).

GB.13 RFT5-2018 Comenarra Playing Field Amenities Upgrades

Attachment A1: Tender assessment and recommendation report

The above attachment is considered confidential because it would reveal a trade secret, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(iii).

GB.14 RFT6-2018 George Christie Playing Field Amenities Upgrades

Attachment A1: Tender assessment and recommendation report

The above attachment is considered confidential because it would reveal a trade secret, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(iii).

GB.15 RFT7-2018 Roseville Chase Amenities Upgrades

Attachment A1: Tender assessment and recommendation report

The above attachment is considered confidential because it would reveal a trade secret, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(iii).

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Address the Council

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

Justin Woodcock Reconsideration of Pymble Heights Area C8 A

Greg Pisani Lanosa HCA

Steve McKenzie Lindfield Reference Committee

Richard Gurr Lanosa HCA

Derek Curtin Lanosa HCA

Stephen Sefton Lanosa HCA

Jay Guo Lanosa HCA

Georgia Sefton Lanosa HCA

Janet Harwood Continent in Crisis

Andrew Hill Lanosa HCA

Nicholas Olson Lanosa HCA

Chelsea Sefton Lanosa HCA

Vanessa Bransgrove Fern Walk

Nader Naderi Fern Walk

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:

Councillor Agenda Information:

GB.9 - Appointment of Representatives to Internal and External Committees and Organisations

Memorandum from Manager Records & Governance dated 14 August 2018 providing information about Committees for the above item including attachments A1-A6.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

222

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 24 July 2018

Minutes numbered 197 to 220

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Spencer)

That Minutes numbered 197 to 220 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

223

Public Library Funding

File: S10391

Vide: MM.1

This Mayoral Minute is to seek Council support for the NSW Public Libraries Association and LGNSW advocacy campaign for additional funding for public libraries.

There has been a gradual but steady decline in the amount councils receive from the NSW Government for library funding, to the point where the gap between government support and council expenditure has reached crisis levels.

In 2015-2016 state funding for public libraries covered only 7.8% of the total costs of operating the 368 NSW libraries. NSW public libraries receive the lowest per capita funding from their state government compared with all other states in Australia. For example, Queensland public libraries receive 12% state government funding and Victoria 18%.

This is despite the fact that public library patronage continues to climb and diversify. In Ku-ring-gai, library use has increased exponentially in the last ten years, not just as a place to borrow books, but as an important community hub for education and other activities.

For example, attendance doubled from around 5,000 to 10,000 for children’s story telling, author talks, seminars and study help. Loans of library items now average over 900,000 every year.

Our libraries play an important part in non-English speaking residents’ lives. Ten years ago we had 1,562 members from 20 non-English language groups; we now we have 5,236 members from 53 non-English language groups.

Despite two reviews by the state government – one in 2011 and another in 2016 – nothing has been done about the steady decline in NSW public library funding.

The 2018-2019 NSW budget has delivered another blow, through a further 5% cut to operational funding and no infrastructure funding at all for metropolitan council libraries.

Ku-ring-gai Council has invested significantly in its libraries over the past decade, spending $7.75 million in capital expenditure and $3.95 million in annual operating costs to keep our libraries running to the standard our community expects.

Libraries play a major part in supporting the achievement of government literacy targets. They provide collections, programs and spaces for older people, multicultural communities, school students and people who are digitally disadvantaged.

The NSW Public Libraries Association has joined forces with the peak body representing councils, LGNSW, to establish a library funding advocacy initiative in the lead up to the 2019 state election.

The Renew Our Libraries strategy will be rolled out over the next 8 months, advocating on behalf of our communities to highlight that the network of 368 public libraries has reached a funding flashpoint and that without significantly increased and sustainable funding a reduction in services will be inevitable.

The success of this approach relies heavily on the support of NSW councils, their libraries and their communities. It should be noted that the following motion was unanimously endorsed at the Local Government NSW 2017 Conference:

That Local Government NSW works with the NSW Public Libraries Association (NSWPLA) to develop a strategic partnership to:

a) increase public awareness of the multiple roles that Local Government Public Libraries play in supporting the educational, social, cultural and economic outcomes in local communities

b) advocate, in the lead up to the March 2019 State election, for improved State Government funding for Local Government Public Libraries in NSW to enable public libraries to meet the growing needs of our local communities.

The NSW public library network is at serious risk. Neither this Council nor others can continue with the high degree of uncertainty about ongoing funding for public libraries from the state government. Nor can they continue meeting persistent shortfalls in funding.

Therefore I recommend that this Council supports the NSW Public Libraries Association and LGNSW campaign to reverse the ongoing deterioration of state funding for public libraries.

Resolved:

A. That Council endorse the NSW Public Libraries Association and Local Government NSW library funding advocacy initiative, Renew Our Libraries.

B. That Council make representation to the local State Members Alister Henskens and Jonathan O'Dea on the need for additional funding from the NSW Government for public library services.

C. That Council write to the Hon. Don Harwin, Minister for the Arts and the Hon. Walt Secord, Shadow Minister for the Arts, calling for bi-partisan support for increasing state funding for NSW public libraries, supported by a sustainable future funding model.

D. That Council take a leading role in activating the campaign locally.

E. That Council endorse the distribution of NSW Public Libraries Association and Local Government NSW advocacy information in Council libraries, as well as involvement in any actions arising. Councillors will be provided with the material via memo.

F. That Council formally advise the NSW Public Libraries Association and Local Government NSW that Council has endorsed the library funding advocacy initiative.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

224

Petition for the Objection to the Proposed Dual Use, Flood Lighting and Night Use of Queen Elizabeth II Tennis Courts (four-hundred and sixteen [416] signatures)

File: S11979

Vide: PT.1

“We the undersigned, strongly object to the proposed dual use, flood lighting and night use of the Queen Elizabeth Tennis Courts in West Lindfield”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Pettett)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

225

Petition Objecting to the Previously approved HCAs Being Forwarded to Department of Planning - GB.10 Recommendation E (five [5] Signatures & eighty [80] emails)

File: S11437

Vide: PT.2

“We the petitioners, as residents of either Lanosa Estate, Mona Vale Road or Fern Walk HCAs, petition Councillors to rescind these HCA resolution(s) in order that a proper resident consultation process can occur and in particular allowing residents the opportunity to object against their property’s individual heritage classification.”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Clarke)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

226

Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2018 - Registration and Voting Delegates

File: S02046/11

Vide: GB.5

For Council to determine its voting delegates for the Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

That:

A. The voting delegates for the Local Government NSW Annual Conference 20178 are the first seven (7) Councillors who advise the General Manager after the meeting they wish to be a voting delegate; and

B. Any other Councillors interested in attending notify the General Manager by Monday 24 September 2018.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

227

Investment Report as at 30 June 2018

File: S05273

Vide: GB.6

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

228

Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2018 - Call for Motions

File: S02046/11

Vide: GB.7

To advise Council of an invitation from Local Government NSW (LGNSW) to submit motions to the 2018 Local Government NSW Conference.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Smith)

That:

A. Councillors provide any proposed motions for submission to the 2018 Local Government NSW to the General Manager by Wednesday, 29 August 2018; and

B. A report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 11 September 2018 for approval prior to submission to LGNSW.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

229

18th International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference - ICTC 2018

File: CY00212/10

Vide: GB.8

To inform Councillors of the 18^th International Cities, Town Centres and Communities (ICTC) Conference being held in Freemantle, Western Australia on 14-16 November 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

That any Councillors wishing to attend the 18th International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference notify the General Manager by Tuesday 4th September 2018.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

230

Planning Proposal - 169 -177 Mona Vale Road, St Ives

File: S11745

Vide: GB.11

For Council to consider a Planning Proposal for 169‑177 Mona Vale Road, St Ives

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Anderson)

A. That the Planning Proposal for 169-177 Mona Vale Road, St Ives be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

B. That prior to being sent for a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal be amended by the applicant as outlined in the body of this report.

C. That Council requests to be authorised as the local plan-making authority to exercise the functions under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for this Planning Proposal.

D. The upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

231

Letter of Support - Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) - Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund Application

File: S10508

Vide: GB.12

To provide the Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) with a Letter of Support for their Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund Program application.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That Ku-ring-gai Council provide the Northern Suburbs Football Association (NSFA) with a Letter of Support for their Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund application (2018).

B. The Letter of Support clearly state Council’s support for the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund Program application (2018) only.

C. All other grant applications require a separate Letter of Support from Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

232

RFT5-2018 Comenarra Playing Field Amenities Upgrades

File: RFT5-2018

Vide: GB.13

To consider the tenders received for the upgrading of the existing brick and concrete roof amenities at Comenarra Playing Field and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Smith)

A. That the Council decline to accept any of the tender submissions for RFT 05-2018 Comenarra Playing Field Amenities Upgrades at South Turramurra.

B. That the current budget be reallocated to Roseville Chase Oval amenity upgrade.

C. That the amenity upgrade at Comenarra Playing Field be re-listed as a priority when funding is available.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

233

RFT6-2018 George Christie Playing Field Amenities Upgrades

File: RFT6-2018

Vide: GB.14

To consider the tenders received for the upgrading of the existing brick and concrete roof amenities at George Christie Playing Field and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Smith)

A. That Council decline to accept any of the tender submissions for RFT 06-2018 George Christie Playing Field amenities upgrades at Wahroonga.

B. That the current budget be reallocated to Roseville Chase Oval amenity upgrade.

C. That the amenity upgrade at George Christie Playing Field be re-listed as a priority when funding is available.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

234

RFT7-2018 Roseville Chase Amenities Upgrades

File: RFT7-2018

Vide: GB.15

To consider the tenders received for the upgrading of the existing brick and concrete roof amenities at Roseville Chase Oval and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That Council decline to accept any of the tender submissions for RFT 07-2018 Roseville Chase Oval amenities upgrade.

B. That funds be reallocated from the amenity upgrades at Comenarra Playing Field and George Christie Playing Field to ensure a complete refurbishment of the Roseville Chase Oval amenity.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

235

Lindfield Village Hub - Technical Advisor Tender

File: RFT21-2018/R

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)(d)(i), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(i) because it deals with tenders. Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process. Some information provided to Council by tenderers is provided on the basis that Council will treat it as commercial in confidence.

It is not in the public interest to reveal details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.

Report by Director Corporate dated 2 August 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Ngai)

A. That Council declines to accept any of the tender submissions RFT 21-2016 Technical Advisor Lindfield Village Hub

B. That fresh tenders not be called due to the cost, time and staff resources needed for the process. It is also unlikely that the process will elicit any new submissions.

C. That Council enter into negotiations with the three (3) existing tenderers.

D. That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate the terms of the contract at a price not higher than the highest tenderer identified in confidential attachment 1 of this report.

E. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all contract documents on Councils behalf.

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

236

Review of Organisation Structure

File: S11992

Vide: C.2

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 General Manager dated 18 July 2018.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Kelly)

That Council adopt the organisation structure as shown in Attachment D.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

237

Lindfield Village Hub - EOI Project Objectives, Contents, Evaluation Criteria and Weightings

File: S10973-28

Vide: GB.1

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

Steve McKenzie

Julian Ledger

The purpose of this report is:

1. To seek approval for the project objectives, evaluation criteria and weightings to be included in the Expression of Interest (EOI) for Lindfield Village Hub.

2. Inform Council of the target EOI timing and milestones.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Clarke)

A. That a sixth Community Objective should be added to the Project Objectives Document. This sixth objective will be “Aesthetic Design – Aesthetically pleasing buildings that residents can be proud of.”

B. That an additional sentence will be added to the Experience section of the Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Criteria will now read as “The developers’ experience in development of projects of a similar nature and scale and of projects through a Project Development Agreement (PDA) structure with Government. The developer’s experience with creating aesthetically pleasing project outcomes will also be considered.”

C. That Council resolve to adopt the project objectives, evaluation criteria and weightings for the EOI for the Lindfield Village Hub.

D. That Council notes the target EOI timing and milestones.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Greenfield withdrew during discussion

Councillor Smith withdrew during discussion

Councillor Greenfield returned

Councillor Smith returned

Councillor Clarke withdrew during discussion

Councillor Clarke returned

Councillor Spencer withdrew during discussion

Councillor Spencer returned

Councillor Szatow withdrew during discussion

Councillor Szatow returned

238

Consideration of submissions on the draft West Pymble Conservation Area

File: S11437

Vide: GB.10

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

Phil Montgomerie

Susan Conde

Stephen Potter

Mark Rivers

Chris Edye

Cassius Chan

Caroline Osterweld

Stephen Sefton

Paul Cooper

Roger Beard

Peter Collins

Elizabeth Lennep

Penny Reinhardt

Jeremy Steel

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include two new heritage conservation areas being West Pymble Conservation Area and an extension to Orinoco Conservation Area 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).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Spencer)

That the matter be deferred for a period of three months.

For the Motion: Councillors Ngai, Clarke, Spencer and Kelly

Against the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Pettett, Greenfield, Smith and Szatow

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST

Councillor Ngai withdrew during discussion

Councillor Ngai returned

Motions of which due Notice has been given

239

Establishment of the Gordon Public Realm Committee

File: S10376

Vide: NM.1

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

Elanor Duff

Trish Simper

Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 27 July 2018

Background

Gordon as the key local centre in Ku-ring-gai is growing and it is important to have representative community feedback and advice on the open space needs for this growing community. This will be even more important as Council moves to prepare a new local environmental plan to implement the North District Plan.

On 26 June 2018 Council considered an Officers Report on the establishment of a Gordon Public Realm Committee, however, no decision was taken in respect of this matter and it remains in abeyance. The terms of reference for the Gordon Public Realm Committee are set out below:

Terms of Reference - Gordon Public Realm Reference Committee

The Gordon Public Realm Reference Committee has the following terms of reference:

The primary purpose of this committee is to advise and provide input and feedback on the open space needs of the Gordon community, to assist Council in its understanding of localised open space issues and inform Council’s decision making relating to such matters of open space provision.

The tasks of the Committee are twofold:

· to facilitate an informed, co-ordinated discussion between Council and the community in relation to the planning of open space in the suburb of Gordon;

· to review the current Gordon Town Centre Plans

Open space is defined as parkland with a minimum size of 3,000 sqm providing for the informal and passive recreational needs of the local community;

To add clarity to the definition of public realm, it is hereby defined as “the space around and between buildings that belong to and are accessible by everyone”. These can include municipal streets, lanes, squares, plazas, footpaths, parks, open spaces, as well as civic buildings.

The duties of the committee members are as follows:

· Work co-operatively with other members in achieving the aims of the committee;

· contribute ideas and suggestions relating to items on the agenda;

· provide advice and recommendations to Council on items relating to the agenda;

· action and follow up tasks established by the committee.

This committee will have no approval powers – it has an advisory capacity only.

The committee may be dealing with confidential matters and members will be required to complete a disclosure of interests and conflict of interest deed poll.

Membership: The committee’s membership consists of:

· two (2) Councillors one of whom may be the Mayor;

· no more than Four (4) Gordon resident representatives with a demonstrated knowledge and interest of the public realm.

Quorum: The quorum consists of a majority of the committee members, one of whom must be a Councillor.

Delegation: No delegation.

Meeting Frequency: Every Quarter or as determined by the Chairperson.

Voting: Recommendations are made by a majority vote of committee members.

Committee Term: A period up to a maximum of two (2) years. A committee term is completed at the end of the council term unless the committee is previously dissolved by council resolution.

Term of Membership: Councillors will be appointed as Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to this committee by a resolution of Council for a 12 month period. The term of office for other committee members will be two (2) years. At the expiration of two (2) years, members will be eligible for extension or re-appointment, subject to referral to Council for its consideration and resolution.

Notwithstanding the above, committee membership will cease at the time of the Local Government Elections every four (4) years.

Community Members - Selection Criteria

To ensure the success of the committee, it is important that community members represent a broad cross-section of the community with local knowledge, a sound understanding of the objectives of the committee and the competing priorities they, as members, will need to address at any one time.

This is necessary in order to achieve agenda outcomes within specified timeframes. Furthermore, members should be able to demonstrate that they value working in a collaborative, supportive environment.

Local community representatives should demonstrate:

· that they are a resident of Gordon;

· they have knowledge and awareness of the LGA and Gordon, particularly in relation to the public realm and open space;

· skills in interpreting masterplans and urban design policies would be desirable;

· an ability to represent and communicate the interests of the local community;

· commit to attending the meetings and contributing constructively to the agenda items; and

· be willing to adhere to Ku-ring-gai Council’s Council Advisory / Reference Committee Guidelines (and a code of conduct and operational procedures).

I propose that

A. Council adopts the Terms of Reference for the Gordon Public realm committee;

B. A report be brought back to Council for the selection of the Four (4) Community Members.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Kelly)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

For the Motion: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Kelly and Szatow

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

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST

240

Lights and Dual Court Usage of Tennis Courts at Queen Elizabeth II Reserve, West Lindfield

File: S11979

Vide: NM.2

A procedural motion was moved by Councillors Pettett and Ngai

not to hear any public address on this item,

as all 18 registered speakers were in favour of the recommendation.

For the Motion: Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Spencer, Kelly and Szatow

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

Notice of Rescission from Councillors Ngai, Pettett and Szatow dated 6 August 2018

We move to rescind Minute Number 209/18, GB.9 of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 24 July 2018, which states:

That Council approves the installation of sports court lighting and dual court usage at the tennis courts located at Queen Elizabeth II Reserve, West Lindfield.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Pettett)

That the above Notice of Rescission as printed be adopted.

For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Ngai, Pettett, Spencer, Kelly and Szatow

Against the Motion: Councillors Clarke, Greenfield and Smith

241

Marian Street Theatre Redevelopment Project - Community Reference Committee

File: S10577/3

Vide: GB.2

To recommend to Councillors that a Community Reference Committee be established for the redevelopment project for the Marian Street Theatre, and to present Councillors with draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Community Reference Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Ngai)

A. That Council establish a Community Reference Committee for the Marian Street Theatre Redevelopment Project.

B. That Council adopt the draft terms of reference for the Community Reference Committee for the Marian Street Theatre Redevelopment Project.

C. That Council advertise for Expressions of Interest for community positions on the Community Reference Committee in August 2018.

D. That Council nominate Councillor Spencer to sit on the proposed Community Reference Committee for the Marian Street Theatre Redevelopment Project.

E. That a subsequent report be presented to Council recommending community members for the Marian Street Theatre Community Reference Committee

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

242

Communications and Engagement Plan for Lindfield Village Hub

File: CY00303/3

Vide: GB.3

To provide Council with an overview of the communications and community engagement that will be undertaken for the Lindfield Village Hub.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Pettett)

Council adopts the Communications and Engagement Plan for the Lindfield Village Hub.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with item
GB.9 - Appointment of Representatives to Internal and External Committees and Organisations, after a
motion moved by Councillors Clarke and Spencer
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

243

Appointment of Representatives to Internal and External Committees and Organisations

File: S03662

Vide: GB.9

For Council to appoint representatives to replace former Councillor Citer on internal and external committees and organisations.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Spencer)

That:

A. Council appoint Councillor Clarke as its delegate on the North Shore Local Area Command [LAC] Community Safety Precinct Committee – Lindfield to North Sydney;

B. Council appoint Councillor Clarke as its delegate on the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command [LAC] Community Safety Precinct Committee – Lindfield to Brooklyn;

C. Council appoint Councillor Clarke as its delegate on the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Bushfire Management Committee;

D. Council appoint Councillor Clarke as its delegate on the Rural Fire Service District Liaison Committee;

E. Council appoint Councillor Clarke as its representative on the Lindfield Village Hub Community Reference Committee; and

F. The external committees and organisations be informed of Council’s nominated representatives.

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

Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett, Kelly and Szatow

Council resolved itself into Closed Meeting
with the press and public excluded to deal with the following item
after a motion moved by Councillors Kelly and Clarke.
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

244

Major Projects Advisory Committee

File: CY00551-3

Vide: GB.4

To provide recommended appointments to the newly established Major Projects Advisory Committee.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Szatow)

That Council resolve to appoint the recommended applicants numbered 1, 2 & 4 to become members of Council’s Major Projects Advisory Committee.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

245

Using Google Map for Traffic Studies

File: S02904

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cedric Spencer.

Has Council used technology such as Google Maps to collect data for traffic studies or to assist in traffic studies?

Answered by Director Operations

The Director Operations advised that I’m not aware that we have used Google Maps for traffic data, however, for other external traffic studies carried out by consultants, I’m not sure whether the consultants may have used Google Maps or another software.

Councillor Spencer

The reason for that question is because Google Maps, they have empirical data for traffic flows in different times and so on. Say for instance if you plan a trip on a particular day to arrive at certain time. So the reason for this question is, I’ve already asked that question, is to perhaps raise this notice and bring this to your awareness that perhaps we could save some money by using such information that’s already available. Thank you.

246

Letter Regarding Dangerous Safety Issue for the Fitness and Aquatic Centre

File: S10415

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Callum Clarke.

I believe all Councillors likely received this letter on what’s called a “dangerous safety issue” for the Fitness and Aquatic Centre. I was just wondering, through you Madam Mayor, most likely directly to Director Bounassif, if he could please look into this matter and provide comment and if there needs to be work around to fix that problem.

Answered by Director Operations

The Director Operations advised that he will take that on notice, but keep in mind the proposed plan from Mr Thompson would result to less car spaces. I’ll take it on board to investigate a work around.

247

Blockage on Kissing Point Causeway

File: S05548

Vide: QN.3

Question Without Notice from Councillor Callum Clarke.

There is currently a blockage on the Kissing Point Causeway which is at the very bottom of South Turramurra when you go into the ward area, the path that you walk down to get to Macquarie park, there’s a blockage in there, a large tree which has fallen down. Was hoping you could have some of your technical staff go and unclog that before that area floods again and becomes impassable.

Answered by Director Operations

The Director Operations advised that no trouble at all, I’ll have a crew go out there tomorrow.

248

Education Programs for Heritage Conservation Areas

File: CY00069/10

Vide: QN.4

Question Without Notice from Councillor Sam Ngai.

I do sometimes get residents calling who already live in an HCA but they sometimes have a disagreement with the Council officers who asses their applications or sometimes it’s not clear as to what they are or aren’t allowed to do. What kind of education programs do we have out there about what you can and cannot do if you’re a homeowner in an HCA.

Answered by Director Strategy & Environment

The Director Strategy & Environment advised that he will take it on notice.

249

Virtual Reality Tours of Heritage Conservation Areas in the Future

File: Cy00069/10

Vide: QN.5

Question Without Notice from Councillor Sam Ngai.

I was thinking today after sitting through 3 hours of HCA speeches, will we see a future where we can use technology to take photos and laser scans and all sorts of things of our HCAs and potentially say you could walk through a virtual reality tour of the HCA but were going to change the buildings themselves within the HCA.

Answered by Director Strategy & Environment

The Director Strategy & Environment advised we do do a similar thing when we did the Town Centres LEP process. We did some 3D modelling, certainly not to a high degree of resolution. The technology is certainly available, there’s no doubt about that and I assume it would get cheaper. At the moment it’s not something we do, but technically possible I would guess and getting cheaper as we go.

The Meeting closed at 10:34 PM

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 14 August 2018 (Pages 1 - 24) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 28 August 2018.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.2 / 37

Item GB.2	CY00259/10

Delegation of Authority to the General Manager

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To review the delegation of authority granted by Council to the General Manager, in accordance with section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993.

background:	Section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that each council review its delegations within the first 12 months of office.

comments:	Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 stipulates that Council can, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of its functions, other than those listed in section 377(1) clauses (a)-(u).

recommendation:	That Council delegates to the General Manager all functions of the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 and any other Act, which can be delegated, excluding: (i) those functions specified in clauses (a) to (u) of section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993; (ii) the acceptance of tenders for an amount greater than $150,000; (iii) writing off any debts for an amount greater than $10,000; (iv) writing off any rates or charges for an amount greater than $100; (v) any functions expressly required, by a resolution of Council made after this date, to be exercised by resolution of Council.

Purpose of Report

To review the delegation of authority granted by Council to the General Manager, in accordance with section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Background

Section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that:

380 Review of delegations

Each council must review all its delegations during the first 12 months of each term of office.

Section 335 of the Local Government Act 1993 defines the function of the General Manager as:

335 Functions of general manager

The general manager of a council has the following functions:

(a) to conduct the day-to-day management of the council in accordance with the strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council,

(b) to implement, without undue delay, lawful decisions of the council,

(c) to advise the mayor and the governing body on the development and implementation of the strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council,

(d) to advise the mayor and the governing body on the appropriate form of community consultation on the strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council and other matters related to the council,

(e) to prepare, in consultation with the mayor and the governing body, the council’s community strategic plan, community engagement strategy, resourcing strategy, delivery program, operational plan and annual report,

(f) to ensure that the mayor and other councillors are given timely information and advice and the administrative and professional support necessary to effectively discharge their functions,

(g) to exercise any of the functions of the council that are delegated by the council to the general manager,

(h) to appoint staff in accordance with the organisation structure determined under this Chapter and the resources approved by the council,

(i) to direct and dismiss staff,

(j) to implement the council’s workforce management strategy,

(k) any other functions that are conferred or imposed on the general manager by or under this or any other Act.

Comments

Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 stipulates that Council can, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of its functions, other than those listed in section 377(1) clauses (a)-(u).

377 General power of the council to delegate

(1) A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council under this or any other Act, other than the following:

(a) the appointment of a general manager,

(b) the making of a rate,

(d) the making of a charge,

(e) the fixing of a fee,

(f) the borrowing of money,

(g) the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations,

(h) the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment),

(i) the acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the council,

(j) the adoption of an operational plan under section 405,

(k) the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report,

(l) a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6,

(m) the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land,

(n) the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work,

(o) the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

(p) the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194,

(q) a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons,

(r) a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office,

(s) the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister,

(t) this power of delegation,

(u) any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.

(1A) Despite subsection (1), a council may delegate its functions relating to the granting of financial assistance if:

(a) the financial assistance is part of a specified program, and

(b) the program is included in the council’s draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c) the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d) the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant proportion of all the persons within the council’s area.

(2) A council may, by resolution, sub-delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any function delegated to the council by the Departmental Chief Executive except as provided by the instrument of delegation to the council.

(3) A council may delegate functions to a joint organisation only with the approval, by resolution, of the board of the joint organisation.

The proposed resolution is in keeping with what is currently delegated to the General Manager, and incorporates the recent amendments to section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 and changes to other Acts. The format of the resolution has been revised to ensure precision and clarity.

Attachment A1 outlines the considerations made in the review. Conditions or restrictions previously imposed by Council, which are distinctive from the restrictions imposed under the appropriate legislation or other statutory instrument, are reflected in the recommended resolution. Any variation in this regard is noted.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.	Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency.	Comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency.

Comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

Governance Matters

Section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that each council review its delegations within the first 12 months of office.

Where authority to make a decision is delegated, this does not remove a council’s authority to make a decision.

Risk Management

Appropriate delegation of authority in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 is important to ensure the effective and efficient exercise of Council’s functions.

Any conditions put on delegations should be clearly expressed and written to avoid subjective interpretation as much as possible.

Financial Considerations

Nil.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

This report has been reviewed by relevant staff and the Corporate Lawyer.

Summary

Section 380 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that each council review its delegations within the first 12 months of office. The purpose of this report is to review the delegation of authority granted by Council to the General Manager, in accordance with this section.

Recommendation:

That Council delegates to the General Manager all functions of the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 and any other Act, which can be delegated, excluding:

(i) those functions specified in clauses (a) to (u) of section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993;

(ii) the acceptance of tenders for an amount greater than $150,000;

(iii) writing off any debts for an amount greater than $10,000;

(iv) writing off any rates or charges for an amount greater than $100;

(v) any functions expressly required, by a resolution of Council made after this date, to be exercised by resolution of Council.

Amber Moloney

Manager Records and Governance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

Attachment A1 - Review of delegations to the General Manager

2018/242296

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.4 / 49

Item GB.4	FY00623
	16 August 2018

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 4th Quarter 2017 to 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the year ended 30 June 2018.

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

comments:	For the year ended 30 June 2018, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to the Land and Environment Court were $ 1,267,706. This compares with the annual revised budget of $1,072,675.

recommendation:	That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 30 June 2018 be received and noted.

Purpose of Report

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the year ended 30 June 2018.

Background

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

Comments

Appeals Lodged

In the last quarter ended 30 June 2018 there were nine new appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court. The number of appeals received in prior years is as follows:

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2013/2014	16
2014/2015	31
2015/2016	38
2016/2017	41
2017/2018 (as at 30 June 2018)	45

The appeals commenced during the year to 30 June 2018 concerned the following subject matters:

· seniors living	· alterations and additions
· subdivision	· new dwelling
· town houses	· modification of existing development consent

costs

For the quarter ended 30 June 2018, Council made payments of $382,878 on appeals and associated expenses in relation to Land & Environment Court matters. This comes to a total of $1,267,706 for the year of 2017/2018. This compares with the annual revised budget of $1,072,675.

In addition to expenditure on appeals, a further amount of $103,825 was spent in obtaining expert advice regarding development assessment matters.

Land & Environment Court Costs 2014/2015 - 2017/2018
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2014/2015* (31 appeals lodged)	$1,153,612	$186,803	$407,603	$194,103	$365,103
2015/2016 (38 appeals lodged)	$1,256,887	$264,263	$290,099	$303,122	$399,403
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2016/2017 (41 appeals lodged)	$1,054,747	$202,574	$196,949	$285,681	$369,543
2017/2018 (45 appeals lodged)	$1,267,706	$221,520	$461,976	$201,332	$382,878

* Costs reported to Council in previous reports

As noted above, the number of appeals lodged has been high. The commencement of appeals does not lie within the control of Council, however there a number of factors that appear to have influenced the volume of appeals:

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

· In addition, the prospect of changing economic market conditions in late 2017 appears to have led to urgency on the part of developers of multi-housing developments in particular, with a number of appeals commenced immediately on the basis of deemed refusal. As a result, Court listings are currently heavily booked and long delays for several months for the holding of both mediation conferences and hearings are occurring.

· Uncertainty over the introduction by the NSW government of mandatory IHAPs in March 2018. This has resulted in a greater number of applications requiring formal reporting, thereby impacting on DA turn-around times.

Current delays in the Court resulted in limited progress of many of the current appeals this financial year.

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

In relation to costs recovered, the amount of $135,290 had been recovered as at the end of the year 30 June 2018 compared to an annual revised budget for costs recovered of $159,900.

SUMMARY BY WARD

A summary of the above Land & Environment Court costs by Ward for the year to 30 June 2018 is shown in the following table:

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· One matter was dismissed by the Court;

· Seven matters were resolved by agreement, in accordance with an amended proposal.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial

resources and assets to maximise delivery of

services.

Achieve financial sustainability targets

identified in the Long Term Financial

Plan.

Undertake quarterly reporting to Council on the financial performance of the

organisation.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

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

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Environmental Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

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

Summary

For the quarter ended 30 June 2018, Council made payments of $382,878 on Land & Environment Court appeals. The total amount expended for the year of 2017/2018 was $1,267,706. This compares with the annual revised budget of $ 1,072,675.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 30 June 2018 be received and noted.

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Jamie Taylor

Corporate Lawyer

Angela Apostol

Acting Director Corporate

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:

Individual Case Summary June 2018 - Land and Environment Court Costs

2018/242731

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.6 / 58

Item GB.6	S10840

Lindfield Village Green Heads of Agreement with TfNSW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Council of the terms proposed in a Heads of Agreement (HoA) with TfNSW.

background:	The Lindfield Village Green (LVG) project converts an at-grade carpark to an underground carpark creating a new “Village Green” for Lindfield. A Development Application (DA) for a three level basement with 2 x elevators was approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 1 August 2018. At its meeting of 8 May 2018, Council in part, resolved: B. That a further report be brought back to Council outlining the agreed arrangements proposed in a Heads of Agreement with TfNSW.

comments:	Council staff and the negotiation team from TfNSW have been meeting regularly over the last six (6) months. Wording of the HoA has been constructed by the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC). Both the MPSC and TFNSW are now in agreeance with the HoA as presented in this report.

recommendation:	That Council approves the HoA (Attachment A1) and that the General Manager or his delegate be authorised to continue financial negotiations with TfNSW with a view to finalising an Agreement for Lease (including capital funding) for the delivery of commuter car spaces on the LVG site.

Purpose of Report

To inform Council of the terms proposed in a Heads of Agreement (HoA) with TfNSW.

Background

The Lindfield Village Green (LVG) project converts an at-grade carpark to an underground carpark creating a new “Village Green” for Lindfield.

Development approval for a two level basement 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.

In response to this resolution, documentation of the three level basement design was carried out in order to progress cost estimates and negotiations with TfNSW. A Section 96 amendment to the DA was lodged on 28 February 2018 and was approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 1 August 2018.

At its meeting of 8 May 2018, Council resolved the following:

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.

At this same OMC (8 May 2018) a Notice of Motion was supported to include a second lift to service the basement carpark. Additional documentation was submitted as part of the current S96 in May 2018 and was approved on 1 August 2018.

Comments

This report addresses ’Item B‘ the agreed arrangements proposed in a Heads of Agreement with TfNSW.

Vehicle Parking Numbers

The three level basement design provides the following number of car parking spaces:

	B1	B2	B3	Total
Short Stay	81	55	-	136
Commuter	-	20	85	105
				241

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

Council staff have been meeting regularly with TfNSW and have been reporting to the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC). All parties are now in agreeance with the wording of the HoA as seen in Attachment A1.

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 fifteen (15) 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 08 May 2018 – GB.11 - Lindfield Village Green

2. Ordinary Meeting of Council 14 November 2017 – GB.7 - Lindfield Village Green

3. Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 February 2017 – Mayoral Minute - Lindfield Village Green additional basement level

4. Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 August 2016 - GB.5 - Lindfield Village Green – Final Concept Design

5. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 May 2016 - GB.5 - Lindfield Village Green - Design Services - Request for Tender No. 07-2016

6. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2015 - GB.9 – Lindfield Local Centre – Commuter Car Parking

7. Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 June 2015 - GB.5 – Lindfield Village Green Preferred Concept Design

8. Ordinary Meeting of Council 21 April 2015 - GB.5 – Compulsory Acquisition of Roads

9. Ordinary Meeting of Council 31 March 2015 - GB.7 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

10. Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 October 2014 - GB.10 – Lindfield Village Green – Selection of Preferred Tenderers T17/2014

11. Ordinary Meeting of Council 9 September 2014 - GB.5 – Lindfield Village Green – Confirmation of Preliminary Scope of Works, Project Budget and Program

12. Ordinary Meeting of Council 7 October 2014 - GB.8 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

13. Ordinary Meeting of Council 4 April 2014 - GB.11 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

14. Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 December 2013 - GB.19 - Lindfield Village Green - Tryon Road - Project Update

15. Ordinary Meeting of Council 13 August 2013 - GB.6 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

Risk Management

Council has been acting in good faith with TfNSW by including commuter car parking in the design, and carrying all design and consultation costs to date.

Council’s Major Project Steering Committee is responsible for the HoA and its wording. Legal advice has also been sought to ensure there is minimal exposure of risk to Council from the HoA.

The HoA is a non-binding document and also contains ‘get out’ clauses for either or both parties should negotiations or the project (cost) become unreasonable for one or both to proceed.

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 future agreement with TfNSW will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Project Delay

Development consent has now been awarded through approval of the S96 modification. In order to meet project timelines a tender for Detailed Design and documentation is now required to commence. This next stage of documentation could receive tenders of up to $0.9m in value.

Considering the value of the next consultancy, it is now imperative that TfNSW are locked into the project through an agreed HoA. Negotiations for TfNSW’s capital contribution can only start in earnest with agreement of the HoA. Documentation of a three (3) level basement would be abortive if TfNSW opt out of the project unless Council resolved to pay for the whole project.

Management of the risk to delays in the project would be to agree to finalise the HoA and move into negotiation for capital funding immediately. Details of the Agreement for Lease (AfL), can begin in parallel to the capital funding negation.

Financial Considerations

This project is identified in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan and listed in Council’s Delivery Program 2018 – 2021. The Operational Plan 2018 – 2019 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 next phase of design documentation is expected to cost between $500,000 - $0.9m. There is a risk that part of these services would be abortive if Council and TfNSW cannot agree on the quantum of capital funding and/or the AFL. Signing of the HoA is deemed to substantially negate the possibility of this happening.

If TfNSW were to opt out of the project, Council would need to agree on a basement design wholly funded by Council which may include short-stay and commuter parking. Surface level works remain consistent through each of the two (2) DA approved designs and would therefore not be abortive if the Detailed Design phase was commenced and TfNSW opted out.

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

While the conversion of the existing carpark into a ‘green’ open space has obvious environmental benefits, there are no other environmental issues arising from the HoA. 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.

The community have had their opportunity to comment on the proposal through the DA notification and Section 96 processes.

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 project has also been reported regularly to the Major Project Steering Committee and General Manager and Directors (GMD).

Summary

Council Directors have been meeting regularly with TfNSW and have been reporting to the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC). All parties are now in agreeance with the wording of the HoA as seen in Attachment A1.

Council’s Major Project Steering Committee is responsible for the HoA and its wording. Legal advice has also been sought to ensure there is minimal exposure of risk to Council from the HoA.

The HoA is a non-binding document and also contains ‘get out’ clauses for either or both parties should negotiations or the project (cost) become unreasonable for one or both to proceed.

While the specific details of the ultimate AfL are yet to be finalised, it is intended that TfNSW compensate Council for the up-front cost of commuter parking spaces along with a lease covering the ongoing maintenance and life-cycle costs. Funding negotiations can proceed in earnest with a signed HoA but are not expected to conclude until the detailed design phase and Pre-tender estimate has been completed.

The AfL with TfNSW will be the subject of separate report to Council.

Recommendation:

Dean Payne

Project Manager - Major Projects

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

LVG HoA with TfNSW

2018/178857

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.7 / 64

Item GB.7	S12018

Rooftop Community Gardens - Response to Notice of Motion

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report on research conducted on rooftop gardens in response to Notice of Motion – Rooftop Community Gardens.

background:	A Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai was tabled at the Council meeting of 27 February 2018. This raised concerns regarding residents living in high density residential units and suggested that research be conducted into mechanisms to enable the provision of rooftop community gardens.

comments:	Research has been conducted into the issues raised in the Notice of Motion. The research reviews rooftop gardens and their provision within Ku-ring-gai and other Sydney Council areas. The findings are presented in this report with associated recommendations.

recommendation:	It is recommended that Council endorses the principle of rooftop communal gardens to facilitate residential amenity within high density residential housing developments and that the Ku-ring-gai Architecture and Urban Design Awards include a new landscape category to recognise and reward rooftop gardens.

Purpose of Report

To report on research conducted on rooftop gardens in response to Notice of Motion – Rooftop Community Gardens.

Background

A Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai was tabled at the Council meeting of 27 February 2018 (Attachment A1). The Notice of Motion raised the following concerns regarding residents living in high density residential units:

· the small apartments have no backyard, and public parks are at a distance;

· there is physical disconnection between neighbours and local community; and

· there is no access to communal space that fosters positive interactions between residents.

Whilst the Notice of Motion acknowledges Council’s Land Acquisition Strategy and the creation of new local parks, it asks that research be conducted into the utilisation of rooftop areas within high density residential developments for the following reasons:

· better utilisation of high density residential rooftop space;

· provision of spaces for neighbours to meet, develop relationships and support each other;

· provision of areas for residents to relax, grow vegetables/plants, compost waste, hang laundry; and

· provision of safe areas for children to run and play.

The Notice of Motion suggests that research be conducted into mechanisms that enable the provision of rooftop community garden areas, for example:

· incentives for developers to create rooftop community gardens; and

· annual awards with a ‘best rooftop garden implementation’ category.

The Notice of Motion concludes that consideration be given to creating environments that are favourable for communities to thrive and moved that:

A. Council staff investigate various options to incentivise the building of rooftop community gardens.

B. These options be reported back to the councillors in six months’ time (or earlier) for further consideration.

Research has been conducted to investigate rooftop gardens and their provision. This report presents the following findings:

i. Clarification of definitions.

ii. Existing mechanisms within Ku-ring-gai that encourage the provision of communal open space, community gardens and rooftop gardens.

iii. Other Councils’ requirements for communal open space, community gardens and rooftop gardens.

iv. Benefits and constraints in the provision of rooftop garden green roofs within high density residential developments.

v. Considerations for future integration of rooftop garden green roofs in Ku-ring-gai.

Comments

i. Clarification of definitions

In addressing the Notice of Motion, a number of aspects have been covered to ensure the issues raised have been fully addressed.

The Notice of Motion refers to rooftop gardens but also includes the need to facilitate growing vegetables/plants. Rooftop gardens do not automatically result in gardening and planting on the roof. This is explained in the definitions below.

In addition, the Notice of Motion refers to the rooftop provision of spaces for neighbours to meet, develop relationships and support each other. These spaces are defined as communal open spaces and detailed below.

Rooftop Garden – Rooftop gardens are different to green roofs as they are typically areas at the top of a building with some potted plants/planter boxes. As such the environmental benefits of rooftop gardens are limited. The City of Sydney Green Roofs and Walls Strategy 2012 provides a clear explanation of this.

The Ku-ring-gai Council Development Control Plan (DCP) generally refers to rooftop gardens in its requirements for communal open space provision, and the outcomes delivered provide open areas for residents on the rooftops with perimeter planter boxes to prevent overlooking onto neighbouring properties.

Green Roof – The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 defines a green roof as “a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered with vegetation and a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane. Container gardens on roofs, where plants are maintained in pots, are not considered to be green roofs.” These container gardens with pots and planters are referred to as ‘Rooftop Gardens’.

Green roofs can be:

· extensive (shallow) green roofs – for environmental benefits only and not designed to be accessed on a regular basis (for maintenance only), minimising the structural demand for the roof; or

· intensive (deep) green roofs – for environmental benefits and communal use with amenity provided through landscaped and food production gardens.

The Notice of Motion points to the provision of an intensive green roof which would facilitate gardening and growing vegetables etc.

Communal Open

Space - Ku-ring-gai Council’s DCP defines communal open space as “outdoor open space within the common area with shared facilities such as barbeque, seating, etc. for recreation, relaxation and social activities of residents and occupants of a development. Communal Open Space is not for the exclusive use of individual residents or occupants of any single dwelling. It does not include private open space.”

Council’s DCP has mandated requirements for the provision of communal open space on all high density residential developments. This is in alignment with the Notice of Motion.

Community

Garden - Ku-ring-gai Council’s website refers to community gardens as “areas of shared land where local residents come together to cultivate fresh food, learn about organic gardening and make new friends”. Community Gardens have many benefits, including promoting healthy lifestyles, social benefits from many participants interacting, environmental benefits due to decreased necessity for transporting goods and reducing/reusing waste material, motivating and developing skills residents can apply to their lives.

Community gardens are initiated and operated by members of a local community on either public or private land. Council can only be involved in an advisory capacity, particularly when they are on private land.

The illustration below indicates the key differences, use/benefit and outcomes of the two types of development on rooftops:

ii. Existing mechanisms

Ku-ring-gai Council has in place mechanisms that support and align with the Notice of Motion, and that encourage the provision of communal open space, rooftop gardens and community gardens.

1. Development Control Plan

With the upgrade of Ku-ring-gai’s Local Centres Local Environmental Plan in 2012, to align with the State’s Standard Instrument Template, Ku-ring-gai’s Development Control Plans (DCPs) were also progressed and introduced a range of controls to ensure high density development retained good onsite amenity for residents and supported the essential landscape character of the area.

The DCP provisions include requirements for the following within all residential flat buildings and residential components of mixed use buildings:

· Rooftops, terraces and podiums to provide:

- primary or secondary communal open spaces for developments unable to make those provisions at ground level;

- planter boxes to the perimeter to ensure privacy to neighbouring dwellings and to provide planting;

- opportunities for play equipment and gardening by residents in accordance with their body corporate regulations.

· Communal open spaces that:

- are additional to the private open space requirements for each apartment;

- add to the amenity of the development and facilitate social interaction;

- are of a size conducive to outdoor activities by families and groups;

- enable provision of shared facilities such as barbecues, shade structures, play equipment and seating within the primary communal open space;

- enable the provision of secondary communal open space that have flexibility in their use, including use as a community garden or the provision of children’s play equipment, all items that rely on the interest and insurance of the Body Corporate.

· Deep soil landscaped areas (residential flat buildings only) which facilitate:

- delivery of on the ground communal open spaces for recreational use by the residents;

- opportunities for play equipment and gardening by residents in accordance with their body corporate regulations;

- tall tree and shrub planting with associated benefits of screening to adjacent properties and shading/reduction of heat island effects arising from exposed paths/building surfaces;

- provision of permeable areas absorbing water in rainfall events and reducing the pressures on local stormwater systems and problems of onsite surface flows.

· Outdoor drying facilities that are either:

- shared, within the common areas accessible by all residents; or

- private, within garden terraces/balconies.

The existing DCP provisions align with the Notice of Motion in that they mandate the provision of both primary and secondary communal open spaces within the grounds of every apartment building (residential flat buildings and mixed use buildings) to enable new residents to foster neighbourly relations, enjoy on site outdoor leisure areas to relax, and for children to play. These spaces are all within close walking distance and within the safety of the residents’ own development.

Communal open space and deep soil landscaping - Within residential flat buildings, the provision of communal open space is encouraged at ground level and prioritised over roof tops as this use can overlap with, and foster, the deep soil requirements that are very important in the Ku-ring-gai context. Without the deep soil provisions the current Ku-ring-gai landscaped character (substantial planting and tall trees) surrounding apartment buildings would not be achievable, nor would the long term mitigation of environmental impacts such as heat island effects, erosion and denudation due to stormwater runoff be possible.

At present, the DCP delivers communal open spaces all of which are on rooftops/podiums for residents within mixed-use buildings which have no requirement for deep soil landscaping due to their location within the urban centres; and, which are located on the rooftops within residential flat buildings due to site constraints limiting provision of at ground level communal open space. Constraints can include land slopes, tree impacts, poor accessibility and solar access.

Communal open space and Rooftop Gardens - At present the rooftop gardens stipulated in the DCP do not specify green roofs requiring planting at floor level, nor does it state any minimum extent of planting. The controls allow the applicant to decide the method and extent of treatment to the rooftop.

Whilst community open spaces are being provided on the rooftop, the majority are not including planting at floor level, possibly due to the costs associated with the engineering requirements of the soil, water and plant loading. On the whole, the rooftop gardens within Ku-ring-gai provide open spaces for residents to socialise, some planter boxes and pots, but minimal opportunities for gardening. The below illustration is of a development application that aims to deliver planting within the communal open areas on the rooftop.

There is the opportunity to provide greater clarification on the definitions and requirements for green rooftop gardens within the DCP. This might deliver rooftop outcomes that both improve the residential amenity of the rooftop with landscaping and gardening areas, and which provide environmental benefits to Ku-ring-gai such as reduction of heat island effects.

The DCP may be accessed on Council’s website. The sections relevant to this Report include the following:

· 7A.6 deep soil landscaping

· 7C.2 communal open space

· 7C.8 top storey design and roof forms

· 7C.9 laundry and air clothes drying facilities

· 8A.1 character and streetscape

· 8A.4 building separation

· 8C.7 roof forms and podiums

· 8C.8 communal open space

· 23.5 roof terraces and podiums

Council officers are being made aware of a number of issues regarding the provision of rooftop gardens under the DCP. These are as follows:

· Cost

Minimal fitout for communal open spaces is usually proposed within the DA, and then usually delivered to a much lower level than approved under the Development Application. This is usually the result of modifications being signed off by a private certifier. The ongoing maintenance of the planning and upkeep of these spaces also relies on the body corporate which Council is unable to influence.

The issue of private certifiers signing off on modifications on development for the entity that engages their services has been raised with the Department. The private certifier sign off on modifications often deviate from the original approved DA and result in lesser standards. Many of these are then having to be pursued by Council’s compliance team.

· Complaints

Residents of penthouse suites which are located on the same level as the communal rooftop garden complain of privacy and noise issues, and in some instances are appropriating the communal open space as their own. Again, it is the duty of the body corporate to negotiate issues between residents including the operational rules and hours of usage of rooftop spaces.

Given the height controls and setbacks required of upper stories of residential flat buildings, developers prefer to accommodate saleable penthouse units within the height limit rather than a rooftop communal space across the entirety of the area. The limitations of height prevents the roof top garden provision above the penthouse due to the need for lift overrun, shading structures and parapet walls for enclosure.

Examples of DAs with rooftop communal open space adjacent to penthouse units.

2. Website information on Community Gardens

Community gardens are very specific to users and are dependent on intensive volunteer maintenance by residents. Their continued use and maintenance is not something that Council can enforce in perpetuity and therefore it is not a requirement that can be mandated through a DCP and development application.

At most, a DCP might suggest the use on the site; however, the biggest constraint on the provision of gardening areas at ground level, that might allow a future community garden use, is the already limited amount of open area available for the requisite deep soil planting and the essential requirements for communal open spaces, plus competing hard landscaping elements. This means there is limited opportunity to stipulate an additional area for gardening on the ground. Therefore, as suggested by the Notice of Motion, there may be merit in encouraging the consideration of intensive green roofs to facilitate gardening by residents.

Although not stated, the communal open areas required by the DCP do provide the opportunity for gardening, including growing vegetables and composting; however, the organisation and creation of communal gardens, including gardening and composting, within a residential development is reliant on the Body Corporate of that development to arrange and manage. Council cannot direct the operation of a body corporate and their management and use of the private land.

If there is sufficient interest from residents within a high density development, they are able to initiate the creation of a community garden on their land through their body corporate. Ku-ring-gai Council has in place mechanisms that then enable a Body Corporate to develop their community garden. This includes access to:

· education on the set up and maintenance of a community garden via Council’s Green Style Program where an expert visits their site and provides practical guidance. Details of this service and booking may be made online through Council’s website;

· funding through Council’s Environmental Levy Grants to finance the initial setup and materials required in the development of the community garden. The Grant is awarded on various environmental benefit criteria described on Council’s website.

· events run for the community such as Small Space Productive Gardening educating residents on how to transform their balcony or small space into a productive, edible oasis. These sessions often have translators to include the growing Chinese community; and

· rebates from Council under the Water Smart Rebate Program which allows residents to claim against invoices for works that reduce water bills/improve the local environment. Green roofs are one of the four rebate categories.

iii. Other Council Areas and Overseas

Ku-ring-gai Council is a middle ring suburban area as illustrated in the below diagram. The comparative research on provision of green roofs and rooftop gardens within planning policies has been conducted across council areas within the three rings as follows:

· Outer ring – Hornsby

· Middle ring – Willoughby, Ryde, Parramatta, Burwood

· Inner ring –North Sydney, City of Sydney

Greater Metropolitan Sydney - inner/middle/outer ring Council areas

The research comprised desktop investigation of the policy documents of each council area. The key points from the research are as follows:

· The Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 and Willoughby City Council Development Control Plan 2016 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 encourage, but do not mandate, the incorporation of green roofs and walls mainly for environmental benefits including the reduction of heat island effects.

· The Ryde Development Control Plan 2014 has no requirements for rooftop gardens or green roofs.

· The Burwood Development Control Plan 2013 mandates at least 50% of the roof area to be vegetated with grasses, shrubs and trees for all developments in centres and corridors and developments, and residential flat buildings outside those areas.

· The City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 and North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 promote the implementation of green roofs, green walls and rooftop gardens. Both Councils have supporting plans, policies and documents to facilitate and educate on the delivery. These include City of Sydney’s Greening Sydney Plan (2012), Sydney City Council Green Roof Resource Manual, Green Roofs and Walls Policy 2030 (2014), and North Sydney Council’s Green Roof and Wall Resource Manual.

The research indicates that where provided, the rooftop gardens/green roofs are usually integrated with communal open space provision. Following are the key findings:

· Middle and outer ring councils might or might not include rooftop gardens and green roofs in their DCP documents. The majority do not mandate their provision but instead ‘encourage’ their inclusion within developments. However, Burwood Council is an exception as it mandates standards around green roof provision.

· Inner ring councils do include requirements for green roofs and green walls as part of their DCP development objectives and controls. They stipulate minimum provisions and provide additional policy and guidance documents to ensure delivery of good outcomes.

The research shows that roof top gardens and green roofs are mandated in the inner ring areas and one middle ring area (Burwood). Within inner ring council areas, provision of green roof gardens is likely driven by development densities that are high and there is limited at ground open area due to large building footprints. In addition, lack of solar access caused by overshadowing from onsite and neighbouring building heights might further restrict the amenity of open space provision at ground level. Below is an example of a high density development delivering good green roof communal open space outcomes under the City of Sydney policies.

City of Sydney - 360 Harris Street, Pyrmont ‘M Central’ – 400 units

Similar to the approach taken within the Ku-ring-gai DCP, middle ring council areas tend to draw the attention of the applicant to the opportunities and potentials of rooftop gardens/green roof provision, but do not mandate minimum requirements. Burwood Council is an exception to this, most likely due to the higher development densities of that area. Within Ku-ring-gai the apartment buildings range from 30 to 150 units and mostly below 100. The quality of rooftop provision is a direct reflection of the scale of development.

Given that Ku-ring-gai Council has a strong base in sustainable outcomes for built forms, there is merit in strengthening the requirements for landscaped green roof gardens on high density developments. This investigation and outcome could form part of the amendment work to align the DCP with the LEP integration of the North District Plan as the District Plan calls up actions around sustainability and quality design to improve the liveability within areas.

In addition to other Sydney Council areas being researched, successful models of green roof provision overseas (Europe and USA) were investigated. The provision of exceptional rooftop spaces are found in European and American cities which have high levels of densification and where developments have very limited open space or parkland. The rooftops are used creatively for gardening, food production and parkland.

These cities also sometimes have incentive mechanisms, usually monetary payment or increase in heights and floor space, to encourage rooftop development. These incentives are based on cumulative environmental benefits from on-site green roofs and walls and other features that clearly contribute to the city’s environmental sustainability.

Green roof examples USA cities

iv. Benefits and constrains

The benefits of green roofs/terraces/podiums and walls are becoming increasingly important given the challenges of a changing climate with increased heat and intense rainfall events. It is recognised that rooftop vegetation can improve air quality, beautify buildings and the cityscape, support local biodiversity, insulate buildings from heat and noise, create new open space for recreation and food production, extend roof life, cool city temperatures, reduce the urban heat island effect and slow down and clean storm water runoff from buildings.

The key issues around the provision of quality green roofs that can be used for communal open space and gardening is the cost of provision and maintenance. There are significant additional costs associated with structural engineering and construction requirements including thicker reinforced slabs/column/beams to bear the weight of soil, planting, water carriage, usage and maintenance facilities, waterproofing/tanking/drainage, and access and labour costs to install soils and planting.

Following is a synopsis of benefits and constraints in the provision of green rooftop gardens that enable meaningful landscape planting and gardening:

Benefits

Constraints

· Improve air quality by removing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

· Beautify buildings and the cityscape.

· Support local biodiversity.

· Insulate buildings and absorb heat, reduce reliance on heating/air conditioning and associated energy costs.

· Vegetation is shown to absorb noise.

· Create a platform for social interaction and recreation.

· Counterbalance health impacts linked to the human need to be around living plants (biophillia) for physical and mental health benefits.

· Provide an opportunity for urban food production.

· Cool city temperatures and reduce the urban heat island effect.

· Slow down and clean storm water runoff from buildings.

· Reduce the intensity of urban flash flood events.

· Reduce stormwater management costs.

· Increase values of property and add an element of architectural interest.

· Issues of visual and acoustic privacy to penthouse and other units adjacent to the rooftop communal open space.

· Amenity to and from neighbouring sites particularly if they are at differing heights.

· Shade structures and lift over runs can exceed the local height limits.

· Ongoing maintenance management and costs via the Body Corporate and strata levies.

· Expense of waterproof membrane installation and its repair/replacement if damaged.

· Expense of engineering requirements to support garden weight and structure.

· Insurance premiums for buildings with roof gardens/green roofs may be higher.

· Risks around drainage and leakage with poor or ageing installations.

· The industry in Australia is young with only a few companies to design, install and maintain green roofs.

· According to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, extensive green roofs can cost between $100-250 per square metre. Intensive green roofs can cost twice as much as this to install.

v. Considerations for future integration.

The research concurs with the issues raised in the Notice of Motion and indicates areas where consideration can be given to further measures that may be taken in delivering rooftop green roofs within high density developments in Ku-ring-gai. The following are a synopsis of how those considerations may be delivered:

· Incentives based mechanism

Incentivising green roof infrastructure is not common in Australia. Such incentives are more common in highly urbanised cities delivering greater bulk and scale with limited deep soil opportunities, and where the cumulative benefit of green roofs and green walls are well recognised. In these areas incentives include:

- direct financial incentives such as green roof grants and subsidies as seen in Austria and the US;

- indirect financial incentives such as research grants and building service fee reductions as seen in Switzerland and Argentina; and

- intangible incentives such as fast tracked development assessments and awards programs as seen in Switzerland.

Other countries have embedded green practices in the legal system to ensure delivery. For example, Toronto has implemented a Green Roof By-Law that mandates green roofs for all developments greater than a specific size and Basel, Switzerland has implemented a Building and Construction Law that requires all new (flat) roofs to be green roofs.

A mechanism that some Sydney Councils (Parramatta, City of Sydney, Randwick) have adopted is the Design Excellence mechanism. This offers incentives for items considered to deliver design excellence under a formal process. The mechanism states a suite of outcomes that would be considered as design excellence, all having a public benefit being associated with the feature. Whilst this mechanism could be explored to include green roofs, clarity would be needed on how a rooftop that essentially benefits a private development can be considered as a public benefit when the scale of provision is relatively small.

With regards to community gardens, these are difficult to incentivise as the initiative will not be sustained unless there is a genuine motivation and interest from the residents that will follow through to continue the upkeep and value of the garden.

Green rooftop gardens could be included as one of the criteria in an incentives based Design Excellence mechanism. This mechanism would enable a fair, transparent method that operates with the necessary probity and governance to determine the balance between the benefits of provision and the incentive offered.

This mechanism would be formulated in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment aligning it with the North District Plan which has key priorities around the provision of quality design outcomes that improve both sustainability and liveability of housing neighbourhoods.

· Planning controls and objectives

The Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan already has controls around the provision of rooftop gardens. These provisions can be strengthened and amended to define and include green roofs (which enable gardening) and references to composting areas. Clarification on the definitions can also be included with guideline references to educate the applicants on desired outcomes.

The amendment to the DCP would take place at the same time as the amendment to the LEP and refer to the relevant Design Excellence requirements within that document. In addition, the alignment of the DCP controls and objectives generally around rooftop gardens would be supported by the amended LEP incorporating and embedding the North District Plan priorities.

· Annual Awards

Ku-ring-gai Council runs the Architecture and Urban Design Awards on a 2-3 year basis. Given the intensive labour and costs involved in running this event, it is not run annually and is dependent on quality development delivery in the local government area. The Architecture and Urban Design Awards could include a new landscape category to recognise and reward green rooftop gardens.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme - Places, Spaces & Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

P3.1.1 A high standard of design quality and building environmental performance is achieved in new and existing development.

P3.1.1.1 Promote Council's design quality and building sustainability standards to industry and community stakeholders.

Governance Matters

The process for the preparation, exhibition and implementation of any future amendments to Council’s Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Risk Management

Council needs to continually review its planning controls to ensure they are up-to-date and meet the requirements of changing demographics and housing types. Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not have up-to-date and consistent development controls in place to effectively manage change.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing any future amendments to Council’s Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans will need to be covered by Council’s Strategy and Environment Department – Urban Planning budget.

Social Considerations

This report identifies a number of social benefits from communal roof gardens including creating a platform for social interaction and recreation and counterbalancing health impacts linked to the human need to be around living plants for physical and mental health benefits.

Environmental Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Council has a strong base in sustainable outcomes for built forms. The implementation of recommendations of this report will further strengthen the requirements for landscaped green roof gardens on high density developments. The report identifies a number of potential environmental benefits of these requirements including improved air quality, reduced the urban heat island effect and slow down and clean storm water runoff from buildings.

Community Consultation

Any future amendments to Council’s Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans will be subject to statutory minimum consultation requirements.

Internal Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with Council’s Environment and Sustainability team and Development and Regulation.

Summary

A Notice of Motion from Councillor Ngai was tabled at the Council meeting of 27 February 2018. It raised concerns regarding residents living in high density residential units. The Notice of Motion asked that research be conducted into mechanisms that enable the provision of rooftop community garden areas.

Research investigating rooftop gardens and their provision has been completed with the findings being presented in this report. The report clarifies the differences in definition terms and then goes on to present existing mechanisms of delivery within Ku-ring-gai and within Council areas outside the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

The findings illustrate that green rooftop garden areas are mostly provided within high density residential development with large dwelling numbers. This is most likely due to economies of scale that make their inclusion financially feasible.

This report closes with mechanisms for the provision of green rooftop gardens within Ku-ring-gai as per the Notice of Motion. The Report considers improving the delivery of green rooftop gardens through:

- amendment to the LEP, aligning it with the North District Plan, and incorporating a Design Excellence mechanism that includes green rooftop gardens as one of the assessment criteria;

- amendment to the DCP objectives and controls to clarify and strengthen the delivery of green rooftop gardens that enable areas for gardening by residents; and

- inclusion of a new landscape category within the existing Architecture and Urban Design Awards to recognise and reward green rooftop garden delivery.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

A. Council endorses the principle of rooftop communal gardens to facilitate residential amenity within high density residential housing developments;

B. The Ku-ring-gai Architecture and Urban Design Awards include a new landscape category to recognise and reward rooftop gardens.

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Rooftop Community Gardens - Notice of Motion and Resolution

2018/220069

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.8 / 78

Item GB.8	S11436

Havilah Lane Voluntary Planning Agreement - 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report back following the exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

background:	This report follows the statutory exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield for the purposes of dedicating land along the Havilah Lane frontage to the rear of the development. The Local Centres Development Control Plan and Public Domain Plan make provision for the widening of Havilah Lane for improved vehicular access and pedestrian amenity.

comments:	Following the statutory exhibition period, the Draft Planning Agreement is now being reported back to Council for approval to enter into it and facilitate the completion of the dedication process.

recommendation:	That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Mayrin Three Pty Ltd to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Havilah Lane, Lindfield.

Purpose of Report

To report back following the exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

Background

Overview

This report follows the statutory exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield for the purposes of dedicating land along the Havilah Lane frontage.

The intention of the land dedication is to allow for the widening of Havilah Lane and the delivery by Council of future public domain improvements including improvements to the pedestrian environment, either following further dedications or in conjunction with the delivery of the Lindfield Village Green Project.

Planning for Lindfield Local Centre

As part of the strategic planning framework for Lindfield provisions were made for Havilah Lane, which, at present, narrows near the intersection with Havilah Road, to be widened and aligned to provide improved vehicular access and pedestrian amenity – with the dedications shared between development expected to take place over time on properties rezoned as part of the current redevelopment phase. The area around Havilah Lane is currently undergoing significant urban renewal with a number of consolidated properties now either completed or near completion.

Development Application DA0175/17 for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a residential flat building of 69 units with basement car parking was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 23 March 2018.

The Local Centres Development Control Plan (DCP) and the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2010 make provision for the widening of Havilah Lane for improved vehicular access and pedestrian amenity. A letter of offer was tendered as part of the court appeal and its terms are referenced within the consent.

The Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 makes provision for the completion of the future streetscape works but not for the acquisition of the land. The consistent approach in respect of narrow, linear and/or small parcels of land is that the development potential from the area of land required for the widening is reallocated to the remainder of the development site and therefore not lost to the landowner. This allows the landowner to dedicate the land free of cost to Council, by retaining the value of the development potential, and for the broader public benefit to be obtained in the most cost-effective manner.

As the land itself is therefore not valued by the contribution plan, a Planning Agreement approach is triggered to facilitate the dedication. Similar Planning Agreements relate to Fitzsimons Lane in Gordon and in Post Office Lane in Pymble which are in various stages of finalisation and delivery.

Overview of the Strategic Planning Concept

The widening, adjusted alignment and future pedestrian improvement works to Havilah Lane involve the dedication of a narrow sliver of land from the rear frontage to Havilah Lane of a number of sites as shown in the diagram below.

The kerb and gutter alignment is designed to run parallel to the new boundary line to be established following the land dedication in order to enable the continuation of the footpaths behind the new development from near the corner of Kochia Lane up to, so far, the boundary of the property that is the subject of the current dedication. The new boundary line and kerb and gutter alignment are shown on the diagram below, together with the centre line of the new carriageway.

Extract from the Development Control Plan showing the location of the area targeted for widening

The strategic planning documents for Lindfield, including the Local Centres Development Control Plan, the Public Domain Plan and the supporting contributions plan, collectively envisage that the development potential of the narrow, linear dedications are available to the development site, stripping market value and facilitating its dedication in the most cost effective manner. This approach enables the contributions plan to be focused on the delivery of public domain works and efficiently utilises development contributions by negating the need to include extensive land acquisition costs for narrow linear acquisitions and/or otherwise small acquisitions.

As the land itself is therefore not valued by the contribution plan, a Planning Agreement approach is triggered to facilitate the dedication.

Council contracted a surveyor to prepare the formal subdivision plan and associated documents arising from the architectural drawings referenced in the Letter of Offer and the consent conditions arising from the Court Orders issued by the Land and Environment Court.

This type of draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA), for land dedication only, is a relatively straightforward document compared to other planning agreements that facilitate the delivery of works and infrastructure. This Agreement relates only to the dedication, free of cost, of a narrow, linear, strip of land along the frontage of Havilah Lane. It is similar in style to previous laneway dedication VPAs for Fitzsimons Lane in Gordon and Post Office Lane in Pymble. The making good of the rear boundary in a manner suitable for pedestrian and vehicular entry to and egress from the development as well as facilitating the safety and accommodation of passers-by, is a standard requirement of the Development Application approval. Similar baseline kerb and guttering and pedestrian pathways have also been carried out in Fitzsimons Lane by way of example.

Comments

Previous Council Report and Exhibition

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 26 June 2018, Council resolved as follows:

A. That public notice of the exhibition of the draft Planning Agreement and an Explanatory Note relating to the property at 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield, for the purposes of facilitating land dedication along the frontage to Havilah Lane, be duly given.

B. That the draft Planning Agreement together with an Explanatory Note be made available for inspection, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

C. That a report be brought back to Council following the completion of the statutory exhibition process associated with the draft Planning Agreement.

D. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to make any administrative changes to the draft Planning Agreement (including attachments) that do not alter the overall intent in order to facilitate exhibition and to protect Council’s interests including the finalisation of the Explanatory Note.

At the close of the exhibition period one submission had been received which is discussed in the Community Consultation section below.

The draft Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield

The draft Planning Agreement and associated Explanatory Note (Attachment A1) is a relatively straightforward document in that it facilitates and explains the dedication of an identified area of land free of cost to Council, and the nature of the public benefit being to facilitate improvements to the Lane and its reactivation. This is in accordance with the Local Centres Development Control Plan and Public Domain Plan.

Importantly, the draft Planning Agreement does not include works to deliver the more extensive public domain improvements other than to finish the alignment in the same manner as is required for any Development Application. This is because it is preferable for Council to undertake the works at one time to ensure continuity of materials. Ideally this would be in association with the nearby Lindfield Village Green project.

Plan of Subdivision within the draft VPA

It should be noted that Land and Property Information (LPI) may request minor amendments to the survey plan prior to or subsequent to lodgement to satisfy any additional requirements of the subdivision process including ensuring that the land becomes part of a public road and into Council’s ownership on registration.

Planning Agreements are registered on the title of the land the subject of the Development Application. In the case of an earlier Planning Agreement for a similar purpose only, in Fitzsimons Lane at the rear of 904-914 Pacific Highway Gordon, the LPI required the registration of the Planning Agreement to be removed from the road land lot before it could be created. A similar process is expected with this Planning Agreement.

The recommendation includes delegation to the General Manager of authority to give effect to the Planning Agreement following its execution inclusive of all administrative requirements related to subdivision, lot consolidation, the land dedication, registration of the Planning Agreement on title, removal of the Planning Agreement from the title of the road land, and the like.

The draft VPA for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield is now presented to Council for endorsement to enter into following its statutory exhibition for public comment.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme Three: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.

P8.1.1.1.1.1-2

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan

2010 ensures new development contributes towards the cost of delivering supporting infrastructure.

P4.1 Our centres offer a broad

range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community’s assets.

Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to enjoy access to public facilities.

Theme Four: Access, Traffic and Transport

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

T1.1 A range of integrated transport choices are available to enable effective movement to, from and around Ku-ring-gai.

T3.1 An accessible public transport and regional road network that meets the diverse and changing needs of the community.

A network of safe and convenient links to local centres, major land uses and recreational opportunities is in place.

A strategic access, traffic and transport plan is being implemented for the Northern Sydney Region.

T 1.1.3.1.1

Link roads and road widening.

Governance Matters

The negotiation of the latest laneway dedication draft Planning Agreement (draft VPA) commenced under the Ku‑ring‑gai Planning Agreement Policy 2016.

The draft VPA has been prepared with input from Urban Planning, the Property Unit and the Corporate Lawyer. Council appointed Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers to act on its behalf, the firm which also had carriage of the four previous laneway VPAs for Fitzsimons Lane Gordon and Post Office Lane Pymble being 904-914 Pacific Highway Gordon, 870-898 Pacific Highway Gordon, 900 Pacific Highway Gordon and 1017 Pacific Highway Pymble. WWSB were also Council’s solicitors in the matter of the appeal that gave rise to the Land and Environment Court approval of the associated Development Application.

The developers/landowners of the site at 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield were represented by HWLE Lawyers.

The lawyers representing the parties have been consulted and have participated in the preparation of the draft Planning Agreement.

Risk Management

Council has commissioned the same external legal team to assist with the drafting of all its laneway Planning Agreements. The same firm also had carriage of the original Land and Environment Court Appeal which secured the agreement in principle in the form of the letter of offer previously reported to Council on 10 April 2018.

Financial Considerations

The strategic planning for the widening of Havilah Lane foreshadowed that the associated developments would retain the opportunity to utilise the floor space potential of the land to be dedicated thus compensating the development for the market value of the land. This is a cost-effective means of facilitating the dedication of land free of cost and enables a reduction in development contributions by limiting exposure to land acquisition costs.

There is a cost in terms of the recommended scheduling of the design and delivery of the works in association with the broader delivery of extension works to the nearby Lindfield Village Green, however this delivery has already been many years in the planning.

Social Considerations

The dedication of land along Havilah Lane facilitates the public domain improvements foreshadowed in the Local Centres Development Control Plan and the Public Domain Plan. The improvements support the activation of the lane with positive associated social impacts such as encouraging the likelihood of more active ground level uses, more social activity and interaction, better amenity and safety arising from greater surveillance.

Environmental Considerations

The draft Planning Agreement for exhibition involves only the dedication of land for the purposes of the laneway widening. The design of the public domain improvements should be instigated closely in parallel with these latest redevelopments and in association with the delivery of the Lindfield Village Green Major Project.

Environmental considerations are a core component of the detailed design of all Council’s public domain improvement works, and minimising the time for construction works and disruptions, as well as cost savings, are a part of these considerations.

Community Consultation

The relevant legislation governing Planning Agreements falls under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 described in the newly renumbered Part 7 and the associated Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

All draft planning agreements are required to be exhibited for a minimum of 28 days for public comments. This is in the interests of openness and transparency because any submissions made will be reported back to Council for consideration as part of the decision as to whether Council should enter into the formal planning agreement.

The draft Planning Agreement the subject of this report was placed on public exhibition from Thursday, 5 July to Friday, 3 August 2018 inclusive. It was advertised as part of the Ku-ring-gai Council Corporate Ad in the North Shore Times and letters were sent to 303 adjoining and nearby property owners. At the close of the exhibition period, one joint submission had been received from six neighbouring residents who own four properties in total (Attachment A2). Their submission included their previous submissions on the Development Application and notes from their oral submission as part of the s34 conference before the Land and Environment Court as part of the negotiation and determination process of the Development Application.

The key issues of the submission are pedestrian safety in Havilah Lane, and, directly related to this issue, a need to clarify the distinction between ‘making good’ as required by the consent and delivering the public domain improvements valued by the Contributions Plan as far as pedestrian accessibility and safety are concerned.

It is Condition 5A of the development consent issued by the Land and Environment Court that relates to the Planning Agreement referencing the Letter of Offer which is attached to this report at Attachment A3. This condition begins as follows:

Condition 5A also includes paragraphs b. to e. which are related to timing and procedures to secure the land dedication.

It is Condition 41 that relates to the design and delivery of works in the public road. It relates to both the Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Lane frontages of the development. It includes the ‘making good’ of Havilah Lane frontage with the provision of a standard footpath. These require a separate approval under the Roads Act and a Construction Certificate cannot be issued until this approval is forthcoming. The current status of the matter is that approval under the Roads Act is still outstanding. The Operations Directorate is aware of the requirements of the current DCP.

A VPA is not required to enforce the standard conditions of development consent. These are enforceable in their own right. The VPA is required to give effect to the letter of offer providing a public benefit, in this case the dedication of a sliver of land, which is then reflected in the consent.

The distinction to be made clear is between the standard installation and/or restoration of kerb and gutter and vehicular crossings and pathways that is required of every developer (and, in this case, by Condition 41) which cannot be offset against development contributions and the more extensive integrated public domain upgrades that are valued by the Contributions Plan.

The subject development, like the adjoining developments, has pedestrian access off Havilah Lane into the residential apartments. That access requires a standard kerb, gutter and pavement. A developer may agree to install a better grade of paving to improve the overall look of their development from the street and/or to fit in with adjoining development, but this is not part of the broader additional upgrades of the public domains in most main streets of each of the local centres that are to be delivered once most redevelopment is largely completed.

The final engineering designs for public frontage of this development in both Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Lane are still being assessed internally by Council’s engineering staff with reference to the requirements of the DCP, a diagram of which is included in the main body of the report. The developer cannot be reasonably required to install works on existing Council land beyond their frontage.

Internal Consultation

Staff members from Urban Planning, the Property Unit and the Corporate Lawyer have been directly involved in this matter. Council appointed Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (WWSB) to act on their behalf.

Summary

This report provides an overview of the status of the draft VPA for Havilah Lane in relation to the implementation of the Local Centres Development Control Plan, the Public Domain Plan and the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 which involve the dedication of a narrow, linear strip of land of varying width along the Havilah Lane frontage to the subject development site at 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

The report proposes that the draft VPA be now entered into. The removal of the DRAFT watermark will be undertaken in relation to the attached document prior to execution.

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolves to enter into the Planning Agreement with Mayrin Three Pty Ltd as specified within Attachment A1 to facilitate the dedication of land for the purposes of widening Havilah Lane Lindfield at the rear of 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield.

B. That the Council grants delegation to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Planning Agreement under Common Seal.

C. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to make any minor administrative changes to the document that do not alter the overall intent in order to protect Council’s interests.

D. That delegation be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to authorise any minor or administrative changes to the survey drawing and associated administration sheets to ensure the objectives of the VPA are fulfilled in the most practical and efficient manner.

E. That the Planning Agreement register be updated to include the Planning Agreement for 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue Lindfield upon execution by both parties.

F. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to give effect to the requirements of the Planning Agreement after execution as they apply to actions required of the Council including fixing the Common Seal to documents related to the transfer of land, and all related and/or associated processes thereof.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Co-ordinator

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1	Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for the Dedication of Land in Havilah Lane in Lindfield	2018/190618
	A2	Single joint submission including attachments from 6 neighbouring residents (personal details redacted)	2018/236601
	A3	Original Letter of Offer to enter into a VPA for land dedication	2018/084885

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.9 / 87

Item GB.9	S10162

Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy - Part 1 - Community Centres and Libraries

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report to Council Part 1 of a draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy that addresses the provision of libraries and community centres across the LGA to 2036.

background:	A Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy was developed in 2014 which, to date, has provided a sound basis for a strategic approach to facilities planning, particularly in relation to the major projects. However this document was not formally adopted by Council at the time, due mainly to the uncertainty in relation to the then proposed council mergers.

comments:	Council has recently resolved to move forward with a number of projects including the Lindfield and Turramurra Hubs, which will deliver a new branch libraries and community centres; renewal of Marian Street Theatre; and a new East Lindfield Community Centre. It is therefore timely for Council to prepare a framework to guide the future provision of community facilities across the Ku-ring-gai LGA that both meets the needs of the Ku-ring-gai community into the future; and at the same time is financially realistic and sustainable.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the draft Community Facilities Strategy Part 1 – Community Centres and Libraries for public exhibition and that the results of the exhibition are reported back to Council prior to finalising the document.

Purpose of Report

To report to Council Part 1 of a draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy that addresses the provision of libraries and community centres across the LGA to 2036.

Background

Elton Consulting prepared an LGA-wide Community Facilities Strategy for Council in 2009 which was used as the basis for preparing the cultural facilities work program component of the Ku-ring-gai Development Contribution Plan 2010. The last iteration of a Community Facilities Strategy was developed in 2014 and, to date, has provided a sound basis for a strategic approach to facilities planning, particularly in relation to the major projects. However this document was not formally adopted by Council at the time, due mainly to the uncertainty in relation to the then proposed council mergers. Since 2014 a number of things have changed that warrant the development of an updated strategy:

· The development by Council of a new Community Strategic Plan 2036;

· the potential of amalgamation with Hornsby Council and its implication on community facilities provision has been resolved;

· new population projections have been released by the Department of Planning and Environment which anticipate a larger projected population than what the 2014 Strategy was based on;

· Council has pursued a number of community facilities projects, including the Lindfield Community Hub. These have reached a level of detail to provide a better understanding of capital, operational and asset management costs;

· the Senior Executive of Council has provided clearer direction on the need to view future facility provision and the potential rationalisation of existing facilities in a more integrated way;

· Council has undertaken detailed internal work on existing community facilities assets including a comprehensive facility audit to better understand condition, usage, status, etc.;

· internally the financial implications of facility planning are better understood;

· Council has determined the future of key facilities such as the Marian Street Theatre; and

· a clear distinction between Council owned and operated and Council owned and leased buildings has emerged.

These changes have required a reconsideration of some aspects of the 2014 strategy. The earlier strategy and the work undertaken since, forms the basis of the new strategy, and includes updates to reflect the implications of the changes noted above.

Ku-ring-gai Council owns some 50 buildings that are used to provide a wide range of services and facilities for residents including:

· libraries

· halls and meeting rooms

· support services and training

· health services

· aged and disabled services

· children’s services

· mental health, counselling and crisis services

· children’s services including childcare, kindergarten and preschool facilities

· youth centres

· arts and cultural services and facilities

Given the range and diversity of Council’s assets it is proposed to undertake a Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy in three parts.

Part 1 – Community Centres and Libraries

This Part will focus on council owned buildings that are managed and/or staffed by Council.

A community centre is a Council owned building that provides rooms and/or halls for casual hire by residents. These facilities offer flexible spaces for a wide range of activities including yoga classes, martial arts classes and club meetings, among others. They are generally open from 7am to 10pm, 7 days a week. Some buildings within this grouping are licensed to organisations that use the building during fixed hours during the week and/or school holidays, and are also available for casual hire by the community outside these hours. This category also includes libraries, art centres and youth centres that are staffed by council.

A number of existing facilities within this category are likely to be replaced by the proposed new community hub buildings. Council has already considered this matter in relation to the existing facilities in Lindfield that will be replaced when the Lindfield Village Hub is complete.

Some of Council’s larger buildings may contain a mix of the above for example the Old School Building in Gordon has rooms for casual hire, a youth centre and a room leased to the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society. Where this is the case the room or hall has been considered as a separate facility.

Part 2 – Art and Creative Spaces

This Part will examine Council buildings that are operated by Council and cater specifically for the creative arts which includes visual (photography, painting sculpture, printmaking etc.); performance (drama, music etc.); and the electronic arts (audio, visual, film etc.). Council currently maintains and operates three facilities specifically for the creative/visual/performing arts:

· Ku-ring-gai Arts Centre, Roseville

· Marian Street Theatre, Killara (currently closed)

· St Ives Community Centre, St Ives

Council also provides space for the ‘Cavalcade of History and Fashion’, a collection of historic gowns and accessories dating from the late 1700s managed by a not-for-profit, in one of its community centres.

This strategy will need to consider and address issues and opportunities that have been identified in past studies and community engagement including:

· a lack of dedicated spaces within the LGA that can be used for large visual/creative arts groups;

· the Ku-ring-gai Art Centre is at capacity and has limited or no opportunity for future growth;

· Council does not have a built-for-purpose permanent gallery space. The Ku-ring-gai Art Centre has a small exhibition space but is frequently required to use other private spaces to meet their needs;

· a lack of youth specific creative facilities;

· Council does not have a Heritage Resource Centre that provides easy to access information;

· a lack of available studio space for local practicing artists;

· a lack of purpose-built film making & multimedia facilities;

· Council currently does not provide sound recording studios for local musicians; and

· the need for low cost studio spaces for artist-in-residence programs.

The strategy will also consider the role of a civic and cultural hub in Gordon in meeting these gaps.

Part 3 – Community Services

This part will develop a strategy for Council owned buildings that are currently leased to community organisations on an exclusive basis. Many of the existing buildings are ageing with high maintenance and/or replacement costs, and a number have been closed due to safety issues. The strategy will need to develop a financially sustainable model that will ensure identified social needs continue to be served. This strategy will propose some rationalisation of existing facilities including where possible incorporation into new facilities within the new community hubs.

Part 4 – Community Facilities Management Model

This part will develop a management/operational model and identify an approach to facility programming and management (to ensure a range of services, activities and programs that meet a broad range of community needs); and administration and staffing arrangements (including whether facilities will be staffed). The model may also involve the management of local and neighbourhood facilities as satellite facilities to their closest district or sub-regional community hub.

Comments

The strategy proposes the following guiding principles for the planning of community facilities:

· Provide a co-ordinated network of facilities arranged in a hierarchy;

· locate facilities central to their catchments;

· ensure equitable access across the network;

· ensure facilities are in visually prominent and accessible locations;

· cluster and co-locate facilities;

· design flexible and multiple use facilities;

· design and programme facilities so that they serve identified social needs;

· design and manage facilities so that they are inclusive and welcoming;

· provide facilities that contribute to the public domain and sense of place;

· locate facilities near open space for activities and events;

· ensure facilities are well connected to transport networks;

· provide facilities of sufficient size and design to enable expansion and adaptation;

· deliver financially and environmentally sustainable facilities;

· locate and design facilities so that they are safe and secure; and

· locate and design facilities to avoid conflict with neighbouring uses.

The strategy proposes the development of a network of community facilities in Ku-ring-gai that work together to collectively meet the needs of the Ku-ring-gai population. It is proposed that this network be implemented through a hierarchy of facilities including sub-regional, district, local / neighbourhood level facilities.

The hierarchy of facilities for Ku-ring-gai is proposed to be:

1. A sub-regional level facility – a new large, specialist facility, centrally located in the LGA’s primary local centre, Gordon. This facility would have an arts/cultural focus and serve the wider LGA. The facility would be part of a larger civic/cultural precinct that also includes Council administration, Council chambers and Gordon library. Marian Street Theatre, while physically separate, will form part of the cultural component of the sub-regional facility.

2. District level facilities – new large, multipurpose community facilities located in the local centres of Turramurra, St Ives and Lindfield. The facilities would be based on the community hub model and would each ideally co-locate branch library and community centre space. These facilities would serve the needs of their districts (that is, suburbs surrounding the facilities).

3. Neighbourhood level facilities – small, mostly existing facilities (improved as required) serving the needs of their immediate neighbourhood’s areas. Two new local facilities are proposed for the northern district to balance out some of the inequity in the current pattern of facility distribution.

In addition to the above facilities the strategy is mindful that Ku-ring-gai Council is currently developing an entertainment, events and tourism based precinct on the site of the St Ives Showground and Ku-ring-gai Wildflower Garden. The facilities will likely have a more commercial focus with space suitable for large outdoor events, attracting people from a broader region.

Figure 1 – Proposed Community Facilities and Library Strategy

Planning the facility network has considered the standard rates of provision presented in this strategy report. These include:

· State Library of NSW standards for libraries (People Places: A guide for Public Library Buildings in New South Wales – third edition, State Library of New South Wales, 2012); and

· a rate of provision of 20 square metres/1000 people for the sub-regional level facility and a total of 60 square metres/1000 people for district, local and neighbourhood level facilities combined.

Table 1 includes a summary of the proposed facilities, both new and retained, for each catchment. With this approach each catchment is reaching approximately 80% of the recommended 2036 provision of library and community centre floor space. Overall, the LGA is providing 91% of the recommended 2036 provision of library and community centre floor space.

Table 1 Proposed facility schedule

Catchment / Suburb	New or Retained Facility	Proposed Floor Space (sqm)	Recommended 2036 provision (sqm)	Proposed % of recommended 2036 provision (sqm)
Northern Wahroonga, Warrawee, Pymble and Turramurra	West Pymble Community Centre (retained)	250	» 4,173 Community Centre space » 2,012 Library space
	New Community centre (location to be confirmed)	750
	New Community Centre (location to be confirmed)	750
	Turramurra Community Hub - Library & Community Centre (new)	3,400
Total		5,150	6,185	83%
Eastern St Ives	Caley’s Pavilion (retained)	194	» 1,669 Community Centre space » 1,302 Library space
	St Ives Community Centre (retained)	570
	Family Day Care Resource Centre (retained)	117
	St Ives Community Hub - Library & Community Centre (new)	1,500
Total		2,381	2,971sqm	80%
Southern Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville	West Lindfield Community Centre (retained)	456	» 3,431 Community Centre space » 1,374 Library space
	East Roseville Community Centre (retained)	327
	East Lindfield Community Centre (retained)	391
	Blair Wark Community Centre (retained)	156
	Lindfield Village Hub -Library & Community Centre (new)	2,400
Total		3,730	4,805	78%
Sub-regional LGA wide	Marian Street Theatre (retained and upgraded)	1,757	» 3,091 Community Centre space » 2,856 Library space
Sub-regional LGA wide	Gordon Civic Hub – Library (retained) & Arts / Community Centre (new)	5,200	» 3,091 Community Centre space » 2,856 Library space
Total		6,957	5,947	116%

LGA TOTAL		18,218	19,908	91%

integrated planning and reporting

THEME 3 - A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P4.1: Our centres offer a broad range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces and places where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time.

P4.1.1: Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design and sustainability outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

P4.1.1.4: Prepare and adopt a Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy to guide the delivery of libraries, community centres and cultural facilities across the LGA.

Governance Matters

The Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy responds to the following planning priorities and indicators within the North District Plan.

Direction 2– ‘A collaborative city’ (working together to grow a Greater Sydney);

· Potential Indicator – increased use of public resources such as open space and community facilities;

· Planning Priority N2 – working through collaboration.

Direction 3 – ‘A city for people’ (celebrating diversity and putting people at the heart of planning);

· Potential Indicator – increased walkable access to local centres;

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

· Planning Priority N4 – fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities.

Direction 5 – ‘A city of great places’ (designing places for people);

· Potential Indicator – increased access to open space;

· Planning Priority N6 – creating and renewing great places and local centres and respecting the district’s heritage (encourage adaptive re-use).

Risk Management

The most significant risk to Council is an uncoordinated response to the delivery and management of community facilities.

Council is proposing to build a number of new ‘community hubs’ in the centres of Lindfield, St Ives, Turramurra and Gordon. The hubs will provide library and community centre functions integrated into one community building. As part of the due diligence for these hubs it is necessary to plan strategically to ensure that facilities are provided of a size that will meet the long term needs of residents and in locations that will ensure equitable accessible to residents in all parts of the LGA.

Financial Considerations

Council has determined that the major projects which include the Lindfield, Turramurra and Gordon Hubs must be fully self-funding in terms of capital costs, operational and lifecycle costs. The proposal for a sub-regional and district level facilities will therefore have minimal impact on Council’s budget.

GMD has determined that a financially sustainable level of facility Gross Floor Area (GFA) provision is 80% of the recommended 2036 floor space provision. Table 1 shows the proposed GFA provision as a percentage of the recommended, in summary they are:

· Northern catchment (Wahroonga, Warrawee, Pymble and Turramurra) 83%

· Eastern Catchment (St Ives) 80%

· Southern Catchment (Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville) 78%

Marian Street Theatre has been included in the Strategy and is anticipated that this facility will cater for drama and performance needs of the LGA, however, as noted earlier the creative arts cover a broad range of areas and a separate study is required to determine how Council will meet community needs for creative arts facilities more generally. This will be undertaken in the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy – Part 2 – Art and Creative Spaces; depending on the results of this strategy the total floor space for the Gordon Community Hub may need to be adjusted accordingly.

The Strategy also includes Ku-ring-gai Art Centre (597sqm) and Cavalcade of Fashion (80sqm) either as separate facility or integrated into the Gordon hub. This will be resolved as part of the Ku‑ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy – Part 2 – Art and Creative Spaces.

The Strategy recommends closure of a number of facilities as they are expanded or replaced by the new hub projects. These are:

· Turramurra Senior Citizen's Centre

· Ku-ring-gai Town Hall

· Turramurra Branch Library & Turramurra Youth Centre

· Lindfield Senior Citizens Centre and Senior Citizens Resource

· Lindfield Library

· St Ives Library Meeting Room

· St Ives Branch Library

The land occupied by these facilities has potential for divestment to fund renewal of existing facilities to be retained and/or construction of new facilities.

Part 3 of the Strategy (Community Services) will propose some further rationalisation of existing facilities including where possible incorporation into the new community hubs. The land occupied by some of these facilities has potential for divestment to fund renewal of existing facilities to be retained and/or construction of new facilities.

Social Considerations

Successful community facilities provide important gathering places for people and can be focal points for community activity and catalysts for social interaction. They are recognised as having the potential to contribute to the creation of vital public spaces that help engender a sense of place and distinctive community identity. A recent focus has been designing community facilities that enhance the physical quality and appearance of public places, helping to reinforce a place’s identity and making it a more attractive environment for people to gather and interact with each other.

When located in or with retail and commercial uses, community facilities can help to reinforce the role of those areas as public gathering, meeting and information sharing places. It is important that community facilities have a civic quality, sense of stability and level of amenity that marks them as an important place in the community.

Environmental Considerations

Community facilities are increasingly being used to showcase sustainable building methods and design. Many of these centres incorporate sustainability education within them to demonstrate, for example, how much energy a building is using. Sustainable design of community facilities include newly constructed facilities or can be incorporated into building upgrades and renovations. Sustainability initiatives can include rainwater harvesting, solar panels, energy efficient lighting and stormwater treatment. Community facilities can also incorporate recycling services for batteries, mobile phones, etc.

Community Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken to date.

If adopted by Council the strategy will be placed on exhibition for a period of at least one month to give residents an opportunity to comment. It is proposed to include information panels with the exhibition showing examples of other similar benchmark facilities to give people an idea of what Council is proposing. Benchmark facilities include:

· Woollahra library

· Rockdale library

· Lane Cove library

· Surry Hills library

· Bankstown knowledge centre

Internal Consultation

Extensive internal consultation has been undertaken to date:

· bookings and facility management staff during audit phase of project;

· report to the General Manager and Directors Meeting (GMD) meeting of 6 April 2018;

· briefing given to GMD by staff and consultants on 6 April 2018;

· half day workshop with staff, General Manager and Directors on 23 May 2018;

· Councillor briefing on 31 July 2018; and

· Copy of Councillor briefing presentation issued to all Councillors as hard copy.

Summary

Council has resolved to move forward with a number of projects including the Lindfield and Turramurra Hubs, which will deliver a new branch libraries and community centres; a new drama hub in the Marian Street Theatre; and a new East Lindfield Community Centre.

It is therefore timely for Council to prepare a framework to guide the future provision of community facilities across the Ku-ring-gai LGA that both meets the needs of the Ku-ring-gai community into the future; and at the same time is financially realistic and sustainable.

The Community Facilities Strategy will be undertaken in a number of parts. Part 1 – Community Centres and Libraries will focus on council owned buildings that are managed by Council for casual hire. This category also includes libraries, art centres and youth centres that are staffed by council. Subsequent Parts of the Strategy will examine Art and Creative Spaces (Part 2), Community Services (Part 3) and Management Models (Part 4).

· a sub-regional level facility in Gordon and Marian Street Theatre in Killara;

· district level facilities in Lindfield, Turramurra and St Ives; and

· neighbourhood level facilities in selected neighbourhood centres.

This study considers population projections for 2036 – a 20 year period from the last Australian Bureau of Statistics Census year. This is a commonly used timeframe for community facility planning. Over this time Ku-ring-gai’s population is forecast to grow by 31,000 to 154,550 people.

Planning the facility network has considered the standard and benchmark rates of provision:

· for libraries, comparison to the NSW State Library standards; and

· for community centres rate of provision of 20 square metres/1000 people for the sub-regional level facility and a total of 60 square metres/1000 people for district, local and neighbourhood level facilities combined.

The schedule of facilities includes both new and retained facilities for each catchment. With this approach each catchment is reaching approximately 80% of the recommended 2036 provision of library and community centre floor space. This is consistent with GMD agreed position from the half day workshop with staff, General Manager and Directors 23 May 2018.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopts the draft Community Facilities Strategy Part 1 – Community Centres and Libraries for public exhibition and that the results of the exhibition are reported back to Council prior to finalising the document.

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy Part 1 Draft FINAL

2018/242635

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.11 / 103

Item GB.11	S11437

Finalisation of Planning Proposal for new and expanded Heritage Conservation Area in Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble and Gordon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to make a determination in relation to the final composition of the Planning Proposal to include 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 new and expanded 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. Council considered the outcomes of the public exhibition at its meetings of 8 May 2018, 12 June 2018, 26 June 2018 and 14 August 2018. Council made resolutions in relation to 9 of the 11 areas at these meetings. A determination in relation to the final two areas is now required to progress the Planning Proposal to finalisation.

comments:	The Planning Proposal to include new and extended heritage conservation areas has been publicly exhibited and the results have been reported to Council over four meetings. Council has not made a determination as to how to proceed with two of the draft HCAs. A final determination on these matters to finalise the Planning Proposal is now required.

recommendation:	That Council determine how to finalise the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas in the KLEP 2015 and KLEP LC 2012.

Purpose of Report

Background

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, and subsequent extension on 5 April 2018. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 15 September 2017 and 23 October 2017.

Council on 8 May 2018 considered 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).

Council resolved on 8 May 2018:

A. That given the short timeframe provided to make decisions that impact over 800

properties, and the significant impact that these decisions could have on the

character of Ku-ring-gai, that Council should defer the matter and spread the

decision making across the next three (3) council meetings.

Council on 12 June 2018 considered the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas being Telegraph Road Conservation Area, Gilroy Road Conservation Area, Mahratta Conservation Area and Hillview Conservation Area 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).

Council resolved ( in part):

1. That Council resolves to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the Telegraph Road

Heritage Conservation Area as statutorily exhibited during the period 15/09/2017 –

23/10/2017.

2. That Council resolved not to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the Gilroy Road Heritage Conservation Area as identified in Attachment A7 in schedule 15 and the heritage map of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

3. That Council resolved not to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the Mahratta Heritage Conservation Area as identified in Attachment A7 in schedule 15 and the heritage map of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

4. That Council resolves to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the Hillview Heritage

Conservation Area as statutorily exhibited during the period 15/09/2017 – 23/10/2017.

Council on 26 June 2018 considered the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include several new and extended heritage conservation areas being Athol Conservation Area, Lanosa Conservation Area, Mona Vale Road Conservation Area, Pymble Heights Conservation Area and Fern Walk Conservation Area 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).

Council resolved (in part):

1. That Council resolves to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the amended heritage conservation area Athol Conservation Area as identified in Attachment A9 in Schedule 5 and the Heritage Map of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

2. That Council does proceed with the inclusion of the Mona Vale Road Conservation

Area (as exhibited) in the adopted Planning Proposal.

3. That Council does proceed with the inclusion of the Lanosa Conservation Area, Pymble Heights Conservation Area and Fern Walk Conservation Area (as exhibited) in the adopted Planning Proposal.

Council on 14 August 2018 considered the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to include two new heritage conservation areas being West Pymble Conservation Area and an extension to Orinoco Conservation Area 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).

In relation to the report considered on 14 August 2018, no decision was taken in respect of the matter and it remains in abeyance . Therefore, Council’s position on the final two HCAs for the West Pymble and Orinoco areas in Pymble is required in order to finalise the Planning Proposal.

A copy of this report is included at Attachment A1.

Comments

Council has now considered reports on all of the proposed new and extended HCA for inclusion within the KLEP 2015 and the KLEP LC 2012. Council has not made a determination into relation to two of the HCAs. A decision is now required from Council regarding the final composition of the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

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

The report considered by Council on 14 August 2018 addressed governance matters relating to the preparation and implementation of planning proposals. It noted that Council was issued with plan-making delegation under Section 2.4 (previous s.23) of the EP&A Act 1979 to finalise the Planning Proposal. This authorises to exercise the functions of the Greater Sydney Commission under Section 3.36 (previous s59) of the Act. This includes both:

• requesting that the legal instrument (the LEP) is drafted by Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO), and

• the actual making of the LEP once an Opinion has been issued by PCO that the plan can be legally made.

When a delegated Planning Proposal is revised following exhibition, Council is to forward a copy of the revised proposal to the Department under Section 3.35(2) (previous 58(2)) of the Act. In circumstances where substantial changes are made to a Planning Proposal after exhibition, a new Gateway Determination and further consultation may be required before the LEP is made.

The report recommended that, should the final Planning Proposal be substantially different from the original planning proposal and given the added complexity and conflicting issues surrounding the multiple HCAs, Council’s delegation be returned to the Department to finalise the proposal. This will then allow the Department to direct these complicated amendments to Parliamentary Counsel.

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. Letters and an explanatory brochure were forwarded to the owners of affected 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. Submitters have been additionally notified when their relevant HCA was considered by Council as part of further reporting.

The recommendations by Council officers were also considered by Council’s Heritage Reference Committee.

Internal Consultation

Briefings were held for Councillors on the Heritage Conservation Area program on Tuesday, 29 May 2018; Tuesday, 12 June 2018; Tuesday, 26 June 2018 and Tuesday, 14 August 2018.

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

Summary

The public exhibition process for the planning proposal to include new and extended HCAs in the KLEP 2015 and the KLEP LC 2012 has concluded. Council has received and considered four reports regarding this matter. A final determination as to the progression of the Planning Proposal is now required in order for Council to finalise this matter.

Recommendation:

A. That Council does not proceed with the inclusion of the West Pymble Heritage Conservation Area (as exhibited) in the adopted Planning Proposal.

B. That Council does not proceed with the inclusion of the extension to the Orinoco Heritage Conservation Area (as exhibited) in the adopted Planning Proposal.

C. That Council resolves to adopt the Planning Proposal to list the amended heritage conservation area Pymble Avenue Conservation Area as identified in Attachment A8 to the report to Council of 14 August 2018 (contained within Attachment A1 to this report), in Schedule 5 and the Heritage Map of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

D. Due to the substantial changes that are proposed to this planning proposal via Council’s resolutions of 12 June 2018 and 26 June 2018, and the added complexity and conflicting issues surrounding the multiple HCAs, Council returns its delegation to the Department to finalise the proposal.

E. That Council forwards the amended Planning Proposal which includes the amendments made at this meeting and from the Ordinary Meetings of Council held on 12 June 2018 and 26 June 2018 to the Department under Section 3.35(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to determine whether a new Gateway Determination and further consultation is required before the LEP is made. Should the Department be satisfied that a new Gateway determination and further consultation is not required, Council requests that the LEP be made.

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

Maxine Bayley

Strategic Planner Heritage

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

Council Report OMC 14 August 2018 Item GB.10

2018/240304

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	PT.1 / 32

Item PT.1	S03496

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.1 / 33

Item GB.1	S11705
	16 August 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.3 / 42

Item GB.3	FY00623
	15 August 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.5 / 55

Item GB.5	CY00458/6

Attachments:	A1	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 8 December 2016	2018/208307
	A2	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 6 April 2017	2018/206467
	A3	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 8 June 2017	2018/206470
	A4	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 4 September 2017	2018/206473
	A5	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 6 December 2017	2018/206475
	A6	Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 22 March 2018	2018/223527

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.10 / 99

Item GB.10	S11080

Attachments:	A1	Recommended funding allocation for the Heritage Home Grants 2018/19	2018/238697
	A2	Recommended conditions for Heritge Home Grant projects 2018/19	2018/238698
	A3	Amended guidelines - Heritage Home Grants	2018/239203

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.12 / 108

Item GB.12	FY00621

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	GB.13 / 112

Item GB.13	S04840

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	NM.1 / 117

Item NM.1	S10840

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 August 2018	NM.2 / 119

Item NM.2	S11437